Denying history

Tweet

 

One of the oldest ploys of colonial and imperial powers is to deny the existence of other nations which might be in any way inconvenient to them - by, for instance, daring to occupy territory in an area coveted by the colonial power. It’s often accompanied by an argument that the people concerned had no meaningful history before they were colonised. It's an approach which has been on display today from the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, who said that Ukraine “… does not have a history without the Russian people, none at all”. It’s an arrogant and dismissive thing to have said, but it reminded me of the Welsh politician who said that “…between the mid-sixteenth century and the mid-eighteenth century Wales had practically no history at all, and even before that it was the history of rural brigands who have been ennobled by being called princes”. Lavrov is clearly a mere amateur; such a statement would have been much more effective had he found a tame Ukrainian to say it. But perhaps the Ukrainians have more self-respect.

Progressive access to privileges

Tweet

I’m not sure that anyone knows any more what Labour’s position is as a party on immigration and freedom of movement.  It’s one of the few things on which Corbyn has actually been fairly clear and consistent; his argument that treating it as a numbers game is a silly approach is one with which I concur.  I also agree with him that tackling the way in which unscrupulous employers exploit migrants, and find ways of paying them less than the minimum wage would be likely to reduce immigration numbers in itself.  (Although I disagree with his apparent belief that controlling numbers of immigrants is a reason for doing that – I think ending exploitation is a sufficient justification in itself.)

But he’s regularly being undermined by Labour MPs who are so afraid of losing votes and seats that they are using UKIP language and policies themselves.  And as we’ve seen this week, some are desperately keen to ‘bounce’ him into changing his position.  In the process, of course, they strengthen the narrative that immigration ‘needs’ to be controlled.  But what has struck me is the extent to which Corbyn’s almost honourable stance on the issue has been described as vague and unclear, because he refuses to say what he will do to reduce immigration as a result of rejecting the whole premise of the question. 

It’s a classic example of the Overton window in operation, and the media – including the so-called impartial BBC – are restricting debate to a narrow band rather than accepting that there are opinions which lie outside it.  So, as far as those questioning Corbyn are concerned, immigration is a problem, it needs to be reduced and because he won’t say how or by how many he will reduce it, he’s being vague or evasive.  It isn’t that Corbyn hasn’t tried very hard to be clear and consistent; it’s rather that his views don’t fall within the narrow window in which debate is currently ‘allowed’ to take place. 

I’m sure that the UKIP/Tory/Labour mainstream/media consensus is more than happy to exclude any views which don’t fit their own preconceptions, but it doesn’t make for a debate in which the question is properly and rationally considered.  If only those who agree that immigration is a problem are to be given any credibility, no real alternatives will ever be heard.  And that, in turn, strengthens the boundaries of the window.  No surprise that immigration ends up being seen as a ‘problem’ even where in those areas where there is none.

Sticking with the Labour Party and immigration, I was well and truly gobsmacked listening to Kinnock Junior pontificating on the matter on the BBC on Tuesday.  He sat there, as a representative of the Labour Party – the self-proclaimed party of working people - arguing for a two-tier approach to the issue under which the high-paid would have complete freedom of movement whilst the lower orders would be subject to restrictions and quotas.  When Nye Bevan said that nothing was too good for the working class, he didn’t add a list of exceptions, or talk about a two-tier system of access to privileges; but his successors clearly believe that there are some things to which mere oiks should not aspire.  Still, it’s a timely reminder to those who keep banging on about a ‘progressive’ alliance of just what ‘progressive’ means to the twenty-first century Labour Party.

Conflicting arguments

Tweet

There are many things for which Baron Kinnock is well-known.  Support for devolution, of anything, to Wales is not prominent amongst them.  So it was hardly a surprise that he spoke against devolution of income tax powers to Wales without a referendum.  But it was the arguments he used which struck me.

On the one hand, he claimed that this would "very profoundly change the way in which Wales is governed", whilst on the other, he said that the additional power was being offered in the "certain and cynical knowledge" that it would not be exercised.  Whilst I tend to agree with him on the second point, am I the only one left wondering how a power which will never be exercised can make a profound difference to the way Wales is governed?

Veterans and roadblocks

Tweet The Labour leadership contest seems destined to provide more fun for the spectators such as myself for the remaining days before the result is announced.  Last Saturday, we had the latest Blair attempt to assist stop Corbyn’s campaign.

It demonstrated yet again (not that we needed a further demonstration) Blair’s unerring ability to present his own opinions as incontrovertible fact and everyone else’s as fantasy.  He knows that he’s right; no evidence is therefore required (although if really pressed, he could probably find someone to draw up a dossier ‘proving’ his case).

He lambasts those who would fight an election on a manifesto similar to that of 1983 when Labour lost the election, demanding instead that members support one of the three candidates offering a version of the highly successful 2010 manifesto, on which Labour obviously won the election (although I must have missed that result somehow).

My favourite passage was this one:

“It is like a driver coming to a roadblock on a road they’ve never travelled before and three grizzled veterans say: “Don’t go any further, we have been up and down this road many times and we’re warning you there are falling rocks, mudslides, dangerous hairpin bends and then a sheer drop.”

The three ‘grizzled veterans’ are obviously Blair, Brown and Kinnock, but another part of history that I seem to have missed is the bit where all three of them in turn tried the Jeremy Corbyn route and found it wanting.  The tricks age plays with the memory, eh?  But in the version of history that I seem to remember living through, all three of the grizzled veterans ‘knew’ how bad the road was without ever needing to try it. 

I can understand his frustration though - why, oh why do these people not simply believe what they’re told by those who’ve never, ever been caught out making anything up?

Hain as the new Kinnock?

Tweet The collapse of a tired and worn-out government is not a pretty sight. The causes are usually multiple, although those with a particular axe to grind will always blame the one which fits best with their own perspective on events. The obvious comparison between current events and previous examples is the end of the Major government in 1997; but there are also some parallels with the end of Labour's last period in office in 1979.

It's interesting that in both those years, there was also a referendum on devolution; and in that respect at least, history seems likely to repeat itself again – 2010 seems likely to be both a year in which a tired old government is removed and a year for holding another referendum on the governance of Wales. It's yet to be made clear which will come first.

In 1997, the referendum which was so narrowly won followed the election of the new government; whilst in 1979, it preceded the defeat of the old. From a London perspective, I suspect that the influence of that failed referendum in 1979 on the results of the general election is underestimated. The referenda were only held in Wales and Scotland, after all; and both countries remained more loyal to Labour than did England, despite the Tories reaching double-figures here in Wales.

But although the referendum might have looked peripheral from London, there was little doubt that months of internecine warfare did not help the Labour Party. And that sort of warfare sapped the strength of the party as a whole, not just in Wales and Scotland.

A future Labour leader – widely regarded as one of their rising stars at the time – was pitted against the official line of his party in implementing a policy for which the rank and file had voted. I really don't think that Kinnock has been given the credit / blame (choose according to perspective) which he deserves for his role in ushering in the Thatcher era.

At first sight, any comparison between Hain and Kinnock seems unlikely and unfair – Hain is, after all, a self-avowed devophile, whereas Kinnock was anything but. And yet...

A situation seems to be developing where Hain (although I'm not sure that many would still consider him to be a rising star) is positioning himself in opposition to a clear pledge given by his party (as a result of a vote in a special conference, not just a leadership pronouncement) as part of the One Wales agreement.

He claims, of course, that his opposition is based on a pragmatic assessment of the probable result; but this seems to be based largely on the view that his own assessment is more reliable than that of the opinion polls, or of anyone else. But the similarity with the events of 1979 is that Hain, like Kinnock before him, is in danger of doing more damage to his own party than to his political opponents.