What is the House of Lords for?

First off let's cut through some woolly thinking and explanations by commentators over whar happened in the Lords last Monday. Leaving aside the issue of what the Lords can and cannot do with statutory instruments, there are two limitations on the Lords that are relevant here. One is the Parliament Act of 1911 which forbids the Lords from blocking money matters undertaken by the Government. The other is the Salisbury Doctrine dating from the 1940s. This is an unwritten convention that forbids the Lords from obstructing any measure that was contained in the governing party's last election manifesto. Now the most dramatic interpretation of what happened is that the Lords offended both these constitutional restrictions. A different view says they offended neither. Supporters of the former view argue that the proposed tax credit cuts are a money matter and that the Conservatives' manifesto commitment to reduce the budget deficit is being challenged here. Those who take the latter view suggest this was a welfare, not a money matter and that the Tories did not include tax credit cuts specifically in their 2015 manifesto. In other words the measure was fair game. The problem here is that there is no one to adjudicate. Both interpretations are compelling and could be supported. So we need a person or committee, along the lines of the US Rules Committee, that can say whether something is subject to the Parliament Act or the Salisbury Doctrine ( which should be enacted to clarify it). Not difficult really. More seriously, we need to ask questions about the role of the Lords. It comes down to this simple question. If the Lords does not have the power to delay a decision and ask the Commons and the Government to re-consider, what is it for? Osborne joked it might be abolished, but it should be if it is to have no meaningful powers. OK some peers do excellent work improving legislation at Report Stage, but it does not need over 800 of them to do this. It is incontrovertible to say that we cannot have key decisions like this made by people who are completely unaccountable, however well intentioned they may be.

China comes to town

Two things strike me as interesting or thought provoking in the visit of President Shi this week. The first is that I notice that Jeremy Corbyn agreed to dress up in a frock coat suit for the banquet. I am glad to see this. he does need to stop fighting small battles and concentrate on major issues. China is a major issue, including our relations with them. Absenting himself would have been pointless. he does need to take part in political exchanges like this in order to gain the authority to speak about them. So, good for him. he can now speak his mind. The second question is whether we should be dealing with the Chinese leadership at all. I think the answer is yes. I take as my lesson the situation with Russia currently. By being understandably antagonistic we have forced the disreputable Putin into a defensive corner. Authoritarian regimes, when backed into a corner do not tend to make concessions, they simply become more defensive, paranoid and brutal. It may be painful to deal with the Chinese but I believe the best hope for any liberalisation of their regime is if we have dealings with them and they become exposed to a different way of doing things. Surely the Chinese should be impressed by the fact that Britain can, at the same time, appear militaristic, aristocratic and shrouded in our own history, and yet allow reporters such as the BBC's to ask provocative questions of visitors. Surely they see that the decision to allow investment in our nuclear industry is being made subject to democratic scrutiny. We don't have a perfect democracy but we it is a democracy and it does not threaten the integrity of the state. Making enemies of the Chinese will do no good to either country. We can become a critical friend and that is what we should be. I don't expect Jeremy Corbyn to concur, but I happy that he is taking part in the game and not just shouting abuse from the touchline.

An explanation of the results of the 2020 general election

Since my last post giving the results of the 2020 general election events have moved on a little, but not much. I said that I thought UKIP would lose its only seat because Britain would vote to stay in the EU and so the party would have nowhere to go. Well, I still think they will have no seats after 2020 but for a different reason. Farage this week has hinted that the party will effectively dissolve itself if Britain votes to leave the EU. It may re-appear in another form, some kind of populist, anti-vested interest party, but UK Independence would look a little strange. Perhaps it will start campaigning against devolution and immigration alone. The migrant crisis, which looks set to run on for many years, has changed the context of the EU referendum and certainly strengthens the UKIP case for leaving and regaining control over our borders. Britain is already largely sealed off from the situation and leaving the EU would give an extra safeguard which would, I think, be widely popular. The Greens will change Natalie Bennett I expect but may hang on to their Brighton seat because Caroline Lucas is a one-off and very popular. They will be unlikely to make gains and might fall back in terms of votes if there is a Corbynite socialist (Old Labour) party contesting the election. Now to the nub of it. I cannot see any way forward for Labour other than to split. The party is now divided three ways, between the old centrist guard, the members plus supporters and the voters. An Old Labour Party could win some seats in the North (taking votes from UKIP) and maybe Scotland, but not so many, hence the low number. ‘New Labour’ would hang on to a substantial number of its traditional seats in Wales, the North West, Midlands and London but lose even more to the Conservatives than it did in 2015. Jarvis looks best placed to lead this group, though Kinnock junior has a shot. I think the Liberal Democrats can expect a partial recovery under Farron who appeals to a certain type of liberal (young idealists). The party is adding members and may find a niche, as Farron suggests, tucked between New Labour and Old Labour. But all this is overshadowed by the strong likelihood that the Conservatives will win the next election by an old style country mile. The referendum will paper over the cracks in the party; probably George Osborne will be the new leader with a good track record as Chancellor behind him (shades of Brown before the financial crisis swept him away) and still enjoying the proverbial honeymoon period, and the electoral system will work hugely in their favour, given the increasingly fragmented nature of the centre-left. I think my estimate of the majority might be conservative (no pun intended).

The Result of the 2010 General Election

Here is the result of the 2020 General Election (assuming there are still 650 seats – adjust accordingly if the number is reduced). Conservative 398. Led by George Osborne New Labour 120. Led by Dan Jarvis Old Labour 36. Led by Jeremy Corbyn Liberal Democrat 26. Led by Tim Farron SNP 45. Led by Nicola Sturgeon Plaid Cymru 5. Led by Leanne Wood Green 2. Led by Jenny Jones Northern Ireland Seats 18. Led by various UKIP 0. Led by Nigel Farage Others 0. Conservative Majority: 146 Next time I shall try to explain these results. They are based, incidentally, on the assumption that the UK will vote to remain a member of the EU. All bets are off if we don’t.

Post Corbyn scenarios

Whatever happens in the labour leadership election, the party will probably never be the same again. There, though, are a number of scenarios that spring to mind. Let’s start by assuming Corbyn wins – not a given especially in view of the recent poor performance of opinion polls, but it looks increasingly likely. What will happen? Here are the possible outcomes: 1. If there are extensive legal challenges to the result. These will drag on for ages and destroy the party making it totally unelectable for a generation. It is really an unthinkable scenario, but it could happen. 2. If the result is accepted there remains the question, how will the Labour MPs react? It seems likely that many of them will simply not follow Corbyn and will not accept him as the parliamentary leader. We then have two Labour Party groups in Parliament. The non-Corbyn group will have to choose a leader and this will be either Burnham or Cooper. 3. If this split continues it might become formalised and we have two main opposition parties. 4. A strong possibility in this circumstance could be negotiations between the non Corbyn Party and the Liberal Democrats. This effectively mirrors the circumstances of the mid 1980s when the Liberal Democrat Party was formed from an alliance between the Liberals and the breakaway Social Democrats. 5. Fast forward to the 2020 election and we have a possibility of two Labour Party’s fighting each other for seats. If they have any sense (not much has been shown so far) they will engage in electoral pacts to avoid them standing against each other in winnable seats. The Corbynites would contest seats in Scotland, the North of England, parts of London and the Midlands, while the non Corbyinites, now joined with the Liberal Democrats would contest the rest of England and Wales on a centrist/centre left ticket. 6. The Conservatives would win such an election, of course (barring strange events in the meantime) but the left of centre would at least have re-aligned itself on rational lines. If Corbyn does not win Labour looks set to drift on towards inevitable defeat in 2020, with a mass of defections among the grass roots membership. What OUGHT to happen if Corbyn does not win, is the party should consider carefully why he has proved to be so popular, in other words undertake a sensible debate about why the Corbyn message chimes with so many people and act on it. I suppose the real problem is that neither the Corbyn plan or the Burnham/Cooper position can win an election. The best Labour can hope for is to shore up its existing support, so the question is which position is most likely to do this. The answer is that, in some places – Scotland and deprived areas of England and Wales – the Corbyn plan would win seats, while in others parts of the North, Midlands and London, it is the centrist position that can win. This suggests two different parties which may well be what happens. Happily for Conservatives and sadly for Labour even this partnership does not add up to more than three hundred seats. The key may lie with the Liberal Democrats. Let’s not write them off yet.

The Corbyn Effect

If nothing else happens in the Labour leadership contest Jeremy Corbyn’s intervention has already had its effect. This is revealed in Andy Burnham’s ‘manifesto’, recently unveiled. We have to believe that such measures as rail nationalisation (albeit gradually), a bigger rise in the minimum wage than even Osborne proposes and the replacement of tuition fees with a graduate tax would not have been on Burnham’s horizon had Corbyn not found such traction with his extreme left agenda. Burnham now looks set to win the contest on second preferences, always assuming that Corbyn can’t make 50% or near on first ballot. The real point is that there is a large constituency which feels unrepresented by the main parties in the UK. That Labour will not win the next election, barring unforeseen disasters for the Government, is not in much doubt, but at least there will at least be a powerful voice in parliament speaking up for the low paid and the young with limited horizons and mountains of debt. In other words Corbyn and now Burnham have learned the SNP lesson.

Why are we surprised by Corbyn's popularity?

It is interesting to see the huge convulsion that Jeremy Corbyn’s ‘charge’ has caused both inside politics and in the media. There seem to be four explanations for the phenomenon. First, The right wing press assume that it is the ‘true’ heart of Labour being revealed after many years of Blairism. In other words, since the early 1990s Labour has only been pretending to be a centrist party. The left, lurking in the unions, in dark corners of urban local government and at the universities, has used the opportunity of Labour’s defeat to reveal itself. This chimes with their obsession with ‘entryism’. Second, the more thoughtful elements in the media, such as Andrew Rawnsley in his excellent article in today’s (August2) Observer, point out that Labour has always been a divided party, between the Blairite centre and the left. The Blairites are perceived to have lost and so party members want the left to have a go. The same happens with the Conservatives. Whenever they lose an election, their right wing gains the ascendancy (look at Howard’s brief leadership). There is a third explanation which comes from the left itself. This suggests that a large proportion of the country is effectively unrepresented when Labour takes up a centrist position. These are union members in traditional industries, people on low paid jobs who have to rely on benefits and the young who see their opportunities to be limited. The prospect of massive postgraduate debt, poor job opportunities and unaffordable housing, inevitable drives this last group into the arms of the left. This group must have been dismayed to hear Labour’s leaders accepting welfare benefit caps, high tuition fees, lukewarm policies on jobs for the young and very modest house building ambitions. In Scotland they had somewhere to go – the SNP - but no such luck in England. Small wonder they are flocking (sorry to use an animal based verb, I hear they are no longer pc) to the Corbyn camp. A fourth explanation comes from all quarters and is that Corbyn is authentic, is principled and says what he believes, while other politicians say what they think the centre ground of the electorate want to hear. Of course Labour used to have such a candidate, but he has, for whatever reason, ruled himself out. That is Alan Johnson. The doom mongers on the left are probably right. Labour cannot win another election for some time to come but it won’t be Corbyn’s fault, it will be caused by the absurd electoral system we use and the paucity of suitable, dominant and charismatic figures from the centre of the party. Even if David Miliband does ride over the horizon to try to pick up the pieces in two or three years time, the damage done to Labour may well be unrepairable. The centre left in British politics is fragmented and the centre right is not. There is no getting away from that. For those who take up a centrist position on politics, there is one crumb of comfort. Now that the Conservatives look set for a long period in power, they are showing every signs of avoiding a lurch to the right, so whether we have a Cameron/Osborne government in the years to come (which now looks a certainty), or a Cooper/Burnham one (which looks very unlikely), most people will not be able to tell the difference. It is the Corbyn constituency that needs to worry.