What does it mean to be Labour?

Since I moved to Northern Ireland, there have been times when I’ve been very glad not to have to decide whether to vote for the British Labour Party, and never more so than when following the ‘10p tax rate’ arguments this week. I was astonished to hear the announcement of its abolition last year, but given there wasn’t an outcry at that stage from Labour MPs, let alone from the voluntary sector and the trades unions, I thought I must have misunderstood.

But of course the issue resurfaced as soon as the measure actually came to be implemented and it transpired that 5.3 million people across the UK would be worse off. Out of 351 Labour MPs, 39 are backing an amendment to the Finance Bill to compensate those who will lose out. So 312 Labour MPs care more about their careers than about the low paid.

Those of us who are democratic socialists know that compromises have to be made from time to time. That’s the difference between being a revolutionary socialist with no chance of ever making anyone’s life better, and having the chance to use the mechanisms of the state to the advantage of working people. It’s a tricky balancing act and one which New Labour seem to have had a lot of trouble with, to put it mildly. Some of their decisions which were wrong in hindsight appeared to be perfectly reasonable at the time, or at least to be arguable.

But this time the decision strikes at the heart of what being Labour is all about – a redistributive philosophy, from each according to their ability and to each according to their need. The tax changes will penalise young people without children, those who retire early, and part-time workers – and higher earners will gain, adding insult to injury. In the days when I lived in England and was able to vote Labour, I did so expecting to be taxed more highly as my income increased, and that if my income fell, I would pay less tax. In those days, it was the Tories who bashed the poor. I also accept that as someone who has chosen not to have children, my taxes should contribute towards services for families, for the general good of society. But I don’t see why a person on minimum wage should be put in that position.

If Labour MPs have any political compass left, they must join the opportunists in other parties, who are doing the right thing for the wrong reason, and vote for Frank Field’s amendment.

Update: the following day, Gordon Brown announced there will be a compensation deal and the amendment was withdrawn. By that time it had 46 signatories, so I apologise for over-estimating the spinelessness of the PLP by, um, 7.......

Further update: Looks like the rebels have been conned.