An otherwise uninteresting item of news this morning dealt with a split in the Swedish social democratic party over what, in English, might be called “close-to-home services”. It concerned the party’s attitude to tax breaks for ordinary citizens for services in and around the home, such as cleaning, baby-minding, repairs and renovations and the like. These were introduced by the current right wing government* as part of their job stimulus package – they came to power on the slogan that they wanted to get people back to work. The left wing* opposition, including the social democrats, was outraged. They had visions of housemaids and nannies in uniforms and little caps, curtseying to the rich, like something out of Upstairs, Downstairs.
The result of the tax rebate was that in less than three years, over 11000 ‘new’ jobs have been created, and any number of small businesses formed to handle the market. Of course, these are far from all being new jobs. Many are formerly black jobs that have become white, and result in better conditions for the employees and more tax money for the state. And the beneficiaries are not the bankers and directors the left wing feared, but ordinary middle class people whose lives are so hectic that they – principally the women, of course – just don’t have time to cope.
Of the three parties in the left wing block the greens were the first to realise that scrapping this tax rebate would piss off the middle class, but also piss off the formerly unemployed, now working in close-to-home services, who would once again be out of a job. Today we heard the abovementioned report that one phalanx of the social democrats wants to keep the tax rebate whilst the main party line is that it will be scrapped. I saw in this news item a symptom of one of our society’s problems and a glimmer of hope.
The symptom is the main party line, that something popular with a large part of the population, something that people have voted for with their wallets, something that is working as intended, is against party policy and should be scrapped. It’s a symptom of the total estrangement of politicians in every country from the actual wishes of the citizens. Everywhere one looks one sees a conflict between the views of the rulers and the views of the ruled, to the extent that one can speak of a we versus they situation. Very occasionally, often over some minor point, there will be a massive outcry in the press or via internet, and the government will scratch a plan or more likely postpone it until they have had time to bring the power of the media into play to change the people’s minds, or enough of them to be able to effect the original change.
The hope I spoke of is that some politicians – usually the younger ones, understandably enough – are beginning to realise that they are painting themselves into a corner, making unnecessary enemies of the people they rule. Unfortunately I’m afraid I have difficulty buying their conversion. Their older colleagues have so damaged the public opinion of politicians that all I see is opportunism.
One problem the social democrats have, and probably the reason for their holding to the party line is that the third party in the left block, called simply “The Left”, (formerly the communists) is so far removed from reality that one can hardly say they live on the same planet as the rest of us, and the idea of some people working so that other people can have a slightly easier life is anathema to them.
Another symptom of the estrangement of politicians from the people is playing itself out now in Iceland. That country, as many people know, is still struggling with the effects of the total collapse of its economy a year and a half ago, at the hands of some extremely thuggish and, to my way of thinking, psychopathic bankers. A new government was voted in on the banderole of openness in government, openness in the investigation into the causes of the collapse and the protection of households from the effects of the collapse.
The result is not encouraging. The people in key positions in the collapsed financial system are back in the same or similar positions in the reconstructed banks, the report of a parliamentary committee into the causes of the collapse have been delayed from November 1 to February 1 to February 24 to March 1. The government has made no attempt to alleviate the situation of the households of the country, who are waiting for executive auctions of their homes and belongings. These auctions have, to be sure, been postponed three months today (so as to place them after the local elections in April).
And the government has spent the greater part of the past year negotiating for the repayment of bank guarantees to Britain and the Netherlands (the so-called IceSave business) instead of taking the matter to the European court to challenge the legality of the debt And after the President listened to 20% of the population, who signed a petition asking him not to ratify the agreement, the government have since been in constant negotiations with the current opposition, the ones they were elected to replace and the ones with a significant responsibility for the collapse, to find a way to avoid the referendum that is a necessary consequence of the President’s refusal. In other words, they’re more scared of being put in their place by the citizens than they are of trying to put together a new deal involving their political adversaries, who have everything to gain by becoming a party to the renewed negotiations with the Netherlands and Britain.
I’ll be coming back to this issue of the estrangement of governments from the governed, you may be sure of that.
* “right wing” and “left wing” are relative terms. It has been said that the Brits and certainly the Americans would call them the left wing and the very left wing respectively.