The Scottish Enigma

Quite understandably people are likely to be disquieted by Alex Salmond’s assertion that he would block the formation of a minority Conservative government. However, claims that he has no constitutional right to do this are misguided. We have to remember that the SNP is a left-of-centre party, further to left, even than Labour and quite radical on some issues, including Trident. Ask yourself this : Suppose it were not a Scottish left party and instead was just a general rival to Labour, to the left of that party. In such a case it would it not be astonishing if they opened the possibility of a ‘deal’ with the Tories? Of course it would. So Salmond is being perfectly reasonable in saying he would block a right wing government. The fact that the SNP represents only a section of the UK is not really relevant. After all, having pleaded with the Scots to stay a member of the UK family, we cannot then say they have no say in UK affairs. OK, so a lot of left thinking people are concentrated in Scotland. So what? A lot of right wing people live in East Essex and Suffolk (no offence). Should we deny them influence too? The real question is why did he state it so clearly? He didn’t need to. We could have guessed, couldn’t we? It must be that he wants to destroy the idea that a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Conservatives. It never was of course, but it may just have deterred a few potential SNP voters. Labour and the SNP together would form a left of centre group not a coalition) which is completely logical and coherent with a few exceptions such as policy on Trident. As to blackmailing a minority Labour government into granting excessive autonomy to Scotland, this is a more serious issue. That there is a strong desire for some form of self government in Scotland, probably short of independence. The 45% yes vote last year plus the huge progress of the SNP in real and opinion polls demonstrates that. This seems to legitimise such demands. In the end what might worry English voters is the fact that Salmond is a much cannier politician than anyone on the Labour front bench. It might be an unequal contest! The idea of the SNP holding a Conservative minority government to ransom looks illogical and Salmond knows this to be sure. On an optimistic note, I think the SNP is being more strident in the election campaign than it is likely to be in parliament after the election. You get nothing in politics by being a shrinking violet. Salmond and sturgeon know perfectly well that they will need to be more subtle in future negotiations. Whatever happens, those of us who are interested in politics it’s going to be an interesting ride!

Can we believe the Scots?

Nicola Sturgeon's assertion that SNP MPs will withdraw from the Commons for votes which definitely only affect England sounds reasonable. However what would happen if such a vote threatened a Labour minority government, say for example, on an England only mansion tax or on education policy? In other words would the SNP be willing to bring down a Labour Government and make a majority Conservative Government a likelihood? One could argue that the SNP thinks a Labour Government is better for Scotland than one led by Conservatives so the SNP do actually have a mandate to prop up a shaky Labour administration even if that means voting on purely English affairs. Semantics will mean everything here, I.e. what precisely is an 'English-only'issue? Alex Salmond is right that the budget is critical. A government cannot govern without parliamentary approval for its budget. Here is where SNP leverage will be at its greatest. Will they use it positively, as promised, or destructively? It is a matter of trust. Just one other point. Sturgeon is SNP leader but will not be a Westminster MP. So can she tell SNP Westminster MPs what to do, how to vote? What if they don't want to obey her; after all they have a different mandate to her. Intriguing.

Is the Scottish menace real?

OK so let's assume the SNP does win fifty seats or nearly, and let's assume Labour is either the biggest party and will form a coalition, or the Conservatives are the biggest party but can't form a coalition so have to let Labour have a go, what happens about the Scottish 'menace' as they seem to be branded in England, I'm not sure why. Why are they being demonised? Anyway......where were we? Ah yes, what if a Labour minority government has to deal with the SNP? On most social and economic issues the policies of the SNP are almost indistinguishable from those of Labour, so no problem there. So where's the beef? Three problems : First there is the renewal of Trident which the SNP oppose and Labour supports. That can be solved by a commitment to move the Trident base out of Scotland and perhaps to the English South coast or similar. It is still a problem because of the cost or Trident which might divert funds away from Scotland. However, the Scots are going to be given the power to raise most of their own taxes so this ceases to be a serious problem. Second there is the question of devolution. How much additional devolution would the SNP demand in return for their co-operation? Lots, I suppose. Would Labour be wiling to grant them more devolution? Answer......yes but if it is left to Parliament it will be very difficult to get devolution though with a majority. A coalition of Tories and Labour members who oppose further devolution could defeat any proposals. So, the SNP might find themselves negotiating more devolution not with a Labour government but with Parliament as a whole. Labour might then muddle through. Third there is the West Lothian Question. Will SNP members still insist on voting on issues that only affect England? If this happens the legitimacy of any such decisions could be challenged. A Labour-SNP parliamentary majority on English issues looks problematic in democratic terms. If a Labour government insisted on SNP MPs withdrawing from the Commons on English-only issues, it might not command a majority. So it's the old West Lothian (EVEL) Question that looks like the real menace. For Labour the menace is real because a muddling, ineffective, short term Labour minority government would play very badly with the electorate and the next election, which must surely come sooner than later, would be an easy win for the Conservatives. Conclusion? My take on this is that The Conservatives won't be very disappointed to lose this election. They will look like a model of stability compared to a minority Labour administration and will have a new leader - Boris obviously - and off we go on a fun ride!

How is Labour really doing?

At first sight Labour's performance has been pretty poor in opposition. Having polled 29% in 2010 they are now running at about 33% in the polls, an increase of just 4%. If, however, the Liberal Democrat meltdown benefits Labour more than the Conservatives we must put, say, 5% down to fleeing Lib Dem supporters rather than anything Labour has done. This implies that, within the same group of voters they have lost 1% of support. The causes of this malaise have been well documented already, but the party certainly needs to gain a sense of reality. That said, a couple of points can mitigate their failure. The first is, of course, Scotland. Most of the increase in SNP support is at Labour's expense, so, without the SNP surge, the party might be 4% better off nationally. So, we are back where we started. Labour has made some, though little, progress since 2010. Now the loss of support to the SNP may, to some extent, be Labour's fault, but surely it is to do with London government generally rather than Labour itself? Second there is the government's record. In terms of the economy Labour has suffered blow after blow. There is healthy growth, no inflation, the deficit is falling (notwithstanding the broken promise), unemployment is falling and now, the real standard of living (which Labour put up as its trump card when it was falling)is now rising. In past years such an economic record would have guaranteed a big win for the governing party. Yet Labour is hanging in there. Apart from the obvious NHS issue they have also succeeded in presenting the Conservatives as the party of the rich and privileged minority. In other words they may not have presented themselves well, but have managed to keep Conservative support depressed by attacking them where they are weakest.

monopoly capitalism 2

I recently wrote about monopoly capitalism and its growth. This time I want to describe serious concerns about the relationship between politics and capitalism. It was triggered by a recent radio interview with Barclays Bank chief executive. The CE sounded exactly like a politician facing hostile questions, you know the kind of thing: avoiding the question, answering the question he wanted to answer rather than the one asked, stressing successes and ignoring failures. The usual. This set me thinking about how much the way in which major business executives deal with the public and the media has coalesced with the behaviour of politicians. In short they sound the same! In the past, where large scale private enterprises have begun to dominate and manipulate markets, there has been a political reaction. Political institutions - legislatures, parties, executives - have intervened to reduce market domination and market failure which operate against the interests of consumers and workers. Methods have included outright nationalisation (largely in the 1940s, 50s and 60s), regulation, legislation to prevent manipulation, breaking up monopolies, consumer protection, workers' rights, promoting genuine competition etc. In recent years, however, political institutions have shown themselves extremely reluctant to intervene, and where they have intervened, it has been largely weak and ineffective. I don't want to be too alarming or messianic but we may be sleepwalking into an Orwellian nightmare, or at least a version of one. Orwell pointed out the dangers of totalitarianism. His fear was that the state would become so powerful it would control all aspects of life, including language, history, philosophy and, ultimately, knowledge. What we face now is not so much the power of the state as the power of monopoly capitalism. Perhaps (dystopia warning here) we are reaching a tipping point where political institutions will NO LONGER BE ABLE TO CONTROL MONOPOLY CAPITALISM as they have in the past. Democracy, popular sentiment, voting power, call it what you will, may no longer operate as an automatic stabiliser. Why has this come about? I can offer a number of theories : 1 There are growing signs of political atrophy in western systems - the USA, France, Italy, Greece and now the UK are all examples. the destination of these systems may well be Russia, the difference being it has taken us hundreds of years to reach this point, Russia has done it in twenty-five years. 2. The decline and virtual disappearance of left wing parties offering an alternative discourse. 3. The lack of any serious intellectual challenge to the Hayek-Friedman -Fukayama agenda that accepts the inevitable ascendancy of market capitalism. 4. The increase in social, economic and cultural links between politician and the business community, rendering them reluctant to challenge monopoly power. At the very least this results in cultural reluctance to take action, at its worst it is corrupt. 5. Hardly an original thought, but, of course, large businesses have simply become larger and therefore inevitably more powerful. Is there a hope of avoiding capitalist totalitarianism? It probably lies with the web. The web has bothy created more competition in some markets, but also provides a springboard for popular political action that can replace impotent political institutions. We could also look towards the EU for hope. Certainly Maastricht was a step in the right direction, but the EU has become so discredited that it has lost credibility. We are not yet beyond the point of no return (as proposed by Orwell), and we may not reach it in my lifetime, but younger generations need to take action very quickly if they are to avoid it. Rawls suggested the possibility of a market capitalist system allied with social justice and liberty. There is a need for a new Rawls and we need him or her damn quick.