Jobs and Work

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 11th June 2014 Commons Chamber

[Madam Deputy Speaker]

That absolutely is a point of order, Mr Ellwood, and I am very grateful to you. The clock has to be operated manually at the moment, so we will do our best to make sure that it works.

[Austin Mitchell]

If it is any consolation, Madam Deputy Speaker, my clock stopped in 1979. I hope that that qualifies me for an extension of my speaking time.

This kind of society where wealth accumulates and wages and salaries fall as a share of GDP is very undesirable. As Goldsmith put it,

“wealth accumulates, and men decay”.

And it is an economically inefficient society, because purchasing power and stimulus to the economy, then growth, come from the purchasing power of the masses, not the classes. If we are transferring more money to the classes, we will have a slow-growing, stagnant economy. Under the policy pursued by this Government, the only real long-term plan is to slash public spending, benefits and the living standards of the working classes, to transfer money to tax cuts for the rich. The theory is that this will stimulate enterprise and money will trickle down to the poor and the working class, in the same way that the trickle-down effect of horses improves roads. That is the plan, and it is a disastrous development for our economy.

I agree with the proposed measures on raising the minimum wage, promoting the living wage and improving skills, but other measures need to be taken as well. The only real solution to the problem is economic growth to put the people back to work, because full employment is the only adequate form of social security that we have ever developed in this country. That means, first, a massive house-building programme, particularly one of public housing for rent that people can move into, because most people now cannot afford a mortgage and could not get one if they tried. That could be financed by municipal bonds or quantitative easing. Why should the money from quantitative easing—which is, in effect, the Bank of England printing money—all go into the vaults of the banks? Why should it not be used to finance contracts for massive public spending and investment in work on new towns, for instance, provided that there are proper contracts and a proper rate of return? We should use quantitative easing to improve public spending.

Fixed-term Parliaments Bill

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Baroness Primarolo

Tuesday 16th November 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell]

In fact, they created the—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. First, it is not necessary for the hon. Member for Stroud (Neil Carmichael) to wave—he simply has to stand up. Secondly, can we stay within the scope of the amendments? I think the Attlee Government might be a little wide of them.

[Austin Mitchell]

The second Attlee Government lasted from 1950 to 1951. However, that was an attempt to detour me and I do not want to be detoured down all the happy little roads that Government Members would rather turn us into.

I think that four years is perfectly acceptable. It would be good and I would be happy to support—indeed, I will support—that amendment. Three years would be better. It is not a downward option—it is not like the old programme that Yorkshire Television used to do, so that we go five, four, “3-2-1”. I will not go as low as the Chartists’ demand for annual Parliaments; I am staying at three. Around the world, a pattern can be seen—the more democratic the society and the polity, the more frequent and regular are the elections. I would put at the head of that democratic tree Australia and New Zealand, which have three-year Parliaments that work happily. I used to write about New Zealand that if there was a seizure of power by the Chinese Communists, New Zealanders would still be standing outside the polls in November of every third year ready to vote because they have the conditioned habit of voting. It is a good conditioned habit and three years is a good term.

Parliamentary Voting System and Constituencies Bill

Debate between Austin Mitchell and Baroness Primarolo

Wednesday 20th October 2010 Commons Chamber

[Austin Mitchell]

I agree with my hon. Friend absolutely; he has made that point very well. That is another good title for MPs: the advocate of last resort—the people’s advocate. Well, in my case, I would be their last resort because of the inarticulacy of my advocacy! But that is the nature of the job, and it is no use complaining or saying that it is beneath our dignity to tackle all these problems. It is no use doing as Enoch Powell used to do when anyone raised an issue—

[The Second Deputy Chairman]

Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman is making some broader points to support his amendment, which proposes 650 Members, and if he could return to that subject I would be enormously grateful.

[Austin Mitchell]

I am sorry, Ms Primarolo.

I should have said that it is much easier to do this job with 650 MPs, and that it will be much more difficult if the clause passes unamended and reduces the membership of the House to 600. That is the essence of my argument. We are straining to do the job as it is, and we have had to take on more staff. We shall need even more staff if the number of MPs is reduced. It is difficult to do our job, but it is well worth doing.