When Labour's self-image clashes with reality

Tweet

 

Last week, the new PM instructed his cabinet to “stop assuming that decisions belong in Whitehall by default”, according to a Downing Street source quoted in the Times (paywall). The source went on to add, “Departments will now have to justify why a power should stay at the centre rather than being transferred to a local area”. Perhaps the new Secretary of State for Wales was asleep during that part of the meeting, but his statement that he is not yet "entirely convinced" of the case for giving more powers to the Welsh government, although he remains "open to the conversation" sounds an awful lot like an assumption that powers should remain where they are unless a convincing case is made otherwise – almost the exact opposite of his boss’s instruction.

It’s possible, of course, that Burnham never intended that his new policy should apply to the national governments in Wales and Scotland – for him devolution is all about the powers of local mayors; and his record to date of understanding the difference between those national parliaments on the one hand and regional mayors on the other is not good. It’s more likely, though, that we’re just seeing two different versions of the Labour Party. There is the image that they want us to believe: a party committed to localism, empowering communities and their representatives to take the best decisions for their areas, and then there’s the traditional version with which we are all too familiar in Wales: a centralised and centralising party which wants to keep all power in its own hands. Kinnock is simply presenting the well-established reality; those who fall for the Burnham rhetoric will inevitably end up disappointed.

By-election significance isn't about competing brands of vanilla ice cream

Tweet

 

With the votes counted and the dust settling, Andy Burnham won yesterday’s Makerfield by-election by a large majority. To what extent this was a personal vote for the man rather than the party (‘vote Labour to get the Labour PM out’ is an unusual campaign strategy, to say the least) is not clear. I’ve always tended to the view that personalities don’t have a huge impact on election results at parliamentary level, but all rules have their exceptions and the circumstances and extent of coverage in this case may have enhanced the impact of the individual. If individuals really do make a difference, then it certainly helped that Reform Ltd chose a walking car-crash as their candidate, a man whose past comments made him an easy target. A cynic might even suggest that Farage would prefer Labour to stick with Starmer. Whatever, the fact is that Burnham is now in Westminster, and expectations are high that the starting gun will soon be fired on either a Labour leadership contest or else a coronation for the man from Manchester. Whatever gloss attaches to the Burnham name now may well be tarnished by the forthcoming mayoral by-election, which Reform Ltd have a reasonable chance of winning based on the local council elections, even if the bookies currently narrowly favour Labour; but maybe he’ll have staged his coup before that can happen.

The media are painting the Burnham bandwagon as a virtually unstoppable force, ushering in a new government and a new era. I’m not so sure. Burnham is undoubtedly a better communicator than the incumbent, although that isn’t exactly a high bar. The question is about how different he will be in practice. On that score, the omens are not good. He has already committed to maintaining the arbitrary fiscal rules drawn up by Rachel Reeves, and the appointment of a set of deeply conservative financial advisers to support him augurs badly. It looks as though the neoliberal agenda of continued wealth concentration is likely to continue unabated, and he is tying his own hands to do little more than tinker at the edges. Those sunlit uplands aren’t getting any closer. Burnham vs Starmer is politics as ice cream flavours, except the choice is limited to different brands of vanilla.

To my mind, the more significant, not to say worrying, by-election result yesterday was the one in Aberdeen South, where the SNP lost a seat to the Tories. The significance isn’t in the SNP losing, although that’s unwelcome, or even in the Tories winning, although that goes against the run of play. It is, rather, in the basis of the political upset, which is all about the oil and gas industry. It’s an issue that the SNP have not handled particularly well, but the outcome suggests that voters in Aberdeen have fallen for the snake oil being peddled by the Tories (as well as other parties of the ‘right’), namely the idea that we can both secure the planet’s future for coming generations and at the same time use all available resources with no concern for tomorrow. It isn’t just a problem in Aberdeen. Those who would deny the evidence of anthropogenic climate change have seen an opportunity to persuade voters to support them: after all, what’s not to like about a politician who tells you that you can do what you like today and you don’t need to worry about future consequences? Aided by a dumbed-down and lazy media which reports the debate as a “he said, she said” question rather than seeking out facts and scientific consensus, alongside echo-chamber social media, they are pushing against an open door.

Perhaps our end will come not with a bang or indeed any type of sudden event, but in the fug of a long drawn-out party.

Irrelevance may be infectious

Tweet

 

If there is a single UK politician who should understand what political irrelevance looks and feels like, it is surely ex-PM Tony Blair, and it’s tempting to dismiss his critique of the way the UK is becoming irrelevant under the leadership of his own party on that basis. That would, though, miss the point, because for all the robust rebuttals of that critique by current-day Labour figures, the whole episode serves to emphasise not the difference between the Blair generation and the Starmer generation but the intrinsic similarities.

It is clear, for instance, that both what Blair had to say and what Starmer has been doing are predicated on an idea of the UK as a great global power, with influence way beyond its size and economic importance to the world. It’s a sort of post-imperial delusion on the part of people who can’t quite get their heads around the idea of the UK as a medium-sized offshore European archipelago, and expect the rest of the world to somehow take them at their own evaluation of their relevance.

Some have been surprised at the similarity between the responses of Burnham and Streeting, with their insistence that the idea of inequality is missing from Blair’s response. But both men, like Blair himself, are wedded to the neoliberal economic creed that ‘the markets’ can solve every problem and that governments must do, fiscally, whatever they interpret the bond markets as demanding. Increasing inequality is not only baked into that creed, it is its main driving force. In his failure to pretend that he thinks it important, Blair is simply being more honest than either. There is no great ‘battle of ideas’ going on between the Labour leadership hopefuls, just a beauty contest between two over-ambitious wannabe Messiahs. Irrelevant is quite an apt description.

The five stages of Messiahdom

Tweet

 

Political parties finding themselves in difficulty whilst retaining an absolute conviction that they are right about everything have a tendency to start to believe in the idea of a Messiah. If only, the story goes, we had a different leader, all would be well. That’s the first stage of messiahdom.

The second stage comes when they alight upon the Chosen One. He (and it’s invariably a ‘he’) might not be immediately available: perhaps he’s overseas or at the very least stuck in political exile in the frozen and inhospitable north. These are simply obstacles to be overcome.

The third stage is when the Chosen One himself starts to believe that he really is the Messiah, the one the whole world has been waiting for, and the only one who can put right those things which need to be put right and lead his party to the sunlit uplands. That seems to be about the point at which the Labour Party has now arrived.

The fourth stage is the anointment of the new leader, and it’s the trickiest of all. It’s far from clear at this point whether Labour will overcome this particular hurdle. There will be those who lay obstacles in his route, such as re-opening a debate which makes it harder to persuade ordinary people outside the party to vote for him, whilst smiling sweetly and uttering welcoming words. Maybe his silvery northern tongue will win round the doubters, both inside the party membership and amongst the wider electorate, maybe not. I have a suspicion that at least some will feel more than a little p****d off at being taken for granted in the power games being played with and around them.

Whether the Labour Party gets through stage 4 or not might be an open question, but if they do, then stage 5 has a degree of inevitability about it. This is when it becomes clear that he’s not the Messiah at all, just a very naughty boy. Heroes almost invariably turn out to have feet of clay. The chances that a change of leadership will solve the problems of the Labour Party are slim; the historical record (particularly over the past decade) does not exactly convince me that switching out the person at the top will change any of the fundamentals, even if it may deliver a short term boost based more on hope than experience. A glib tongue and a chameleon-like ability to change position are no substitute for substance, and a few years spent in the political wilderness do not necessarily equip someone to succeed in the top job.

The potential for doing more harm than good is high, particularly if he falls off the horse at the next hurdle. Still, as spectator sports go, it’s better than a lot of politics.

Experience of failure is not the killer qualification as which some see it

Tweet

 

Experience is an odd commodity. As a generalization, most of us might expect that someone who has a lot of experience of doing something will be better at it than someone who has none, but it doesn’t always work that way. One of the reasons why some people end up doing the same job for many, many years is that they really aren’t very good at it. Peter’s Principle (“In a hierarchy individuals tend to rise to their levels of incompetence”) applies. I once interviewed someone for a job who claimed to have twenty years’ experience, but when we questioned him it turned out that he really had one year’s experience repeated twenty times. Experience is not only about duration – it’s also about depth and breadth. And experience of repeated failure without learning from mistakes made is a handicap, not a qualification.

The First Minister claimed this week that Labour should stay in power because it is the only party with previous governing experience in Wales. Even if it didn’t effectively amount to an argument that Labour should therefore enjoy perpetual power (because no-one will ever be able to gain that experience if we accept the argument), it’s a curious claim to make. In the first place, whilst some of the lessons learned from experience can be passed on after a fashion, ‘experience’ itself is personal to the experiencer. In the second place, ‘parties’ don’t have experience of government, it’s the ministers (who are often in any post for only a comparatively short time) who do; parties, as institutions, tend not to be very good at passing lessons on, which is one of the reasons why new generations of politicians often repeat the mistakes of the past. In the third place, many of those within Labour who possess this magical experience are either standing down in this election, or else at risk of defeat anyway. In the fourth place, whilst not everything that the Labour Government has done can fairly be described as a disaster (whatever their opponents might say), and there are often mitigating arguments based on relative incomes, ages and health, the objective evidence surely means that there are very few who would look at the last 27 years and see nothing but outstanding success; experience of failure may not be quite the qualification as which the First Minister apparently sees it. Finally, the institution which is supposed to be the guardian and repository of experience and its lessons isn’t the party, or even the ministers, but the apolitical civil service – which will still be there after May 7 to serve the new ministers.

I’m not sure that “desperate” – the headline accusation lobbed by Plaid – is an entirely fair description of the tactic by Labour. The subtext is surely a much more powerful condemnation: Inability to comprehend any alternative approach, complete failure to understand that voters in Wales want ‘change’ (even if they don’t all want the same change), and a general weariness with the apparent inertia of our political systems and structures. Our best hope for the outcome on 7 May is a government composed solely of independence-supporting parties. It’s hard to envisage any government which includes the attitudes currently being displayed by Labour having the vision and the energy to do anything sufficiently different.

Are the parties fighting the last war?

Tweet

 

It’s difficult to know how seriously we should treat any individual opinion poll. Different organisations use different methods, particularly when it comes to ‘weighting’ to try and ensure that the sample is representative. But when multiple polls by different organisations over a lengthy period show broadly consistent trends, it’s reasonable to suppose that they are telling us something about what is happening. In the case of the upcoming Senedd elections, I’m still struggling to believe how well in the one case, and how badly in the other, Reform Ltd and the Labour Party are doing. Whilst I can’t simply ignore the data-driven evidence in front of us, I’ll admit that, for someone who spent decades campaigning door to door, the extent and speed of the change is something I’m struggling to understand and accept. It somehow doesn't 'feel' right, and evidence which contradicts experience is always a difficult thing.

Once we get to a situation where there are two obvious front-runners, it’s probably inevitable that those two will start trying to ‘squeeze’ the votes of the other parties by presenting the outcome as a binary choice. That doesn’t mean that it isn’t intensely disappointing. In most of the campaigns I ever fought, I was more of a squeezee than a squeezer, left trying to convince people to vote for what they wanted most rather than against what they wanted least. So-called tactical voting is harder to determine under the new voting system for the Senedd elections, since it will probably only really have an impact on the sixth, or at best fifth and sixth, seats in any constituency, and it’s really hard to predict what will happen as we get down to that level of vote counting. Some of the politicians try to tell us that the new system makes every vote count, but it really isn’t true. Anyone voting for a party (or independent candidate) receiving less than around 10-12% of the vote in a constituency will effectively be, in the eyes of those trying to use the squeezing tactic, ‘wasting’ their vote; such votes will have no impact on the outcome of the election. Denial of the opportunity to register a second or third choice is my main criticism of the new system.

The question isn’t just about the mechanics and technicalities, however. I’ve long wondered just how effective the pressure to choose between Labour and Tory has been or, rather, to what extent the polarisation of electoral politics in the UK between the two largest parties was down to this tactic as opposed to other factors. Purely on the numbers, more recent elections show an increasing tendency away from a two-party polarisation – if it did work in the past, it hasn’t worked so well recently. Not only is it essentially a negative approach, but to the extent that it did work at all, it was never based on any careful analysis of opposing manifestos before choosing the lesser of two evils – it was far more visceral than that. A hatred of ‘the Tories’ on the one side and of ‘the Socialists’ on the other was always a substitute for proper debate between alternative visions for the future. Perhaps the fact that the ‘alternatives’ were generally not that different when analysed more objectively helped that framing. Whether either Plaid or Reform Ltd attract that sort of folk history-based hatred to a sufficient degree (outside the bubble in which the political anoraks live) is surely an open question. 'Stopping Reform' may not be quite the killer line that some seem to think.

They say that generals always prepare to refight the last war rather than the one that might actually happen, and I can’t help wondering if adopting a tactic based on what has historically believed to have been the case and trying to apply it in an entirely different scenario isn’t acting in a similar manner.

Labour needs more than a better story-teller

Tweet

 

Nobody really knows how much impact an individual has on the outcome of an election. I can say from experience as a candidate that a number of electors will tell candidates something along the lines of ‘I don’t usually vote for your party, but I’m going to vote for you’. I can also say from experience as a canvasser on behalf of other candidates that a similar number of electors will tell canvassers something along the lines of ‘I usually vote for your party, but I won’t vote for X’. Whether they net down to zero is an unanswered – and unanswerable – question, but the overall effect is that most candidates (guilty as charged!) end up believing that their own personality and ability is having a greater effect than it actually is. What we simply can’t do is run the same election twice and see what the impact of different candidates might be. Martin Shipton, on Nation.Cymru, wrote a timely reminder last week about the dangers of believing in political Messiahs.

It’s clear that Andy Burnham, to say nothing of his friends and supporters, believes that he is uniquely placed to win the pending by-election in Manchester – or would be, if he were allowed to stand. Those same friends and allies are now warning of the dire consequences of blocking his candidature, claiming that the seat will be lost to Labour as a result. There is a danger, for Labour, of it becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, which will leave Burnham and pals on the sidelines declaring that it all could have been so different if only he’d been allowed to stand. He might well have lost anyway, of course; which outcome we choose to believe depends on the extent to which we believe that the personality and profile of candidates makes a net difference in one direction or the other. In blocking the candidature of one individual, Sir Starmer and his allies might well have blocked one potential source of challenge at the expense of making a challenge from another direction even more probable. It was a gamble either way.

For those of us not party to the drama, intrigue, and machinations of the Labour Party at its worst, the bigger question is about policy rather than personality. Clearly, Burnham is a more effective communicator than Starmer, although most would probably agree that that is not a particularly high bar. But how different is he really in terms of a policy agenda? Not as much as the spin suggests, would be my assessment. That is the real problem for Labour – they’re so committed to their self-imposed fiscal rules that a minor tweak to those rules would make little real difference; they need to do more than tell the story a bit better. Those who are arguing that the answer is a change of leader are asking the wrong question.

Farage is the consequence of limited ambition

Tweet

 

The owner and proprietor of Reform Ltd seems rather pleased that so many people are referring to him as a racist based on the overt racism he allegedly displayed as a schoolboy half a century ago. His argument is that it increases the probability that racist voters (or, to use the term which he seems to prefer, “our core support”) will vote for his company in a future election. It should be no surprise either that overt expressions of racism or non-denial denials thereof would motivate racists to vote for a racist, nor that so many of those most likely to vote for Reform fall into that category. He might choose his words ever so slightly more carefully these days, but no-one who listens to what he says can be in much doubt about his distaste for foreigners, particularly those of a different hue or religion or who dare to speak a language other than English.

The question is about how to respond. If calling him out as a racist solidifies his core support, does that mean we should all cease calling out his racism? Part of the answer to that is that, outside what he calls his ‘core support’, there are many people who are not racist: contrary to what some seem to believe, voting for Farage doesn’t necessarily make someone a racist. There must be at least some in that category who will be deterred by a better understanding of the nature of what it is that they are planning to vote for. But more widely than that, failure to address expressions of racism tends to normalise those views, and that, in turn, shifts the mainstream of political discourse towards, rather than away from, Farageism.

In effect, normalising Farage’s political views is exactly what the leadership of Labour (to say nothing of the Tories) has been doing for some time. Building a tolerant society depends, ultimately, not on what politicians do or say, but on building a wider consensus in society. But building consensus around the type of society which we might wish to see is a project which politicians, and especially Labour ones, have long since abandoned in favour of building a coalition of voters, whatever their views, which is large enough to secure power. Providing politicians with careers who can then exercise the power of the state is a much narrower project, and will change little. That does, though, seem to be the limit of their ambition.

Labour forgetting their roots. Again.

Tweet

 

In the late nineteenth century, around the time that Marx was busily writing his most famous work, the average length of a working week was around 62 hours, with the working day often as long as 12 hours and child labour commonplace, although from 1870 children aged 8-13 were allowed to work only half time in order to fit in the required 10 hours a week of education. The steady reduction in the number of hours which people have been required to work each day/week has been a long battle reflecting the power struggle between capital and labour.

The roots of the British Labour Party lie deep in the conflict between capital and labour over working hours, wages, and working conditions, but it’s a background whose shadow is almost imperceptible in today’s Labour Party. Take today’s broadside by ‘Labour’ minister Steve Reed against local authorities which are moving towards a four day working week. Councils which do not shackle their staff to their desks for seven and a half hours per day five days per week could be classified by him as ‘failing authorities’ if he perceives that the staff are doing “part-time work for full-time pay”. It’s an attitude which assumes that there is a ‘right’ number of hours to justify a full time salary. It ignores the fact that reducing hours without reducing pay has been a core element of the aspirations of workers for generations. And, even though he’s talking about the public sector here, it’s an attitude which puts him firmly in the camp of the capitalist class, which has always resisted any reduction in working hours. His party’s founders must truly be rotating at speed wherever they lie.

Peas in a pod

Tweet

 

Yesterday, the owner and proprietor of Reform 2025 Ltd revealed that he thinks the national minimum wage is too high for younger people and should be cut.  He has also previously talked about cutting benefits. With their shared determination to reduce the income and spending power of those on the lowest income in society, in purely economic terms Reform, Labour and the Tories are increasingly looking like peas in a pod. There is another thing they all share as well – a belief that the answer to everything is economic growth. How they reconcile that desire with the desire to reduce the purchasing power of millions of people is one of life’s great mysteries. Because here’s the thing – if you want consumption-led growth, people have to be able to consume, and that means having the wherewithal to buy goods and services.

Instead, they share a strange belief that enabling employers to reduce wage costs and freeing them from regulatory concerns will enable them to cut prices, thus making their goods and services more affordable. They simply don’t understand that making the lives of more people more precarious is a restraint on growth. They also seem to be blind to the experience that shows that employers reducing costs are more likely to simply declare larger profits than to cut prices.

It goes to the heart of one of the big contradictions of capitalism itself. Whilst individual capitalists want to keep their labour costs as low as possible to maximise their own profits, they also need other employers to keep wages as high as possible so that people can buy those things from which the cost-cutting capitalists wish to extract their profit. The idea, which seems to be deeply imprinted into the capitalist brain, that workers and consumers are two entirely separate groups and that impoverishing one of those groups has no impact on the other is sheer madness. It’s also what drives UK economic policy.

The danger hasn't gone away

Tweet

 

As the dust settles in Caerffili, there is widespread relief that the threatened victory for Reform Ltd didn’t happen, despite what some of the polls suggested. But whether it really signifies a victory for ‘progressive’ views over conservative ones is rather harder to determine. One simplistic analysis I’ve seen suggests that adding the Plaid, Green, Labour, and Lib Dem vote percentages together and comparing that with the total of Reform Ltd, Tories and UKIP gives a ratio of 61% to 38%, a very comfortable margin. (It’s not entirely clear where Gwlad fits in this analysis, but at 0.3% of the vote, it’s hardly a significant factor. Where the Lib Dems sit is another variable, it may depend on who you speak to and whether there’s an ‘R’ in the month, but again, at 1.5% it’s not a huge factor.)

Everything depends, though, on whether those who voted for the Labour candidate can really be seen as ‘progressively minded’ voters. On matters such as immigration, climate change and economics, Sir Starmer’s Labour is moving ever closer to the Reform/Tory position; in policy terms they don’t deserve to be included on the same side of the balance as Plaid/ Green. If their 11% gets moved from one column into the other, the result looks very different. Plaid and Green on 48.9% compared to Reform/Tory/UKIP/Labour on 49.2% is no longer a victory of any sort, let alone a sweeping one.

We don’t know what exactly happened to Labour’s traditional vote, but we can assume that some stayed at home, rather than voting at all. Of the rest, the more ‘progressive’ elements may well have switched to Plaid as a block on Reform Ltd. But we also know that there has been movement from Labour to Reform across the UK; there’s no good reason to assume that some of that didn’t happen in Caerffili. Not all Labour voters are as ‘progressive’ as myth and wishful thinking might suggest. Those who were left are probably Labour’s hard core – ‘My party, right or wrong’ – and are, at the least, generally content to go along with Starmer. That gives no reason to place them in the ‘progressive’ column.

There is a danger of complacency – because Caerffili sent Reform Ltd packing, maybe they’re not the threat many feared. But that complacency is based on an outdated and romantic view of the average Welsh voter as inherently ‘left’ of the average English voter. The views of Reform Ltd, whether expressed directly by them, or by the Tory and Labour parties rushing to ape them, have taken root more than we might care to admit. The danger hasn’t gone away.

A convenient lie

Tweet

 

One of the convenient lies we are told on a regular basis is that governments and politicians make the laws, but the way in which those laws are enforced is ‘an operational matter’, entirely in the hands of individual police forces, who set their own priorities when it comes to using the limited resources allocated to them by those same governments and politicians. Thus it was parliament, at the behest of the Home Secretary, which declared that showing any sort of support for Palestine Action was itself a terrorist act, punishable by up to 14 years in prison, but it was the Metropolitan Police who decided that this was such a high priority that it justified arresting over 500 people, many of them for doing little more than holding up a placard, and then bailing them on suspicion of terrorism.

Maybe the Home Secretary, an authoritarian to her fingernails, didn’t actually tell the Met that she wanted the maximum number of arrests to be made. Maybe she didn’t even give them the odd nod and wink about her expectations. Perhaps her expectations were already clear enough for the police to ‘know’ what they needed to do. But there are now two possible outcomes. The first is that the authorities really will charge most or all of those people with terrorism, adding to the courts backlog in order to hear cases, most of which will, at huge public expense, end up with a minor fine or even a discharge given the pettiness of the ‘offences’. The second is that they will, rather more wisely, simply drop all further action to avoid a situation where they look like the complete idiots they have made of themselves.

It's possible, of course, that the police have deliberately been heavy-handed in order to expose the ridiculous nature of the law that they are being expected to enforce, in the hope that the government will back off and allow them to get back to dealing with proper crime. That does, though, require rather more cunning and Machiavellianism than the Met are usually known for. And, in any event, Occam’s Razor applies.

There is little doubt as to the guilt of those holding up placards, although that says more about the silliness of the law than the actions of the protesters or the police. In the meantime, it means that the police have released more than 500 suspected terrorists, each of whom has committed an offence carrying a custodial sentence of up to 14 years, onto the streets of the UK to continue their nefarious activities. We are expected to believe two things at the same time: firstly that these are dangerous terrorists who deserve to be locked up for a very long time, and secondly that it is safe to allow them to roam the country. A rational and sensible government might stop and think about the course they are following, but we’re more likely to see them doubling down on the rhetoric. As well as seeing more protests and more arrests. I suppose it’s what the UK deserves for electing an authoritarian and illiberal government.

When is a tax not a tax?

Tweet

 

The government which decided to reduce pensioner income by scrapping the Winter Fuel Allowance, and which continually hints at the ‘unaffordability’ of the pensions triple lock is, apparently, the same government which is now forecasting a ‘tsunami’ of pensioner poverty. It’s almost as though cause and effect is some sort of alien concept. They’re not alone, of course – the Tories and the Farageists are making similar noises about affordability. The alternative to funding an adequate level of pension through taxation is, it seems, for employees to save more.

Superficially, it sounds rational and logical; those of us benefitting from occupational pensions certainly understand the benefits of saving into a work-based pension plan. The difference, though, is not all it is painted as being. The state pension is nominally funded by tax deductions from employees and employers, and it’s true that those taxes might well need to increase if there are more pensioners and if the level of pensions continues to rise. Mandatory occupational pensions (the government’s preferred alternative), on the other hand, are funded by compulsory payments by employers and compulsory deductions from salary. The payments might not be defined as ‘taxes’ because the money never goes through any government accounts, but their effects on business operating costs and net disposable income are remarkably similar. It turns out that we can indeed afford to pay better pensions if the same people pay the same money to a private company and pretend that it’s nothing at all like a tax.

Whilst the difference might not be immediately obvious to those paying the contributions, there are, of course, some other differences. The first is that private pensions money is invested to pay for future benefits rather than used to pay current benefits. But the difference between an investment-based approach and the current Ponzi-scheme approach for state pensions is a matter of political choice, not an inevitable consequence of a state-run scheme. The second difference is, purely coincidentally I’m sure, that the private pensions company take a slice off the top as payment for administration and profit for their shareholders.

The biggest and most important difference is in terms of who benefits and by how much. The state pension is based on paying a single basic amount to all, even if the contribution rate is based, albeit loosely, on the income of the individual employee. There is, in that sense, an element of redistribution involved. Workplace pensions, however (and this is true, although in slightly different ways, of both defined benefit and defined contribution schemes), pay out a pension amount which is related to the payments made – and thus, in turn, to the salary of the individual. Labour’s preference for a savings-based approach to increasing pensions thus has two main financial effects – increasing profit for finance companies in the City of London, and ensuring that benefits flow to the richest rather than the poorest. All in the interests of pretending to reduce the demands on what they insist on calling ‘taxpayers’ money’ by replacing a potential tax increase with an alternative compulsory levy. It’s hard to find a clearer statement of modern-day Labour Party values.

Blurring the lines isn't firm action

Tweet

 

Terrorism, like some perverse form of beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. The term, ‘La terreur’, was first used during the French revolution, when it was very much a state-sponsored method of terrifying a population into submission and acceptance. It underlines the fact that there is no clear, generally-accepted definition of the term – a huge advantage for politicians since it means that they can define it any way they choose. Governments tend to use the word as a catch-all for almost anything of which they disapprove, an approach which leads to Putin using the term to justify his war in Ukraine, and Sir Starmer using it to describe a few people who try and give a new coat of paint to a couple of military aircraft. Whether that latter action actually ‘terrified’ anyone is a moot point, but it doesn’t really matter; once something has been officially defined as terrorism, almost any action is apparently justified in dealing with it.

One of the more alarming aspects of the government’s decision to proscribe a single pro-Palestine organisation is the way in which the police now seem to be extending the definition of terrorism to include anyone who supports the same aims as the proscribed organisation itself. Effectively, they’ve started arresting people (and detaining them under the more stringent conditions relating to terrorism rather than the more usual conditions for other types of crime) for declaring their support for the idea of a Palestinian state, rather than only for outright support for the proscribed organisation. Maybe individual police officers have been inadequately briefed about exactly what the law does or does not permit, but it’s hard to believe that different forces in different parts of the UK would independently have come to such a similar conclusion – which suggests at least implicit encouragement from the government.

There are probably few who would quibble with the principle of proscription as a tool to deal with an organisation taking violent action causing death or injury to citizens in an attempt to force a particular change in policy (although not quibbling with the principle isn’t the same as believing that it’s an effective approach). It ought to be possible, though, in a semi-democracy like the UK to debate when and under what conditions such a sanction should be applied and to question the way in which that sanction is then policed. The government, however, seems determined to close down any such discussion.

War, with all its accompanying death and destruction, invariably ‘radicalises’ people, to use a term generally used pejoratively these days. The horrific war in Gaza is just one example. Whether it’s always the bad thing as which it is presented is another question which they don’t want to debate. The second world war radicalised a generation of people in the UK, and the immediate post-war Labour government under Clem Attlee channelled that into making some of the most significant changes the UK has ever seen. I can’t help but wonder whether the instinctive reaction of the current day Labour Party under Sir Starmer would have been, more likely, to criminalise and imprison those who had been radicalised. Few people in the UK actually support ‘real’ terrorism, but forever extending the definition of the term blurs the lines. It might look like firm action, but it is likely to make enforcement harder rather than easier.

It's all about adjusting the variables

Tweet

 

Some websites have slider tools on them where the user can adjust one or more variables and the clever computer will calculate the value of another variable as a result. Things like loans, for instance: you adjust one slider to show the amount required, another to adjust the period over which you wish to repay and the computer tells you the monthly payments. Sir Starmer seems to be using a similar tool for what he rather dishonestly calls welfare ‘reform’.

In his case, the variable he adjusts is the number of people pushed into poverty as a result of any given proposal, and the output tells him the size of any saving to the Treasury and the size of the majority in favour in the House of Commons. He started out with a $5 billion saving, and the first answer it gave him was 250,000 more people pushed into poverty. Sadly – for him, if not for those affected – the second part of the result saw the majority slipping deeply into negative territory. He duly adjusted the slider so that ‘only’ 150,000 more people would be pushed into poverty. The savings came down by about £3 billion, but yesterday morning it became clear that the majority would still be negative. Having run out of time to play with further values in order to assess the outcome, he kicked the ball into the long grass and decided to conduct an in-depth study into possible reforms and their impact. Cue huge sigh of relief from those being dragooned into voting for the bill, and a significant majority in favour of a bill which now has a net saving of around zero – or maybe even a slight net cost.

The issue hasn’t gone away, though. And nor has the basic approach. Whatever fine words are spoken, they’re still asking the same question, which is, in essence, ‘what is the maximum number of people which we can push into poverty and still ensure that enough Labour MPs will vote for it to get it through the House of Commons?’ The review is little more than a cover for spending more time playing with that slider. It’s just going to take a little longer to discover the tipping point of the conscience of individual Labour MPs.

Benefit cuts are not really about country vs party at all

Tweet

 

There is a mantra much-loved by politicians about ‘putting country before party’. It sounds pretty lofty and principled, but when broken down is ultimately meaningless, as we’ve seen over the benefit cuts being proposed by Sir Keir Warmonger’s government. The claim is, in essence, that the party doesn’t want cuts, but the country requires them because of the allegedly parlous state of the national finances. The reality is that Sir Warmonger is motivated first and foremost (like all PMs that I can remember) by what he thinks will win him the next election. His definition, when push comes to shove, of ‘the national interest’ is the continuation of his government. And for all the apparent disagreement with his own backbenchers, they also are motivated by the same thing. I’m prepared to accept that they honestly and sincerely believe that a Labour government is better for the UK than a Tory government, but in that sense, the interests of party and country, in their eyes, will always coincide.

The debate isn’t about any conflict between party and country, it’s about which approach is most likely to see the return of another Labour government at the next UK election. In that sense, party always comes first. That doesn’t mean that there is no serious disagreement, it just isn’t really about the substance of the proposals, it’s about their impact on voting intentions. The PM and those around him really seem to believe that their best hope of winning involves appealing to those who think anyone receiving benefits is a shirker and layabout, and are happy to see such people be pushed deeper into poverty as a result. The revolting backbenchers think that their best hope of winning involves placating those constituents who are besieging their offices and mail boxes with complaints about the proposed benefit cuts.

Whilst there’s surely no doubt that what the rebels are saying is closer to what many would see as traditional Labour values, it doesn’t necessarily follow that it is those values which are motivating them rather than a desire to save their own electoral skins. It’s a tragedy for the Labour Party that debate about visions for a better future has been replaced by venal considerations about which particular cohort of electors they need to attract. It’s an even bigger tragedy for those who will lose out that the proposed compromise isn’t about whether they’ll lose out or not, but which of them will lose out and by how much.

Chickens, eggs, and overseas aid

Tweet

 

A number of different versions of the saying, “There go the people. I must follow them, for I am their leader” have appeared over the years. It’s usually attributed to Alexandre Auguste Ledru-Rollin, although it’s unclear whether he actually said it or not. Its origin isn’t really important, but it does express a particular political issue very well. Is it the job of politicians to follow, or to lead? One of the attributes of populist politicians is that they attempt to discern what people think, and reflect that back to them (albeit frequently in a distorted or exaggerated form) in an attempt to gain and exercise power, which is really their only objective. Politicians who are part of a movement seeking to change society are more inclined to set out their beliefs and try to persuade people of their merits. But parties don’t stay in one place, and the Labour Party is a classic example. Founded to change the world, it has ended up meekly following whatever it believes the latest trend in public opinion to be.

There are few things for which I’d give Blair, Brown, or Cameron any credit, but the move to boost overseas aid to 0.7% - set as a target by Blair/Brown, in accordance with international targets, and achieved and legislated for by Cameron – is one of them. To their shame, both parties have been equally complicit in reversing the decision – Sunak took it down to 0.5%, and Sir Warmonger has further reduced it to 0.3%. And both have diverted significant sums from the overall total to expenditure within the UK on handling refugees and asylum-seekers. Both blamed a ‘lack of money’, and in both cases that was based on the fallacious argument that there is a finite amount of money available, and we have to make choices about how to use it.

Today, a Labour Trade Minister has told us, by way of justification, that the public no longer supports the idea of foreign aid. It’s a chicken-and-egg question, though. Have the public spontaneously turned against the idea of providing foreign aid allowing the politicians an excuse to cut funding, or is the change in public attitudes a result of years of propaganda telling people that the UK ‘cannot afford’ to help others? It’s probably best described as a vicious circle, with the original driver as unclear as whether the chicken came before the egg. The notable thing, though, is the lack of any effort by self-styled ‘progressive’ politicians to attempt to break out of that circle by showing some leadership. Following public opinion is just another excuse.

Making people poorer really isn't 'compassionate'

Tweet

 

There is a traditional image of a vicious headmaster, about to deliver a good thrashing to one of the boys in his ‘care’, declaring that ‘this will hurt me more than it hurts you’. It’s not true, of course; and it looks like an effort to turn the abuser into an unwilling victim of circumstance, in his own mind at least. I doubt that any of the recipients of such ‘loving care’ ever believed it, and if it doesn’t work on terrified boys, there is no reason to believe that it will work on adults. It is, though, the chosen strategy of the Labour Government when it comes to welfare cuts. They want us to believe that driving people deeper into poverty is something that they really and truly don’t want to do, but are left with no choice because … well, because of an arbitrary financial rule which they themselves invented, and which magically doesn't apply to spending on weapons and destruction.

This week, the Work and Pensions Secretary told us that reforming the welfare system is an act of ‘compassion’, which will restore ‘opportunity and dignity’ to those relieved of benefits to pay for their food and housing. She also told us that, “Unless we reform [the social security system], more people will be denied opportunities, and it may not be there for those who need it”.  In plain English, which it’s easy to understand why she would want to avoid, that amounts to saying that the government will deliberately choose to see some people going without the basics of life in order to save money on the budget. There is nothing inevitable or pre-ordained about that; driving more people into poverty is a wholly deliberate choice that the government is willing to make.

There is nothing wrong with some of the specific elements of the proposals: helping more people to find suitable work and easing the transition from benefits to employment are sensible investments, although they don’t differ greatly from what governments of all colours have been claiming to have been doing for years. But what previous efforts have taught us is that it isn’t as simple as looking at numbers in a spreadsheet might suggest. People have complex needs, which are often only obvious when looking at individuals, and looking at individuals rather than numbers is not what governments do. There’s also an element of distraction: the changes to Personal Independence Payments have little or nothing to do with getting people back into work, yet government statements seem to be deliberately conflating the two.

It would be hard to fault a government which came up with serious and specific proposals to reduce the need for welfare payments by matching more people with suitable and worthwhile employment, and which was prepared to follow through on those in the hope that the welfare bill would be reduced in the end. That isn’t what they are doing, however: they are starting with an arbitrary target for the amount of savings that they want to make, building those savings into their forward budgets, planning to cut payments to achieve that, and then assuming that enough people will either move into employment or be deprived of the essentials of life. Maybe they have polling evidence telling them that such an approach would be ‘popular’, but when Sir Warmonger talks about doing the ’right’ thing, it’s not at all clear that he understands that there is a difference between the two words.

Using all the available talent

Tweet

 

Underpinning the Trumpian aversion to diversity programmes (DEI) is the belief that people are being appointed to jobs for which there are better quality candidates available, purely because those being appointed happen to be members of one or other under-represented group in society. It’s a short step from there to concluding that anyone who isn’t a white, heterosexual, Caucasian male is only in post because of their skin colour, gender or sexual orientation. And that seems to have been behind a number of sackings of senior people from posts under Trump’s reign. It’s no surprise to see Farage mimicking this attitude. It ought to be a surprise to see elements in the Labour Party going down the same track, but sadly it isn’t.

The issue is wider than recruitment, of course, but concentrating on that one aspect, opponents of DEI policies usually claim that they want to see appointments based purely on ‘merit’, ignoring all other considerations. Actually, so would I. The point of contention, however, is really about how we define and assess that thing to which we give the short-hand term, ‘merit’, because the observed practical outcome of an entirely ‘merit’ based system is the domination of white heterosexual Caucasian males. It’s easy enough for racists, misogynists, and homophobes to justify this – they simply choose to believe that ‘merit’ is more prevalent amongst that group. And, in a curiously circular argument, the evidence for that is that people from that group are most likely to be appointed. For those of us who take the view that ability is more likely to be evenly distributed than that, there has to be another explanation. It could be in the way that ‘merit’ is being defined or measured, but it’s more likely that there is unconscious prejudice operating, even if only of the ‘soft’ sort which leads recruiters to appoint those who are most like themselves, an almost guaranteed route to perpetuating any lack of diversity.

If it is right to say that ability is fairly distributed regardless of gender, race or sexual orientation, and given the obvious truth that that is not reflected in the outcome of appointment processes, then we are, as a society, missing out on the ability of a sizable section of the community. (Whether DEI programmes are the 'right' or even 'best' way of addressing that is a matter of opinion. I'm open to arguments in support of alternative approaches which can be shown to be effective.) That, ultimately, is what DEI programmes are about – it’s not about appointing second-rate people because of their characteristics, it’s about not discarding first-rate people because of those same characteristics. It’s a simple enough concept, but politicians who prefer to pander to prejudices are ducking their responsibility to explain that. In the case of Reform, one might expect that: playing to prejudice is what Farage does. By aping that approach, Labour would not only be ducking the responsibility, they would also be reinforcing and legitimising that prejudice.

Principles and pragmatism

Tweet

 

One of the big claims – perhaps the only big claim – for the difference between Sir Starmer and what went before is the idea that policy is based not on any sense of ideology or principle, but on pragmatism. As Sir Starmer himself put it, “I don’t have any ideology at all. There’s no such thing as Starmerism and there never will be.” Instead, each and every decision is to be taken by considering only one thing – ‘what works?’.

It leaves undefined the question about what do we mean by ‘works’? The only sensible interpretation of the phrase is that it means that any decision will achieve what it sets out to achieve; there is an objective and that objective is fulfilled. He hasn’t always – or maybe ever – been entirely clear in setting out in plain language what the objective is, but over the last week or so, the debate over cuts such as the winter fuel allowance or the two-child cap have revealed what that objective is. Such policies are not to be judged as to whether they reduce pensioner poverty or child poverty; those are not the objectives. The only factors to be considered are  a) how much does the policy cost, and b) how many votes does it deliver for Labour. There’s a brutal honesty about the underlying calculation: the only objective of government policy is to ensure that the current government remains in office after the next election.

Knowing that the only factor that they are even thinking about is how many votes it will deliver helps to explain what their definition of ‘pragmatism’ really embodies. It almost even makes sense of some of their decisions. Whether the calculation is being done correctly or not is another question. Mathematical and psephological competence cannot be assumed, and maybe any given policy will win fewer, or maybe more, votes than the government thinks. But all those who thought that turfing out the Tories would bring a kinder, more principled approach, or a genuine interest in reducing poverty are being shown very starkly that the question is not whether we live in a fairer society nor whether we reduce child poverty, but whether either of those things will deliver more votes to Labour. And since we know that the least advantaged in society, those most likely to be suffering the greatest pain, are also those least likely to vote, Labour’s willingness to ignore them becomes a lot easier to understand. There was a time when Labour believed in social solidarity and doing the right thing for all citizens. It’s a concept which is totally alien to Sir Starmer’s party.