Steven Rose

The 2019 Labour conference was largely overshadowed by the Supreme Court ruling on the illegality of the lengthy prorogation of Parliament. The event found itself dramatically impacted, and the audience found themselves observing a shortened version of Corbyn’s speech, which (presumably) omitted a number of key policy announcements, such as the uncomplicatedly positive move to scrap universal credit. In the end the speech contained only one new policy announcement. This was Labour’s new policy regarding the production of pharmaceuticals, which they have detailed in the accompanying document titled Medicines For the Many: Public Health Before Profit.  By and large, the document and policy seem well intentioned - while the driving factor of NHS woes is simply underfunding, it behoves us to consider other systemic features of the economy that work against an effective British health system. Overall, the positives of the document outweigh the negatives. Many proposals on how to w...

Amidst the crisis of Brexit, Parliament goes on. Bills, both from the government and from private members, are still debated, adjournment debates go on, and select committees continue to sit. The system that has developed over hundreds of years weathers both the Brexit paralysis and a hostile Prime Minister yet to notice that she heads a minority government responsible for the greatest constitutional challenge in living memory. This chaos does, however, manage to take the eye off of some of the other functions of our Parliament. The week before last, this was to the detriment of two long serving, dedicated servants of House of Commons. Mike Gapes and Ian Austin, former Labour MPs who left the party in response to the damaging actions and behaviours of the party leadership, were forced out of their roles on the select committee for foreign affairs by that same party leadership, despite good sense and standard procedure. On Tuesday, these two parliamentarians sat in the chamber...

During the tumultuous events within Westminster two weeks ago, the Guardian broke the news that Iain Duncan Smith, Owen Patterson, and an unnamed non-cabinet MP have been engaged in talks with right-wing EU governments with the intention of lobbying them to veto the UK’s request for an extension to article 50 should Parliament vote in favour of such an action, as indeed it did. We should be clear about what these elected representatives, who are meant to serve the interests of their constituents, and the people of the United Kingdom, were doing. They have decided to ally themselves with the likes of Victor Orban, who has treated asylum seekers as animals , and the Polish government, which has all but forced the resignation of their country’s top judges in a bidt   to eliminate the rule of law. Of course, Government’s present and past have done the same,   due to both geopolitical matters and a long history of alliance.our shared history . Relationships with other states ...

After witnessing the Government's actions over the last nineteen years, one might conclude that the Conservative party has been locked in a monomaniacal pursuit of the elimination of government debt regardless of who ultimately pays the price for that and how high the human cost of that pursuit is. The Government has realised now that it can avoid going into debt by instead forcing vulnerable citizens, those implicated in the use of disguised remuneration schemes, into debt, and taking that as tax. Disguised remuneration schemes are forms of payment where the standard wage agreement is replaced with a loan, the terms of which are such that it is unlikely to ever be repaid. The upshot of this is that the payment is not then subject to income taxation or national insurance contributions. The historic use of these schemes, in some cases dating back twenty years, has recently come to light, drawing the attention of the current Government . Naturally enough, HM Revenue and Customs...

A year or so ago, it wasn't uncommon to hear the opinion that while Corbyn's Labour may be valuable in opposition, it was not a party for governing. In recent days, Corbyn and his team have confirmed that diagnosis. For the first time in British history, Government has been found in contempt of Parliament. Crucial matters of the UK constitution have been withdrawn from consideration by Parliament because Government no longer commands a majority. All other parties in Parliament have called for a vote of no confidence in the government, and have been hoping that Corbyn would show leadership in this regard. Here was the opportunity to seize control of both Government and of the Brexit process, and end this ridiculous impasse by asking the UK what vision they have for their future. Were Corbyn to announce he was seeking a vote of no confidence in the government , it  seems incredibly likely that such a move would have commanded enough support to pursue this course. Bu...

Politicians and political commentators are eager to focus on the consequences of tax changes - or constitution altering deals - on a household's income, not averse to seizing the initiative in debate on sums on the order of a few hundred pounds per year. And they should be. These few hundreds can be very important in personal budgeting, and in significantly improving or diminishing the standard of living for those most vulnerable in society. It's also a convenient vehicle for outlining key ideological differences between parties and describing to the electorate the party's vision for the distribution of responsibilities among society and the role the state should take. This seemingly stands in great contrast to matters like measuring inflation, which one might assume is devoid of areas of debate. Distinctions between RPI, CPI, and CPIh are not matters of great public concern, because it seems unreasonable to suggest that these distinctions are being exploited for pol...