Parliament - A new golden age?

The period between the first and second reform acts in the nineteenth century is often described as the golden age of parliament. This was because both houses were characterised by shifting parties and factions, with many other radical MPs thrown in so that every vote was hard fought over. Party discipline was weak and no administration could feel itself secure in securing its legislation. Furthermore it was an age of great orators, men who were capable of influencing a vote through the sheer force of their argument and the quality of their rhetoric. The result was that governments were forced to seek a consensus over each individual issue. This model of parliamentary politics can also be frequently seen in the USA, though it often results there in deadlock rather than consensus. Perhaps it is not too fanciful to suggest we are now entering a new golden era. It may, of course, turn out to be short lived, little more than a mini-era, , but we can hopefully enjoy it while the going is good. Two examples illustrate this. The first was the Lords’ rejection of the reduction in working tax credits, a decision that was confirmed in Osborne’s latest spending review. By the way, on that subject, the normally sure footed Osborne missed a trick, I think, by not accepting that he had been persuaded by the force of argument rather than claiming that he had accidentally discovered more money he didn’t know he had. It would have been more politically astute, I feel. The second was, of course, the Commons debate on intervention in Syria. Maybe we have become too cynical about the behaviour of MPs (with good cause in many cases). To hear some of the excellent speeches, Benn’s in particular, and, to see members visibly moved by the debate and the issue, was indeed striking and heart warming. We live in an age of a perfect parliamentary storm, I suppose. A government with a fragile majority, leading a party that is in garrulous mood with splits over foreign policy, Europe and austerity, a fragmented opposition and a completely hung House of Lords which is in the mood to defy the government if it feels like it – witness the recent amendment to allow 16 and 17 years olds to vote on the EU referendum, against government policy. The cabinet may have the devil of a job to overturn the amendment in the Commons, even if it is in the mood to try. Consensus building is an art form and it looks like the government is going to have to learn it fast. They did, however, make a very good start over the Syrian issue.

Helping A level Government and Politics students

Casa asked me about helping students studying government and politics independently, i.e. with no tuition etc. The best advice is to look at the Philip Allan publisher site a they have a wide range of materials, some of which can be used independently, for example a Workbook I wrote a couple of years ago. I also have my own materials. Contact neil_mcnaughton@hotmail.com and I can send some free. Hope this helps.

Corbyn and emotional intelligence

I have been concerned about Jeremy Corbyn's poor educational record from the start but now wonder about his social and emotional intelligence. I refer to his responses to Paris. This is not a time for deep analysis of geopolitics, nor is it a time to rake over past errors by Western powers. Political leaders need to show some nous at times like this. Empathy is needed more than lectures. On the shoot to kill issue (call it summary execution if you will), I also think he has misjudged things. When confronted with people who are prepared to lose their own life and take others with them, who have suicide belts on and are heavily armed, the idea of clapping them on the shoulder and saying,' come on now sonny, are you going to come quietly?'simply won't do. It is also a moot point whether this kingd of terrorism counts as warfare so the rule of law has to be suspended. Whatever the view, this is no time for such philosophising, it is a time for sorrow as well as vigilance. IS (please let's find another name - how about Stone Age fascism?) are beyond the pale however much we have messed up in the Middle East. That has to be stated firmly. Having said all that British politics may be better off with Corbyn. Apart from his healthier approach to discourse, he may well shift Labour away from its obsession with the centre ground and help it to become a real opposition of the centre-left. He won't survive, I'm sure, but theatre he leaves may have a new heart.

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.

Is Jeremy Corbyn a marxist?

A nice interview by Andrew Marr with Jeremy Corbyn yesterday. How good to hear a non-confrontational interview, we get so much more information about what the subject believes than with those awful interrogations which only tell us how well a person reacts to pressure. The key moment came at the end when Marr asked Corbyn whether he was a marxist. The answer was, as you would expect, circumspect. Had he said yes it would have been curtains, but Corbyn did not wish to reject his marxist credentials altogether, thus suggesting a degree of honesty not often seen in modern mainstream politics. It was rather like asking a christian whether they are indeed a ‘christian’. Some will say ‘yes’ and then explain that they believe in the literal story of the resurrection and that Christ did die and rise again so that sinners may be saved if they except Christ as their saviour. That is the equivalent of being a pure marxist – that you believe in his historical analysis and the destiny of capitalism to be destroyed by its own creation, the socialist proletariat and that it has not yet occurred is simply a matter of timescale and converting the analysis to a global context. Corbyn did not say that but instead said that Marx had revealed many truths and that we can still learn a great deal from his teaching. This is the equivalent of a ‘christian’ saying they believe in the existence of Christ, that his teaching should be a guide for life but that the resurrection story is only a metaphor, that Christ rose again in the minds of his followers and that we can all be born again if we seek redemption. So I guess this means that Corbyn is not a marxist in the full sense of the word; rather he has received some of his inspiration from marxist analysis. Sadly for him the media and casual observers will not be capable of understanding this distinction. He does have one advantage over others of the left who have been accused of marxist sympathies, such as Ken Livingstone, Derek Hatton and Michael Foot, which is that he seems remarkably affable and accessible. The right no longer has the monopoly of ‘interesting ‘ characters, with Corbyn, Sturgeon and Mhairi Black now on the left scene. Such characters serve to emphasise how pale and uninspiring the other Labour leadership candidates appear.

Labour-looking for a messiah

There seems to be a rather unreal debate going on within the Labour leadership about the Corbyn ‘threat’. I say unreal because it appears obvious to most of us that, barring some kind of Iraq-like event (not out of the question in view of the government’s apparent desire for mission creep over Syria), Labour cannot win any general election for the foreseeable future. Scotland has gone and there seems no way back and the Conservatives now dominate England outside the North. Furthermore, assuming support for UKIP declines after the referendum vote, the Conservative grip over the South and Midlands will be strengthened. In other words the electoral arithmetic now suggests Labour cannot win. As long as the economy continues to grow and the key indicators (with the notable exception of inequality) stay favourable it looks like an increased Conservative majority next time, possibly for a generation. The idea that Labour can win by being a slightly nicer version of the Conservatives is seriously misplaced, so too is the idea that the electorate simply needs an alternative, even if the alternative is virtually identical, like gas or electricity suppliers, in order to satisfy the needs of democracy. No, until there is an opportunity for significant change, Labour looks likely to wander for many years in the Wilderness, like the Israelites except it is hard to imagine where the promised land lies. There is also no sign of a Moses on the horizon. This will leave many in the UK seriously disenfranchised with nobody to represent them. I refer to the poor, to exploited workers and many of the radical young. Jeremy Corbyn does at least offer some sort of programme for them. He can’t win governmental power, but at least their voice might be heard if he leads Labour. Put another way, if labour is going to lose and go on losing it might as well do so with some of its traditional principles intact. There is just one hope for the centre-left. This is that its currently disparate forces could unite. At the moment it is split five ways (Labour, Lib Dem, SNP, Plaid, Green). Such a unification will need a messiah but Corbyn does not like one of those.

Future of the BBC - Too important to be left to politicians.

It is right that there should be review at this time of what the BBC’s future should be, both its funding and its programming. It is also almost certainly true that it is over-bloated and could do with some surgery. Most long standing organisations need this from time to time. But it is such a vital part of British culture and our place in the world that it is far too important to be left in the hands of politicians, most of whom will not still be in power by the time any changes are seen through to maturity. This therefore needs to be the subject of a national debate. Just as a taster I remember a time, perhaps up to the 1980s when many of the BBC’s top performers used to make a joke about how poorly they were paid. ‘Well, what do expect?’ they’d say, ‘This is the BBC.’ Yet they still worked for the beeb and wouldn’t think about going commercial. Rather like doctors who will only work for the NHS when they could earn shedloads in private practice, and many teachers who shun the private system, they worked in public service broadcasting as a matter of principle. I suppose this is still the case, though few ever seem to talk about it. This story has two points. One is that it demonstrates how deeply embedded the concept of public service broadcasting is in our culture; the other is that it is a myth to suppose the huge salaries have to be paid to attract and retain top performers. But back to the main theme. This is not a partisan blog, but I do fear that most politicians currently in power have a default position of arguing that market forces will always ensure better quality and value for money than state-sponsored enterprises. We only have to look at so-called competitive industries such as energy, banking and telecommunications to pick out the holes in that argument. Apply it to the BBC and the result would, I strongly maintain, a disaster. Problem is, the BBC seems recently to have applied it to itself. Whatever the outcome of a hopefully non partisan national debate, I suspect there is a strong consensus that the BBC should not longer try to chase ratings and compete with the commercial stations. So here goes. I shall leave out radio which is largely blameless in this regard (we could have a debate about Radios 1 and 2 I suppose, but they are not the core issue). This is TV only. What should the BBC make or show and what should it not? How about this list: Yes to: • News, comment and current affairs. The reputation of the BBC for honesty, truth and unbiased reporting is absolutely crucial to its future. Look at the USA to observe the dangers. • Documentaries and major investigative journalism (see the first point). • Most sport, even darts. • Film • Theatre and opera • The Arts – programmes showing or broadcasting the arts and music , criticism, comment, educational and documentary. • Music – presentation of all forms of music including pop, rock and avant garde, not videos but live and recorded performance • Pastime shows such as gardening, travel, antiques and cookery (the origins of Top Gear would be OK, but not what it became - a caricature of itself). • Satire and decent comedy (see below) • Intelligent quiz shows such as Pointless, Eggheads, University Challenge • Drama, including one off plays and series, but not soaps. • Natural History, Science, History, Geography, Politics etc. No to: • Soap operas. • Cookery competitions • Reality shows. • Shows concerning buying or doing up houses, moving abroad etc. • Daytime quiz shows for big prizes • Comedy shows reeling round the same old stand up performers time after time. • Trivial panel games and game shows • Sofa programmes being used blatantly as a vehicle for people to publicise their new book/film,/play/TV show • Frivolous chat shows • Antiques competitions • Celebrity competitions • X Factor style shows unless they are genuine talent competitions, not the over-scripted corrupted versions now on offer. The ‘No’ list all belong in the commercial sector. This leaves us with Strictly, a programme I do not watch but I know people love. Now look, there are always going to have to be hard choices and Strictly would be one of them because many people see it as the acme of ‘light entertainment’. The answer is, I suppose, that we should lighten up a bit and let the odd frivolous show through, especially when it is a national institution, just like the BBC itself. So why not let the politicians loose on this lot? The answer is simply that it is just too important and there is a danger that too much ideology would be involved. As the great conservative philosopher, Michael Oakeshott, once commented, ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument.’ Come to think of it, the future of the BBC is not a political issue, it is a cultural one and the future of British culture, much of which is admired throughout the world, is at stake.

Be careful Nicola!

The SNP is playing a dangerous game and it might just backfire on them. Whatever we think about fox hunting, and it seems true that most people want it stopped or curtailed severely, the SNP’s use of the issue to punish the government for not getting serious enough about devolution may, in the long run, come back to haunt them. If the true reason is, as Sturgeon has intimated, to demonstrate to the government the potential power of the SNP parliamentary wedge, it may just scare voters in Scotland off in the future. The thinkers among such voters may heed Cameron’s charge of opportunism, but others may also come to the conclusion that this a bad use of the landslide the Scots delivered last May. We have to assume that half of Scottish voters supported the SNP for a better deal for Scotland rather than for foxes. They may well resent having their votes thus corrupted. If it is a one-off, a shot across the bows, fair enough, but the surprise element cannot, by definition, be used more than once.

Democracy- A curious creature

What curious creature democracy is. It has so many manifestations that, just as we think we have grasped its essence, along come fresh stories that cause us to re-think our perceptions. Three contemporary events illustrate our problem. These are the Heathrow expansion debate, the Lancashire anti-fracking planning decision and then there is the Greek referendum on the immediate horizon. The Heathrow issue looks like a perfect example of a pluralist, representative form of democracy unfolding before our eyes. Various pressure groups are now ranged against each other, some national, others local. Local MPs are busying themselves to protect their constituents’ interests, business groups are flexing their financial and economic muscles, environmentalists are demonstrating their fury and local residents are expressing both anger and despair. In the middle stands government, which will have to make the final decision. In this model of democracy we hope that the final arbiter will be neutral and it is certainly true that the cabinet looks that way at the moment, though that may be more because it finds itself tied up in a Gordian knot and is internally divided as to how it can cut the knot, rather than because it has a genuinely open mind. Leaving that aside, it looks like an encouraging picture. But this does not help us to answer the question : what is the correct answer? When there isn’t one, as seems to be the case here – either answer will have seriously adverse consequences as well as benefits – democracy looks like an exercise in establishing majority opinion. In other words, a utilitarian answer : the greatest good for the greatest number. Fair enough. This is not a ‘tyranny of majority’ problem, as there is no clear majority. So this is going to be a perfect test for the UK’s representative democracy. The question will not be whether the correct answer is reached, but whether the decision can secure the broad consent of the people, those who oppose it included. The Greek vote next Sunday is entirely different, but we still call it democracy, the ‘voice of the people’. It is complicated, of course, by the fact that it is not clear exactly what the Greek people are voting for or against. Probably they are deciding whether to support the radical government’s view that Greece should only remain within the community of European states if it can do so on its own terms, or whether it will be willing to sacrifice much of its autonomy in order to stay in ‘the club,’ or whether it should simply strike out on its own and take its chances. At least the third option will grant them freedom. It is a fantastically fundamental question. Unfortunately it is a question with three possible answers and the referendum only offers two. This is a case for Rousseau’s ‘General Will’, some kind of collective spirit that transcends the additions and subtractions of private interests (which applies in the Heathrow case). There is little doubt that the government claims it does understand and reflect the General Will, but it looks as though the Greek people are going to contradict them. The democratic spirit is running strong in Greece, but it may not provide and answer. Nevertheless let’s be impressed by its collective force and its ability to struggle against seemingly insurmountable odds. It may be that the anti-fracking lobby’s victory in Lancashire will turn out to be little more than a temporary battle victory in a losing war, maybe only a skirmish, but it is a heartwarming example of how democracy can successfully represent ‘minority interests’ against powerful economic battalions, whatever we feel about the fracking issue itself. Perhaps that is the best we can expect from democracy – to ensure that small voices are heard and sometimes – just sometimes - prevail. No great conclusions here, but food for thought. Democracy does not exist and cannot be defined merely as an abstract concept. It exists and operates within a context. Its character is therefore determined by that context. That is why it can appear in so many different guises. Democracy is not a set of institutions, or principles or processes. It is a ‘spirit’ and the best we can hope for is that the spirit appears at times when it is most needed. In these cases we have seen it in the form of representative democracy, of an expression of the General Will and of protector of minority interests against powerful interests. It is a curious multi-faceted creature, to be sure, but we can recognise it when we see it and it will be a bad day for mankind if its spirit is ever extinguished.

Waterloo and all that

There will be much triumphalism today, the anniversary of Waterloo, and in the days to come. Of course the French have a very different perspective on these events and quite understandably so. Napoleon may have made an attempt to conquer the continent and, in the process, put members of his family on the thrones of Europe, but they will see this as little different to Britain conquering its Empire and placing members of her aristocracy in charge. Furthermore they see Napoleon as a progressive leader, seeking to spread the ideals of the revolution to countries which were decidedly backward in terms of democratic development, albeit by force of armies. The reason why Britain resented this so much was because we were already on our own road to modern democracy without the need for revolutions or conquest. In other words Napoleon was seeking to do to Europe by force what we were managing to do relatively peacefully at home, so he had to be stopped. There is a modern parallel, of course, which is the attempt by the USA, Britain and their allies to imprint their own concept of democratic rule in the Middle East. Like Napoleon's project this has become corrupted because we (Britain, the USA and others) have attempted to impose our own puppet leaders on such countries, with disastrous results. Incidentally, Wellington received £700,000 for his victory, a sort of gigantic banker’s bonus. It was an enormous sum by 1815 standards, and at a time when the country was in so much war debt it had to invent a new tax – income tax - to pay off the deficit. Sound familiar?

What is Labour For? (2)

Further to my posting yesterday (What is Labour For?) I had a glimpse of the first candidate hustings yesterday. I couldn’t face the whole thing. It confirmed everything I said. One additional thing did occur to me, however. There was a distinct feeling I got that three of the candidates – all bar Corbyn that is – were really more interested in how Labour can win back power than how they can improve the state of Britain. Other than tribal Labour supporters, people don’t care who wins really, they just want things that distress or annoy or worry them put right or they want politicians to improve their own life circumstances. Burnham’s slip about putting the party first, corrected by Kendall, was a case in point. To put this another way, the Conservative party CAN be elected for its own sake because it stands for stability and continuity. Labour cannot make such a claim because Labour invariably stands for change. There is no point voting for Labour if it stands for the same as the Conservative Party (other than to teach an incompetent Conservative administration a lesson, i.e. make it accountable, rather like changing gas supplier. The gas is the same but have they sent you the correct bill?). Voting Labour is voting for some kind of change. None of the candidates, other than the unelectable Jeremy Corbyn, explained last night what they stood for in terms of change. As for passion, I have some sympathy. You can only be genuinely passionate about something you believe in but I do not know what the three electable candidates believe in, other than getting Labour elected.

What iis Labour For?

If we ask the question, what is a political party in Britain for, what is its purpose a Conservative will have no difficulty answering. The Conservative Party exists to win and then retain power. Why? In order to bring and retain stability. What is stability? It is a lack of instability. And how i it to be achieved? That depends on current circumstances. The current Conservative party sees stability in terms of financial balance and economic growth. Al other good things flow from that. In the 1980s stability was seen in terms of curbing the power of the state and the trade unions and replacing them with free markets. Sometimes stability even consists of doing nothing at all other than control money supply as was sometimes the case between the two world war. The three great conservative values are power, pragmatism and empiricism. Simple. But ask a Labour supporter what hsi or her party is for and the answere will no lomger come easily. For much of the twentieth century Labour did know what it was for – to defend working class interests, to create social justice, to harness the collective wealth of the country for the common good and to use the state to control capitalism. Since the 1980s, however things have been less clear and never more so than today. As the Labour Party seeks a new leader it seems a good time to re-define the aims of Labour. There seem to be three alternatives: to keep the Tories out of power (echoing Nicola Sturgeon’s clarion call to the Scots), to govern Britain very much as the Conservatives wish to, but with more compassion, or to promote a leftist agenda to eliminate poverty, reduce inequality, curb the excesses of business and defend the principles and the income of the welfare state. Two of the candidates will be eliminated in the first two ballots – Kendall who represents the second option, and Corbyn who represents the third – leaving Cooper and Burnham to fight it out for the privilege of being the leader who fails to achieve the first option, for fail he or she will do as things stand. Both seem to be campaigning on the basis of a plan to win the next election by not repeating Labour’s faults in the last. This leaves us with a huge vacuum. What is Labour really for? Simply defeating the Conservatives may appeal to 30% of the voters but no one else. So Labour is getting its priorities in the wrong order. It first needs to define what its purpose is and then, having done so, find a leader who can carry that out. This means Alastair Campbell’s plan to get rid of the leader after three years if he or she cannot hack it looks rather attractive. It does give the party some breathing space to re-define itself BEFORE ir goes into the next election with the wrong leader and no plan.

Labour: Arranging the deckcahirs on the Titanic

While the Conservative Party is doing what it was put on Earth to do – fix things when they go wrong and not worry too much any kind of vision of the future. ‘Steady as she goes’, you might say to extend the metaphor used by the great Conservative philosopher of the 1950s, Michael Oakeshott, that the state is a ship sailing on a boundless sea with no port of origin and no destination but which needs to be kept on an even keel by the captain and crew, what is Labour doing? There is every sign that they are engaged in re-arranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, the Titanic being not the state but themselves, the Labour Party. In particular they are discussing amongst themselves (not us, the punters) the fine details of whether they should have opposed or supported this policy or that one and whether it was a matter of poor leadership or ‘not getting the message across’ or being a bit too left or a bit too right. What they are missing is the fundamental problem that Labour now faces and possibly has no answer for. Why does this matter? Well, it matters if you stand on the centre-left of politics and therefore oppose a centre-right government, but more generally it matters because it is vital that we have an effective, united opposition to keep government accountable and it matters because we will need a genuine choice at the next election. David Davis, that strange hybrid of rights campaigner but also social conservative on the Conservative backbenches, expressed this well last Question Time on the BBC. He is as worried as anybody about some tendencies toward authoritarianism from the Home Office and Department of Justice at the moment. Labour faces some fundamental problems. The first, perhaps most serious is the fracturing of the centre-left in British politics. This is composed of Labour of course, the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the rump of the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. In the recent election this group won a total of 47.4% of the popular vote and was ranged against the Centre-Right duo of Conservatives and UKIP of 49.5% (the rest being others and Northern Ireland parties). Looks familiar? Well, students of American politics will recognise this kind of divide and the USA is indeed often described as the 50-50 political system. If we assume that UKIP will decline after the EIU referendum, whatever the outcome, but especially if there is a decisive yes vote, the fragmented centre-left will be faced by a virtually monolithic opponent on the centre-right. To add to this problem, Labour is trying to solve a riddle that has no answer. Move to the right and the party loses Scotland for ever, move to the Left and it will win no seats in the South and probably the Midlands. This left-right condundrum must be abandoned. The second is the party’s lack of vision. Not, I emphasise, several competing visions, but no vision at all. What kind of Britain does the party want to see? They have to make a better fist of articulating what a socially just, business-friendly, worker (and trade union) friendly, tolerant, open society where opportunities and the rewards of economic growth are evenly spread, will look like. Reading or re-reading John Rawls’ ‘A Theory of Justice’ would be a good start It needs the kind of vision shown in past by Wilson, Thatcher and Blair; different visions to what is needed now of course, but at least a clear view. The third is poor leadership. It is beginning to appear that the field for the leadership is weak, good at arranging deckchairs perhaps, but with no idea of how to mend the damaged hull. There are a few impressive people on the centre-left, such as Dan Jarvis, Tristram Hunt and Stephen Kinnock, but they look too inexperienced. The prescription? Easier said than done to be sure, but Labour needs to set up a commission of its younger leaders to develop a vision that can capture people’s imagination, a vision with a name and clear principles (leave the deckchairs for now), it probably needs to sever its formal connections with the trade unions which are now pretty toxic, and create a new accord with them which does not involve money or internal party votes, it may need to consider an amalgamation with the Liberal Democrats and maybe a working relationship with the SNP and Plaid to stop the fragmentation of the centre-left and then it will just have to wait until a new leader, untainted by past disasters (Iraq and the debt crisis), emerges from the ashes.

PR? Be careful of what you wish for.

Understandably enough the clamour for electoral reform in the UK is growing after the election. Why would it not after what the Electoral Reform Society has described as probably the most disproportionate election result in British history? Certainly the electorate looks to have fragmented and the party system with it, so it seems clear that the electoral system should reflect this change. Of course it isn’t going to happen in the near future with a Conservative majority government placed in office by FPTP. The irony has not escaped me and others that it is proposed in the Trade Union Bill that strikes will only be legitimate if 40% of the union membership supports it. So, what price the Conservative 36.9% ‘win’? If we take the 65% turnout into account I think that is 24% of the total electorate so...well work it out for yourself. But wait a minute. If we were to adopt PR we do need a plan to deal with the probable outcome. The Electoral Reform Society published yesterday some notional results had either the d’Hondt List system or STV been used on May 7th. In both cases it would have been impossible to form a stable coalition with two parties. Any majority would need three parties participating. Even the lucid Cabinet Manual by Gus O’Donnell would have difficulty legislating for that. So what to do? It looks a real mess however ‘democratic’ it might be. I suppose that, if AMS were used (AMS has to be the favourite, given its preservation of one member constituencies), we might have more coherence, but it seems to me that only the German model looks acceptable, i.e. a two party system with a smaller party sharing power with one or the other. But this does not pertain currently in the UK, especially with the Liberal Democrat collapse. A closer look at what has happened reveals, however, that we do not really have a multi party system at all. What we do have is three regions of the UK where there is one party dominance. The SNP in Scotland, Labour in the North and the Conservatives in the South. The only places where there is true two or more party competition are London, Wales and the Midlands. Most of the country lives in a one party system. That brings a whole new set of problems, whatever electoral system we use. The main problem concerns legitimacy. Can a government whose representation is concentrated almost exclusively in the South and the Midlands of England be said to be the legitimate government of the North, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland? There seems to be only one answer. It’s called federalism.

Goldilocks, Labour and the Liberal Democrats

If you are a Labour supporter just now you are entitled to feel pretty depressed. Not as bad as a Liberal Democrat, true, but you might be forgiven for fearing that Labour is unlikely to be re-elected for a generation. Labour people are asking themselves, as they always do after a bad defeat, whether the party lost because it was too left wing or because it was not left wing enough. Such a debate completely destroyed the party in the 1980s and early 90s, until John Smith and Tony Blair cam riding over the horizon. I think this may now be an outdated question. The problem for Labour cannot be put in such simple terms. The truth is that in Scotland Labour was not left wing enough, while in much of England it was too left wing. In London, and the big cities, on the other hand, it seemed to get it just about right. It was a kind of Goldilocks scenario. The trouble is , while it was just right in some places, it was certainly not in others. So, if Labour were to move to a centrist position, it may well retain much of its support in the cities and large Northern towns, but it will lose Scotland for the foreseeable future and will not make much impact in most of England. So why so little impact in England? One part of the answer is that the centre-left anti-Conservative vote is divided between three parties, Labour, Liberal Democrat and Green. By now you should be beginning to see where this is leading. There simply seems no point in having BOTH a Labour Party and a Liberal Democrat Party. Remember that one of the reasons the Social Democrat Party, a predecessor of the Liberal Democrats, came into existence in 1981 (it lasted until 1988 when the Liberals joined it) was because Labour had moved so far to the left. The centre ground was suddenly vacant. Now that Labour looks like moving back towards the centre, those aspects of the Liberal Democrats that date back to the old SDP days of the 80s become irrelevant. Look at the last set of party manifestos and there is precious little between that of Labour and that of the Liberal Democrats. OK the Lib Dems are a little more concerned about rights, democracy, decentralisation of power and constitutional reform than Labour, but on economic and social issues they look almost identical. Labour can’t win overall from the left. We all know that. I am suggesting it can’t win from the centre. So the case for a merger is compelling. Let’s call it the Social Democratic Labour Party. I know, I know, that name has been taken by the SDLP in Northern Ireland, but, come to think of it, they could join the new party (policies are very similar). If you are a Conservative, therefore, I think you have nothing to fear from Labour moving to the centre, unless the Lib Dems disappear altogether, that is (effectively the same as a merger). The prospect of a centre-left party competing against a centre-right party looks far more attractive for British democracy than the current fragmentation. We would also have less to fear from PR under this scenario, with two parties dominating, possibly forming stable coalitions with small parties. Don’t rule it out. A Labour –Lib Dem merger may, as Goldilocks once said, be just right

Bad capitalism, good capitalism

I am very much looking forward to reading Steve Hilton’s book 'More Human' when it appears at the end of this week. His interview with Evan Davis recently was extremely revealing and I shared Evan’s feeling that he sounded more of a socialist than a conservative, which is what he professes to be. It seems that Hilton is arguing that we are sleepwalking into a world where we will find ourselves increasingly exploited by large organisations, in both the public and private sectors and that, further, there is a kind of ‘power elite’ of leaders who are economically and socially cohesive and who share concentrated power between them. Anyway, more will be revealed when the book appears. The interview also chimed with the common current criticism of Labour’s election campaign, suggesting it was too anti-business. It brought to mind a blog I wrote some time ago when I suggested something similar. At the heart of my concern is that we should be able to distinguish between ‘good capitalism’ and ‘bad capitalism’. Bad capitalism for me consists of companies who are exploiting their market power to exploit stakeholders. The stakeholders include their own workers, their customers, the community, taxpayers, sometimes their suppliers and even in some cases their own shareholders. The kind of industries where this kind of exploitation is common include energy companies, oil companies, supermarket chains, phone companies, insurance firms and, of course, the banks, the daddies of them all. I’d include, incidentally the growth of what might be called secondary market companies that operate on the net and increasingly hoard control over bookings for various services. These include the secondary events ticket market, hotel and holiday booking firms and now even restaurant reservation services. I am not suggesting these kinds of firms exploit all their stakeholders, but that they do exploit a substantial proportion of them. In addition, it has to be said that these industries are often characterised by barriers to entry so that they are able to maintain their market power against competition. Often, of course, these barriers are natural (e.g. the huge investment needed to enter a market, or the established reputation of existing firms), but sometimes they are manipulative, such as supermarket groups hoarding sites for possible development by competitors, threats to suppliers who consider serving competitors (which is illegal but difficult to detect), cartel practices such as banks colluding to control markets, secondary ticket firms buying up all available tickets, predatory pricing (reducing price temporarily to undercut new entrants, then raising prices when the competitors have been deterred) and a variety of other anti-competitive practices. We all know about the behaviour of banks in exploiting customers and rigging markets, but there are many other examples, such as energy companies remaining opaque over pricing structures (rail companies and airlines do the same). Complex pricing systems have the effect of making customers pay higher prices than they need to unless they can find their way through the small print. Many of us will recognise the problem of trying to find the best return on our cash savings or the best annuity deal. It can become a full time occupation! Insurance companies are notorious for small print – literally. Tax avoidance and evasion has now been well documented. It is not victimless. This exploits those taxpayers who cannot or do not wish to engage in such practices. The list goes on and on. Recently joined is the Premier Football League whose vast and ever burgeoning income does not find its way into the hands of supporters, exhausted by ever rising ticket prices that take advantage of their loyalty, but instead finds its way to greedy players and their agents who earn lottery win sums every week but continue to beg for more. Good capitalism is simply the opposite. I would offer John Lewis as an example, but there are clearly others. I think Prêt à Manger has good practices as do some internet tech companies. These firms pay decent wages and have strong career development systems, are transparent to their customers and do recognise competition as a natural feature of capitalism. Good capitalism also consists of thousands of small firms who lack market power and so have to look after their customers and offer quality, who are unable to keep out competition and who are unable to hide their true profits in the interests of tax avoidance. They do not rig markets, they do not exploit their customers through complicated price structures or they would have no customers at all, and they cannot erect barriers to entry. It may be true that smaller firms pay low wages as there is so much pressure on their cost base and they may have to offer zero hours contracts but that is inevitable in such industries, but as full employment looms even these firms will be forced to pay good wages or face staff shortages. Now back to politics. The implication of all this is that I would like to see policy makers, of any party, recognise the difference between good and bad capitalism. It should not be a case of being pro or anti business, but pro good capitalists and anti bad capitalists. This should impact upon such issues as corporate taxation, market regulation, tax enforcement, consumer protection and labour practice legislation. If we turn to ideology, there has been an ideological consensus in the politics of the developed world since the 1980s that says that the state should not intervene in free markets as this has a distorting effect. Underpinning this is a simplistic belief that runs: ‘free market good, state intervention bad.’ Further, the answer to all the problems of modern capitalism – of the kind I have described above – is posited as more competition, not state intervention. Time and again such policies have failed. The banks are the classic example, as are energy companies. The problem here seems simple to me to be this: When a market fails, as many of the ones I describe have done, the answer cannot simply be more competition. Even if more competition can be created, a market prone to failing will continue to do so. Markets that work in the interests of stakeholders are self-evidently desirable, but those that are failing cannot be treated in the same way. What I would like to see is that the state should intervene when a market is failing and has been failing despite vain attempts to revive it. The problem of distorting the market by state intervention disappears when the market has already been distorted by the market power of large companies, often acting as cartels. So, why not a state bank to compete on a fair basis with the others but which is not exploitive? Why not have local authorities building affordable houses for sale to its deserving residents when private constructors constantly renege on their promises? Why not a state railway corporation offering transparent prices? Some of this will indeed require international co-operation as governments remain petrified that, if they regulate businesses, they will take their offices and their investment elsewhere. This is another reason why UK membership of the EU is so vital. The EU has a decent record of controlling monopoly power. It can do still more. So let’s see Labour as not anti-business, let them be pro good business.

Elective dictatorship revisited

The conservatives rightly claim a great victory in the election. They are, after all, back in government on their own. But did they really win? After all they only put on 0.8% from their proportion of the vote in 2010. They also benefited, it can be argued, not from Labour’s discomfort, but from the collapse of Liberal Democrat voting. It is true that they had to mount two might hurdles. One was the rise of Ukip and the other was the low expectations of their performance suggested by opinion polls. But they have been elected on only 36% of the vote. No one else has a right to govern, of course, so the rules of this game are being played out as normal. The Conservatives are the legitimate government for sure. But now let us consider the context of Lord Hailsham’s accusation that British government is an elective dictatorship. He made the remark in his Dimbleby lecture in 1976. At the time there was a Labour government with a wafer thin majority (Hailsham was a leading Conservative). He was bemoaning the fact that, as long as the government has a Commons majority, any majority, it can pass any legislation it wishes as long as the party whips do their work efficiently. His comments would therefore apply equally well to 2015. A Majority of 12 and yet the Conservative government is claiming the authority to carry out some pretty radical reforms, notably the abolition of the Human Rights Act and a law against organisations which threaten British values in someone’s judgment, greater devolution to Scotland and to English cities and deep cuts in some benefits. All this on 36% approval of the British electorate on a two thirds turnout. Do the Maths and we discover that only 24% of the adult population voted Conservative. Put another way, 76% did not vote Conservative. Then we can add the situation in Scotland where even David Cameron had accepted that his legitimacy is blown. Yet they legally claim a mandate to do virtually anything. This is not a partisan point. The same would apply to any other party, and even more so a minority government. Now on the EU there is to be a referendum – probably. Here legitimacy of the decision will be certain, a long as there is a decent turnout, that is. But in the current situation we really must ask ourselves whether there is a legitimate majority supporting the government’s programme. In particular should there be a referendum on the repeal of the HRA? True its introduction was never entrenched by a referendum (looking back, perhaps it ought to have been), but can a government, an elective dictatorship if you like, legitimately make such a constitutional change on the basis of a 12 seat majority and 36% of the popular vote.

The Milibands

Yes Steve Buckley, the Labour field of contenders does not look great. I heard today, rather second hand, I know, but...... David M is rather kicking his heels in the States and wants to be back. It is quite possible to be party leader and not an MP as Nicola proves. Who knows? There will be a vacant seat before long, no doubt, maybe Ed's?!!! I have also suggested in a tweet that maybe Labour and the Lib Dems should consider merging. Look at the manifestos; there is not much between them. Old Labour tribalists wouldn't like it, nor would traditional liberals, but time maybe to start with a clean page. At the moment the centre-left vote is being split. Roll on the new liberal,social alliance! As for David Cameron, I underestimated him and his advisers. They rather got it right and clearly succeeded in attracting defecting Lib Dem voters more effectively than Labour. On the other hand the Conservative share only rose by 0.8% since 2010. Enough, though, to bring in 25 more seats. Give him his due, Cameron said he would.

1992 all over again?

Well, this blog got it wrong, big time. My only comfort is, so did all the experts and pollsters too, until that last exit poll. I suspect that Balls' defeat late in the day is an indication that it was Labour's economic record that did it. If that is true the Conservative campaign strategy proved right in the end. One point that should not escape us is that this will be a blow to the SNP who will have little leverage in the new House of Commons. Sturgeon made a huge play of keeping the Tories out, but her partner, Labour, failed her. Another reason for the Scots to dislike Labour. That said, a new devolution, possibly federal, settlement is now required. Will the Conservatives seize the opportunity to create an English Parliament and keep Labour out for the foreseeable future? There are several uncanny similarities to 1992. Small majority, the eurosceptics still threatening the government from the right, Labour needing to find a new leader and re-invent itself, the Scottish problem looming again and a crisis over Europe. I am not going to speculate on the Labour leadership after calling the election wrong, except to say the potential field looks very thin, nor can I guess what the Lib Dems will do. So here we go for probably five years (surely the UK will vote to stay in the EU and Ukip will wither away?!) and let's watch out for child benefit changes despite the loose pledges to the contrary.

The Big Prediction

So here we go. The eve of the election and it’s time for predictions. McNaughtonspolitics is predicting this. Labour will be a whisker be the largest party, possible a dead heat but I am going for a small advantage. I’m going for Labour on 272, Conservative 270, Liberal Democrat 28, , SNP 52, PC 4. Ukip 3, Green 1 The rest, NI and others. More importantly, what will happen afterwards? Clearly, if Labour is the largest party they will be summoned to the palace and asked to form an administration, and Miliband will accept. I go along with the idea of a Labour/Lib Dem minority coalition, so there will be five days negotiation between the two parties followed by some kind of memorandum of agreement. That will add up to about 300 seats. Precise numbers don’t matter because the two will not be able to muster enough seats for a majority without SNP support. The Queen’s Speech will follow after private discussions with SNP, probably not publicised and even denied, this will be approved by a parliamentary majority as the SNP will not dare to bring down a prospective government. There will be further budget negotiations and, again, SNP will support the final version. Again the government will deny a deal with the SNP, but there will have been one privately. Thereafter the fun starts. If the Conservatives are the largest party, the scenario is less clear. My feeling is that, assuming the numbers don’t add up (i.e. Con/LD combined + possible DUP, forget Ukip) I think Cameron will go quickly and advise the Queen to summon Miliband. After that the scenario is as above. Longer term, I think a Labour government may last for one session and then engineer an election. In its first year it will pick the low hanging fruit and produce a raft of popular measures (bank levy and regulation, taxes on the wealthy, minimum wage increase, more devolution to Scotland etc. and only a few unpopular ones. By then Johnson will be Conservative leader. The election of 2016 will be interesting to say the least as Scottish independence will then be back in play (Scottish Parliament elections in 2016). For me, in such a story, the key question will be, has Miliband grown into the role of PM? A footnote. If Farage loses his seat and resigns, it’s goodbye to Ukip.

It's driving me mad! You too?

It’s driving me mad! You too? What am I talking about? It is the refusal of both Cameron and Miliband to answer questions about what will happen if they try to form a minority government or just possibly a coalition. This is outrageous arrogance on their part isn’t it? We all know the likely outcome is a hung parliament yet they insult us by claiming they are hoping for an outright majority. John Humphrys had it right when he asked Miliband this morning (May 4th) what he intended to do as it would inform the electorate before they cast their vote. Some people (not me as it happens) need to know what the Conservative or Labour leaders will do in a hung parliament because it will affect their choice. Come on. It’s obvious. While I’m on the subject of frustration, I am continually annoyed by Ed Miliband’s failure to articulate clearly what he meant when he said the last Labour government did not overspend. I know the correct answer, but he seems not to. The correct answer, from a Labour perspective at least, is that, yes, Labour increased the budget deficit significantly, but this was not wasted expenditure, much of it went on health, education and other public services. Had they not spent that money, these public services would have been in a desperate state and the next government would have had to pick up the tab. We as a country did have considerable debt but we also had a strong health and education system to show for it. The money was not frittered away. Why can’t Miliband explain that properly? It’s like this. Suppose a family had a child who became severely disabled and they were unable to access compensation or enough benefits to give that child a decent quality of life. The family has no resources, so they borrow a large amount of money that puts them into debt for the foreseeable future. Has that family overspent? Its debts have increased considerably, certainly, but was their spending justified? I will leave you to answer that.

Some election myths

One week to go before the general election and it might be worth having a look at some of the myths that the campaign has thrown up. The first is the, frankly absurd, notion that David Cameron should be more passionate. There have, in the past been passionate politicians, not least Margaret Thatcher and Tony Blair, but they were ideological thinkers, they had a clear vision of where they wanted to take the country so of course they were passionate. Nicola Sturgeon shows passion, but what could be more fundamental than her left wing stance on policy and her aspiration for Scottish independence? Cameron, like the other main party leaders, is essentially a technician who doesn’t really want to make fundamental changes, but rather promises to tinker with the system – the economy the welfare state, immigration and security etc. They are, basically plumbers sent for to fix the central heating. Add to this the fact that most One Nation conservatives like Cameron positively oppose the exercise of passion in politics (The great conservative philosopher of the mid twentieth century, Michael Oakeshott, once said that ‘politics should be a conversation, not an argument’) and we can see how nonsensical it is. So seeing Cameron adopt some kind of violent passion looks simply ridiculous. He’d do better doing what he appears best at – being calm and rational. The next myth is still being peddled by the lame duck Labour leader in Scotland, Jim Murphy. This is that a vote for the SNP is a vote for the Conservatives. Tosh. In Scotland if one votes for either Labour or the SNP it is an anti Conservative vote. The two parties will have to work together in parliament and every seat they win between them holds bac k Conservative influence. Labour cannot win an overall majority so it matters little whether seats in Scotland go to the SNP or to Labour. If Murphy hadn’t wasted his time on this ridiculous campaign, he might have prevented the virtual or actual total annihilation of his party. The third is that Nicola Sturgeon is some kind of female version of Genghis Khan. Formidable, fearless and fearsome she may be, but she is not about to hold the UK up to ransom. Like Salmond she is well used to governing as a minority and understands that, whatever positions are taken up in an election campaign, there have to be compromises if one wants to have influence in a hung parliament. Sturgeon and Salmond will find compromise positions, even on Trident (i.e. removing it from Scottish waters) and certainly on devolution. Finally there is the myth that not voting at all is a rational response to the poor state of the political class in the UK. Take away those who won’t vote because they don’t know anything that is going on beyond their front door – who really cares if the abstain it is probably desirable? – and we have the Brand followers. The problem is this. The abstainers say, with some justification, that politicians are damaged goods, cannot be trusted and are not proposing anything really meaningful. OK, that may be so, but it is wrong to say that, whoever gets elected, there will be no discernible difference. There are differences between the parties and every individual who knows anything about their proposals should be able to find at least one reason to support one party rather than another. I think what Brand is saying is that, by voting, we endorse the whole system. That is a legitimate position to take, but it has a fatal flaw. It is this: that we don’t know what the motivation behind abstaining is in each individual case. Is it ignorance, apathy, sheer bloody-mindedness or is it a protest? We know why Brand does not vote, but what about everyone else?

Negative campaigning

It seems that the Conservative Party is addicted to negative campaign. No matter how hard they try to kick the habit, and despite the warnings from people such as Lord Ashcroft, who is polling voters about their reaction to the campaign, they are still finding new reasons to criticise Labour. It began with criticism of Labour’s past economic record, but it seemed the voters had already factored that in. Then it was Miliband as potential prime minister. This has now abated as the Labour leader’s personal standing has begun to rise, not spectacularly, but in the ‘right’ direction. Now it is the SNP and the prospect of a kind of Faustian pact between Sturgeon and Labour. Ashcroft has reported some sort of pro Conservative reaction to this, but there is no real breakthrough. It is a strange phenomenon because if it really is the economy that will determine the outcome on May 7 the Conservatives are in a strong position, with solid economic growth, falling unemployment, rising living standards, low interest and inflation and lower taxes for lower income groups. But the Conservatives seem strangely coy over these achievements. The party also has some positive messages – a promised EU referendum, further inroads into the deficit, falling crime rates and plenty of major infrastructure projects in prospect to boost the economy further. And then there is Cameron and his personal ratings which are well ahead of the others. Strange days indeed.

Watch Out!

Is it my imagination or are the newspapers more panicky this time about the prospective result. The Mail and Telegraph, in particular, are particularly raucous in their partisanship, as is the Mirror on the other side. The Guardian trying to appear measured sometimes lets its mask slip and tries to counter the jibes of the Conservative Press. Just for fun then, I projected myself to the final week and imagined how the press on either side might react if their party looks like losing. First the Mail. It might have headlines and stories like this: MILIBAND BLOCKS INTRODUCTION OF PENNY-A-DAY CANCER CURE. It is reported that Miliband said at the end of a dinner party at the Royal Zoological Society that he wanted to stop cruel and unnatural experiments on sea slugs which might lead to a different way of testing possible experiments that may help researchers to speed up the testing of possible cancer cures..............Or maybe PM MILIBAND WOULD BRING IN ICY ARCTIC BLAST. A senior meteorologist has studied the behaviour of crows in the Outer Hebrides and has concluded that, on past data, whenever a Labour leader has become prime minister, the crows show signs of distress immediately followed by plunging temperatures. The meteorologist, who has farmed a croft in the Scottish Highlands for the past fifty years, insisted that.......... More likely, HOUSE PRICES SET TO PLUNGE UNDER MILIBAND...make up any old story of your own..... The Sun would direct its paranoia, for example, MILIBAND OFFERS MILLION POUND COUNCIL HOMES TO ISIS FIGHTERS AT £1 A WEEK. If becomes prime minister, radical jihadist, Red Ed has said he wants to reward returning British jihadis with homes confiscated from tax evaders, in recognition of their brave decision to quit the fighting in the Middle East and cause havoc here instead.......... Perhaps, LABOUR INSISTS ENGLISH SCHOOLCHILDREN TO LEARN SCOTTISH AS PART OF SNP PACT. Ed McMiliband, who has changed his name in recognition of his complete capitulation to SNP demands, has said that his multicultural agenda demands that all young people shall speak with Scottish accents so as not to offend the Scots....... How about, WELFARE SPONGERS TO BE OFFERED HOMES AT BUCK HOUSE IF LABOUR WINS CORRUPT POLL. Pretty obvious really......... On the other side, the Mirror might lead with, TORY TOFFS TO MAKE ETON EDUCATON FREE. The Bullingdon gang are planning to offer a free Eton education to all those earning over a £million a year, provided they can show they have paid not UK tax for at least five years........ Maybe a renewed attack on Boris, BONKING BORIS TO BECOME MINISTER FOR MORALITY UNDER TORIES. Posh toff Tories are planning a new government department in charge of the nation’s morality with Big Boris at the helm. Among the proposed policies is a law preventing rape charges being brought if the victim was wearing a skirt ending above the knee. It is understood that Cameron crony, Lord Clarkson of Detroit, recently ennobled, will join him as junior minister in charge of domestic violence issues.......... The more genteel Guardian would be more subtle, for example, LABOUR TO ABOLISH POVERTY. Within five weeks of a new Labour government poverty in Britain will be abolished. According to the left-leaning think tank, The Institute for Producing Dodgy Data, which has been accurate in its productions at least twice over the past forty years, said that Labour policies have been costed and will mean everyone will move to average earnings or more within five weeks........Perhaps, TORIES ADMIT RECESSION WAS THEIR FAULT. A senior unnamed Tory has leaked a memo, written on a serviette found in the bin at Macdonalds in Oldham and signed ‘Theresa’, clearly a reference to the Home Secretary. It read, ‘ It woz the bloody Tories wot caused me to lose my f******ing job.’ The Express will, I assume, urge us to support Ukip. How about a final headline, UKIP TO MAKE US ALL RICH – WHITE PEOPLE THAT IS. Nigel Farage has come up with an eleventh hour proposal to make all indigenous English people rich. All assets will be confiscated from anyone born outside England, or whose parents or grandparents were foreign. The proceeds will be given to the rich and the newly impoverished immigrants will be departed. End of. Watch out!

The Inheritance Tax Conundrum

The issue of inheritance tax has appeared in the election campaign, just when we thought it was gone. It promises to drive a considerable wedge between the parties of the right and those on the left. It is an interesting tax to consider, both politically and philosophically. Politically it is a double edged sword. It is one of those strange issues where even people who will probably never have to pay this tax (how many people will leave £325,000 as a single person, £650,000 as a couple?) nevertheless oppose it. Perhaps they aspire to one day accumulating such a legacy, perhaps they just think it is morally wrong. So reducing inheritance tax is potentially a popular idea. The current Conservative proposal to abolish the tax on family homes left to children up to £1 million in value chimes with a visceral reaction to the idea of taxing something as personal and sacred as the family home. So, it makes a great deal of sense. On the other hand the figure of one million, might be a mistake. The very words, one million creates a problem. It is only one step away from the word millionaire. So, it looks like a tax break for millionaires. It is not, in truth, but it appears that way. Most people will never have to pay this tax so won’t really understand how it work so it does look to them like a case of helping the rich. On a philosophical level inheritance tax is less defensible. In principle it seems desirable and equitable to tax unearned income rather than earned income. Those who receive a sizeable legacy have not earned it. It is a windfall for which they have probably done nothing save have the luck to be the beneficiaries of wealthy deceased people. OK? Well, be careful. Is it a tax on the person or people who have died, or is it a tax on their descendants? If it is a tax on the deceased t is indeed probably a tax on earned income. This is what is often claimed. Why should the money be taxed twice? Once when it was earned and again when it was left by the deceased. So the question is – who is paying this tax, the dead or the living? The press provide an interesting insight here. The papers who don’t like inheritance tax call it a ‘death tax’, implying it is taxing the dead. More neutral views call it by its name, inheritance tax. This implies it is a tax on those who inherit. My personal view is that the dead cannot pay tax and are past caring so it is a tax on the living. Therefore it is a good tax because it is on unearned income and is therefore not a disincentive to work and effort. It is also good because it is avoidable as long as one leaves one’s fortune to one’s descendants or friends at least seven years before one dies. So an avoidable tax on unearned income. Sounds good , but not everyone sees it this way. It will be interesting to see whether opinion polls suggest this is a popular or unpopular proposal.

Why not a Labour-Lib Dem coalition?

Nobody seems to be talking about the possibility of a Labour-Lib Dem coalition. This is understandable as the numbers don’t add up to an overall majority, but what if there were an open declaration by both parties that such a coalition may be formed? It is a logical pairing with broad agreement on most policies, certainly more logical than the Conservative-Lib Dem coalition proved. For example there could be agreement over Europe, the NHS, education and taxation, all fundamental issues. Even on Trident the Lib Dems look ready to compromise. So how could the two parties get their joint numbers up to say 330? Today, (April 10) some opinion polls are showing Labour gaining ground, (though still not in Scotland) so it could conceivably happen naturally, but this looks unlikely. So what to do if you are a supporter of either party? I suggest this: declare a possible coalition with a set of agreed fundamentals. Difficult for Labour as they’d have to admit they cannot win outright, but it would have to be done. This in itself may boost Lib Dem support and Labour too as it would allay fears of a Labour-SNP agreement, in other words the SNP would be outflanked. Add a commitment to granting taxation powers to Scotland and it may erode some SNP support in favour of Labour in Scotland. It would also open the door to some constituency agreements in Scotland, where some Labour candidates would not campaign against a possible Lib Dem winner and some Lib Dems would stand aside and let a Labour candidate defeat the SNP. Of course this won’t happen. The idea of hung parliaments is not yet established enough to allow politicians or the electorate to think flexibly enough. Then again, if mistakes like Michael Fallon’s disastrous remarks are repeated, anything is possible.

Why Sturgeon is popular

There is a great ennui settling again over the electorate in the UK. The three main party leaders are regarded with a degree of scepticism bordering on disrespect. Leaving aside their personal qualities (or failings) and leaving aside the ministrations of party spinners (very evident in the election debate) we should ask why this is so. After all, none of them are ‘bad’ people and they all seem reasonably sincere and the country is in a rather better state than the USA and most of the rest of Europe. We must look elsewhere for our answer. The Farage factor is easily dealt with. He says what he thinks and he is blunt and doesn’t tie up his statements in caveats and get-out clauses. We either like him or hate him, but none of us shrug our shoulders. Johnson also speaks his mind and shows himself as human by making mistakes and admitting them afterwards. Sturgeon, though, is a bigger mystery. She is more of a traditional ‘politician’ than Farage and Johnson. I think the secret of her new-found popularity lies in just one of her answers in the TV debate. Discussing tuition fees, Clegg admitted the mistake but failed to say he would try to put it right, Cameron said nothing save to say it was not a big problem, then Miliband promised to reduce them from £9,000 to £6,000. All very bland and undramatic. Sturgeon, in contrast, said her party had abolished them altogether in Scotland. Why? Because she BELIEVES in the PRINCIPLE of free education. As a Labour leader, Miliband OUGHT to believe in the same thing but clearly doesn’t, judging by his policy. In other words we like politicians who have PRINCIPLES and are willing to articulate them and, above all, implement them. This same analysis could be applied to other issues, including taxation, welfare, health issues and Europe. Just to contradict myself, Miliband does state clearly he believes in the EU and British membership of it (a belief shared by Cameron but he dare not state it). The problem for him is that few care about this belief. Many do care about education, free for all at the point of delivery. Just like health.

Sturgeon:An uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation.

The leak of the alleged remark by Nicola Sturgeon about preferring David Cameron as PM is a strange affair. First, of course, it might be nonsense, not a fake but a fairly meaningless footnote. If we look at the whole memo, we find that the offending remark is in the last paragraph, a rather casual addition to a memo about other matters. Here it is verbatim as reproduced in the Telegraph of April 2: “The Ambassador also had a truncated meeting with the FM [First Minister – Sturgeon] (FM running late after a busy Thursday…). Discussion appears to have focused mainly on the political situation, with the FM stating that she wouldn’t want a formal coalition with Labour; that the SNP would almost certainly have a large number of seats; that she had no idea ‘what kind of mischief’ Alex Salmond would get up to; and confessed that she’d rather see David Cameron remain as PM (and didn’t see Ed Miliband as PM material). I have to admit that I’m not sure that the FM’s tongue would be quite so loose on that kind of thing in a meeting like that, so it might well be a case of something being lost in translation.” The key words are “it might well have been a case of something lost in translation.” Indeed. I suspect Sturgeon said something disparaging about Miliband and possibly said Cameron would be a better PM. This is not the same as saying she would ‘prefer’ Cameron. It was therefore misquoted. So it is a misquote of a Chinese whisper possibly lost in translation. Mmmmmm. The memo is incomplete too. A memo has an author and a destination. Neither is present. I don’t expect a newspaper to reveal its source but without its destination we don’t really know what its motivation might be. Now we turn to the issue of corroboration. After the Gilligan affair we assumed that newspaper would not report such speculation unless there was more than one source. Here there is one source of the story and the original reporter of the conversation has denied its authenticity. So now we have an uncorroborated, denied, misquote of a Chinese whisper lost in translation. It’s beginning to look like a dodgy dossier! Finally, let us suppose it has some element of truth. Whom does it benefit? It is in the Telegraph so we naturally assume the leak was designed to help the Conservatives. Closer inspection, however, suggests it could be an advantage to Labour. After all, if Sturgeon appears to favour Cameron, that will help Labour in Scotland. It doesn’t help the Conservatives. They are not going to win any seats in Scotland anyway. Perhaps it is a double bluff, i.e. the leak was by a Labour supporter. Think about it. In a couple of weeks it will all be forgotten I suspect. Yesterdays; news, tomorrow’s chip paper.

A lot of fuss over nothing

So what was all the fuss about? In the TV election debate there were no train wrecks,, nobody starred, we learned little we didn’t already know. There is some talk this morning about Nicola Sturgeon’s performance, which was clear and self-assured and radical. I have written before in this blog that the SNP, on economic and social policy, is just a slightly radical version of Labour, so a Labour-SNP coalition or, more likely, a semi formal agreement to support, could be quite stable and logical. True, it would have problems over devolution, constitutional arrangements and nuclear weapons, but on domestic policy it would work. Those who were pleasantly surprised by her were probably mostly Labour supporters who feel the party is not radical enough, so she fed their appetite for a break from cosy, consensual Westminster politics. So too did the Greens, though Bennet’s performance was less assured. Caroline Lucas would have done better, but I suspect Green supporters don’t care too much about slickness. Plaid’s contribution was, as expected, homely but weak. Farage was Farage. His supporters will feel reassured by his message and his detractors will have their view confirmed. Miliband was also Miliband and I feel few will have changed their minds about him. Within his limitations he did well. Cameron looked on the defensive, not surprising as he had six opponents and had a record to defend, but he did well in a difficult position. Clegg was clearly discomforted by not knowing whether to defend the coalition or complain about his partner. So, all rather predictable. The debate changed little and I’ll be surprised if the upcoming opinion polls don’t reflect that.

That Telegraph Letter

The Telegraph letter signed by a hundred business people and published on the opening day of the official election campaign was a clever piece of orchestration. It may well have been instigated by some of the signatories, but I have little doubt that Conservative HQ had a hand in it. If they didn’t they were asleep. It does raise a big question. This concerns the image of the Conservative Party, and I have to admit that the BBC’s brilliant team of reporters on the election got this right. On the one hand it looks a useful way of demonstrating how a change of government might jeopardise the economic recovery. On the other it may reinforce the conception that the Conservatives are the ‘party of big business’, the same big business that, in the form of the banks, caused the crash, and may be seen as exploiting both workers (zero hours contracts) and consumers (energy companies, oil giants etc.). It can play both ways. In the end, I suppose, one suspects it merely reinforces people’s existing prejudices rather than changing their minds. Labour’s rather muted response was probably the result of lack of preparation (though this kind of thing always happens before elections), but also their morbid fear of offending business people. The Conservatives have an advantage here in that this does not concern them. They are happy to support the business lobby because they see it as the engine of recovery. Labour is inevitably more hesitant, just as it is with unions. My gut feeling is that it will have no real effect but it is a dangerous game to play. We may see some results tonight in the great debate. All Cameron’s opponents are likely to seize on it as an example of Conservatives governing for the few rather than the many. Incidentally, if I were a Labour strategist, I’d be checking how many of the signatories pay their full whack of UK taxes. While I am on – a semi related matter. Who is Raheem Sterling trying to kid? It’s not about the money! I ask you. If he wants to play at the top he needs to brush up on his Spanish, and I say this as a Liverpool supporter!

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.