Do Something About It

Campaign for a British 'New Deal'

There have been a number of questions about the wording and focus of the petition since it was launched, so I thought it might be worth starting a discussion thread here on the website to address some of the queries that have been raised, and also allow for a more wide-ranging conversation about what precisely the petition means- and what we want the petition to mean.

Why is the petition so imprecise?
The wording is deliberately open-ended both to allow for further discussion, and because there's bound to be disagreement over some of the details. DoSomethingAboutIt.org.uk is not a think tank- there are already groups conducting excellent research in progressive policy areas (for example, the new economics foundation). What is missing- and what dsai aims to provide- is a link between progressive charities, pressure groups and think tanks, and the electoral process proper. Historically, that link has been provided by political parties, but for a number of reasons that link is not working very well right now. That's why we need an independent organisation that can coordinate the progressive vote outside the existing party system, thereby exerting electoral pressure on party leaders, as well as providing a visible constituency that will empower progressive MPs and candidates to speak up.

The petition is the political equivalent of saying "We want nice stuff to happen." Well, who doesn't?
Calling for a financial stimulus package that will transform the nature of our economy is actually somewhat controversial. It means admitting that the UK economy is in particularly dire straits because successive governments have allowed it to develop an unhealthy dependence on the financial services sector- something Labour is reluctant to do. It means acknowledging that fiscal expansion is necessary to stave off unemployment, and to begin the slow, costly process of transforming the British economy, a process that will require building new businesses from scratch and retraining large sections of the workforce- something the Conservatives are reluctant to do. The easier option is to force the banks to start lending and resume 'business as usual'. But this will only postpone the pain: not all the businesses that were profitable two years ago will be viable today. The distribution of labour and capital that we have developed over a period of decades now answers to non-existent demands. Investment is needed to help workers and businesses- who, through no fault of their own, find themselves surplus to requirements- to adapt.

Have you heard about the Green New Deal? Is this the same as the Green New Deal? Why not just endorse the Green New Deal?
We're aware of the Green New Deal. But it is not the only 'New Deal' out there- a lot of people have been using the phrase over the last few months, to refer to a variety of proposals. The language of the petition reflects what these proposals have in common- namely, a commitment to fiscal expansion to stave off unemployment and lay the foundations for a socially and environmentally sustainable future. People can and do disagree about the specifics- how to balance the need to create jobs now with the longer timeframe required for green industrial capacity to develop; how to reshape the financial sector; how much of the stimulus to deliver as tax cuts for the hardest hit, how much through state spending and subsidies. And some people just don't have time to go into the specifics. So by signing our petition, you're not endorsing the Green New Deal, or anyone else's New Deal for that matter- what you see is what you're saying when you sign.

NOD, 19 February 2009

Leave a Comment

I have signed the petition. I hope to hear more detail from your site emphasising the ethical and moral issues. Investment needs to be focussed on giving significant life improvements to poor and deprived communities. We are wasting the huge talents of our people. Then the prisons and social services have to mop up the mess. I long for change on these issues. Also - when are you going to tackle the most profound issue of all? the huge investment in UNethical military spending, especially Trident, which deprives our whole nation of resources. Hope to hear you voicing all this.

-Susanna Lobb

I am reluctant to sign petition as it is too vague and it accepts the bank bailout as reasonable. I understand your reluctance to overprescribe but feel it should insist upon certain things: full nationalisation of the banking sector: we are witnessing a fantastic robbery as the goevernment beils out its banker chums because they 'can't be allowed to fail'. They have failed and we need to look at the system afresh as opposed to the outrageuos position of insuring their losses as they ride laughing into the sunset with their booty; fairer taxation( eg one aspect-target tax avoidance by the wealthy and corporations); no replacement for trident ( the government in typically craven fashion have re-invented this policy as central to it stimulus package ); a shorter working week. The system has collapsed and must be rebuilt with some foundations this time. Let's be imaginative and make life better for the many rather than the few. Genuine social democracy, in my opinion, requires cetain things to be publicly run-education, health, utilities to list but 3 and an healthy but reasonably regulated private sector. This is what we should be pushing for and to be too vague in our demands will allow them to be brushed aside. However, more power to your elbow for offering an alternative avenue for action and debate. Thankyou

-raymond lyons

Of course public opinion about the need for change needs to be expressed and this site is meeting that need. Of course the specifics are 'up for grabs' but we need to be clear about one thing: the UK Government and the EU, et al, will be seeking 'business as usual', asap. Bailing out and re-regulating the financial sector, and a Green New Deal, (which is presented as the new 'engine for growth'), aim to restructure our economy in the interests of business efficiency, creating jobs AND, (hurrah!), to respond to climate change. At least that is the rhetoric! The fact is that for decades social objectives have been used to justify economic policies, but we have always been told that more growth IS NEEDED before the social objective can be met..we have been told this time and again!. The result is that we continue to wait for the social objectives to be met ! . So what's new ? This time the veneer for the growth policies is a combination of social and environmental objectives. The 'Plan B' is to recognise the limits to growth and that a 'no growth' society can result in a far healthier society, better work-life balance, etc. The fact that no-growth is inevitable is something that many people prefer to ignore. The worry is that the addiction to growth will prevent a managed and timely response to a 'no growth' society. This is the 'elephant in the room' that no politician is prepared to recognise! So, good luck to this petition and let's hope it stimulates further deabate. Charlie Mason.

-Charlie Mason

Globalization means a reduction in the living standards of nearly everyone in the country. This is a logical conclusion. If companies are permitted to employ cheaper labour from abroad or move production from the UK to countries that offer cost reductions we shall be left in a situation that most people will be unemployable because they are deemed too expensive. A few greedy people will be wealthy enough to afford all the cheap services and products and those that work will not be indigenous citizens but foreigners. Labour’s obsession with high technology skills and higher education qualifications fail to recognize that most people lack the will, aptitude, ability or inclination to pursue these professions to the necessary competence. This is human nature. Most people want to just get on with their lives. They don’t want an endless stream of ‘keep up to date or you’ll be obsolete’ propaganda ads that last until they’re economically redundant when they can then be discarded, after having been asset stripped. A new system is needed, but please don’t give me ‘private sector is more effective than public sector’. The private sector is no panacea for our society’s needs. Remember, whilst the banking system (a private sector business) contributed £87 billion in taxes during Labour’s term of office they’ve cost us £235 billion to bail them out. These figures are sourced from my memory of the Daily Telegraph on or around 7th February 2009. So much for private sector efficiency. And not one banker has been imprisoned or proscripted yet. I am joking about proscription, by the way. So what would I prefer? I think it has to go towards state ownership of any and all utilities that constitute as being necessary for living i.e. transport, energy and water. I think we’ll also need to reevaluate whether or not we really need all that choice in our supermarkets. I suspect we don’t. Why are we exporting pork to Denmark when we farm it here? Why is Norwegian salmon sent to SE Asia to be cut into little portions and then be brought back to the UK for sale? Its ridiculous. We need to improve our agriculture so that we become self sufficient once again. Manufacturing, once the butt of Thatcher’s ridicule, needs reinvestment and rebuilding. We need to make things. As we’ve found out, the service sector stands on hollow legs. It doesn’t make anything. It doesn’t contribute nearly as much as it thinks it does. It relies on the public spending. And we’ve shown that we can be really gullible here. We’ll spend every pound thrown at us. But the party’s over on that one isn’t it? Time for change I think.

-Andy Smith

Personally, I don't have a problem with the petition. It may not be perfect but I recognise it as a top level statement of intent, a rallying call for a re-think of how our society/ economy is structured and what future priorities should be. Even though it would appear that much of government is in freefall at the moment and is "making things up as it goes along", now is EXACTLY the right time to start seizing opportunities to plan for a different kind of future - greener, more free, fairer, better educated, more ethical, less subservient to the US, more cohesive and economically resilient. I don't see much (if any) new thinking happening in the big (tired) political parties, so where are the new ideas going to come from? This is going to be a long road - and the journey will only be successful (in my opinion) if apathy can be turned into focused action -especially among young people. By the way, if you're concerned about the erosion of liberty in this country, the Convention on Modern Liberty is happening across the country next Saturday.

-Jan Bennett

The trouble with this petition is that it precisely resembles the politics that dsai hopes to oppose. It's too vague to be accountable, it could mean anything to anyone. There are no definite statements, only fond hopes expressed in relative language. It is, in fact, politics as usual and that's the opposite of what we were promised here. I can see that the organisers are trying to maximise the number of signatories by encapsulating the progressive agenda in one petition. It doesn't work like that. There is no stable 'progressive constituency'; we all believe in different things. People disagreeing over such a bland petition demonstrates that amply. An enterprise like this won't succeed unless it faces up to its own diversity and exploits it as a strength. Have the courage to make focused and specific demands, and understand that some people won't sign up. The good news is that many will; it just won't be the same 'many' each time. That's what happens when people act according to principle. By the same token, I won't sign this petition because I can't tell what's being demanded in my name.

-Stuart Stone

Stuart. Initially, in order to build a consensus, there has to be a set of relatively vague or 'catch-all' statements that people can sign up to. It is pretty clear from the responses so far that; fairness, equality, ecological sustainabilty, regulation of the financial sector, public ownership and control of the production and allocation of essential needs, ethical policy, etc, are all being expressed. I agree, however, that this consensus has to evolve into a more detailed agenda for action which will inevitably spawn a number constituencies. However, the key principles underpinning this agenda have to remain.

-Charlie Mason

Charlie, I agree that dsai has to find and operate within the agreed aims of us, its supporters. The list of those aims you give is a excellent one. But the place to settle those aims is here, on this website - not in petitions to the Prime Minister. A petition is a political instrument intended to effect specific change. This one doesn't specify anything. The other 10,000 demands in Gordon Brown's daily inbox will each be asking for a particular outcome: these will mostly have come through local MPs under pressure from their own voters. How high do you suppose this petition comes in that pile? To put forward vague and weak petitions will announce dsai as a vague and weak organisation. That's not the coalition of principled and angry voters that I was invited to join. The best you'll get is a quick line from someone low down in government saying, "We are delighted that DSAI supports our ambitions to make Britain a fairer and greener society in which hard-working families can thrive." You need something much stronger than this to grab a politician's attention.

-Stuart Stone

I support the last comment from Stuart Stone. What about some direct financial action? Organise those who have money deposited with RBS, for example, to threaten a run on the bank unless Goodwin gives his pension pot back. What about mortgage payers organising a "set-aside" of repayments until specific demands are met? Just a thought.

-Richard Eastop


				©copyright owners of dosomethingaboutit.org.uk, dsai 2009