Perhaps we should stop pretending

Tweet

It’s a long-standing tradition in the UK that diplomats are career civil servants, and that ambassadors are appointed from within the civil service.  The argument is that they are politically neutral, and represent the government of the day of whatever colour.  (Although some would argue that this is part of the reason why UK foreign policy changes little when governments change, whatever the ministers may wish.  ‘Real’ policy is controlled by that ‘neutral’ civil service.)  The United States, on the other hand, has a long tradition under which ambassadors are political appointments; when the government changes, the voice of that government abroad also changes.

I can see merit in both approaches; it’s not as simple as saying that one is right and the other wrong.  What I don’t see much merit in, though, is for governments to appoint as their voice overseas people who agree with, and will kow-tow to, the government of the country in which they work, which seems to be what Trump has in mind.  Can anyone imagine his response if the UK Government were to suggest that Hillary Clinton would be quite a good appointment as US ambassador to the UK?

Having said that, if the UK were to move to a political basis for appointments, then it’s clear that we have recently had a change of government, and some of the policy changes between Cameron and May look to be more significant than they would have been if Miliband had been elected last year.  It seems to me that we have what looks increasingly like a UKIP government in all but name – get out of the EU at any price, clamp down on immigration, reintroduce grammar schools, say whatever is thought might be popular, and make up policy on the hoof, just for starters – so perhaps a UKIP ambassador to the US doesn’t really look as silly as many might think.  Farage is probably closer to the views of the current government than any civil servant would be - it’s just that people pretend he isn’t.

What next for Cameron?

Tweet

After resigning his parliamentary seat yesterday, Cameron said that his continued presence would be a ‘distraction’ from the work of his successor, and appeared to make it clear that he did not want to be in a position of putting an alternative point of view to that of the government.  However, he also said that ‘he wants to continue in public service and campaign on the domestic and international causes that he championed in Downing Street’.  I wonder how he squares that particular circle.

There was another piece of analysis yesterday by the BBC’s Political Editor, looking at how completely May has junked the people and policies of the Cameron era.  We’ve had a complete overturning of the economic policy which Cameron, Osborne, (and, I’m sure, even May) previously told us were essential.  International policy (towards China in particular) looks likely to see significant change.  This week, policy on selective education was reversed.  It seems that the so-called ‘northern powerhouse’ so beloved of the ex-Chancellor is rather less close to the hearts of the new team as well – and all this in just two months.  Who knows what else will change as she really gets stuck in?

The comment ("it IS a new government", one senior Tory told me, "not everyone has understood that yet") reported in the second story seemed quite accurate to me.  We have a new government, working to a new and different set of priorities.  Whilst the changes are not necessarily in the same direction, the difference between a May administration and a Cameron one looks like being as great – perhaps even greater – than the difference that there would have been between a Cameron administration and a Miliband administration had the 2015 election gone the other way.  And all achieved without the bother and hassle of an election.

But back to Cameron: given the extent of the emerging differences, how can he continue to campaign for the same things without ending up in opposition to May’s government?

A one party state

Tweet One of the themes coming from those who issue increasingly dire warnings about the danger for the Labour Party if Corbyn should win the leadership contest is that democracy depends on there being an alternative party which can be elected to form a government.  Miliband Senior referred explicitly to the possibility of the UK becoming a “one-governing-party state”, which is at least a more accurate description of the feared outcome than the more simplistic “one-party state” used by others.

The Labour Party’s fears are not restricted to the UK level of government.  With the SNP on anything up to 62% of the vote, according to the latest opinion polls, even the much more representative system used for Holyrood elections looks likely to be dominated by one party with no alternative looking electable at present.

As far as I’m aware, though, the Labour Party’s deep and sincere concern for having a viable alternative party of government doesn’t extend to Wales for some strange reason, despite Wales being the one place in the UK where there has been no change of lead party in government for the last 16 years, and where there is no such change in prospect either.  It’s easier to accept the concept of there being only one party with a realistic chance of forming a government if it happens to be your party, I suppose.

Is it actually true that a functioning democracy depends on there being an immediately viable alternative government-in-waiting?  It’s asserted as unassailable truth often enough, of course.  In Wales, even the Tories claim it as a necessity, acting as a justification for their repeated proposal for an alliance of everybody else against Labour – a proposal which makes considerably more sense in terms of simple arithmetic than it does in terms of politics.

In Scotland, there have even been anguished howls from some commentators that the system is fundamentally flawed if it allows any party to dominate in the way that the SNP seem likely to if the polls are anywhere near correct.  Whilst the first-past-the-post system used at UK level could indeed be said to be flawed, producing as it has a majority government on the basis of a 37% share of the vote, I’m not sure that the more proportional system used in Scotland and Wales is as badly flawed.  And even though I’d prefer a system based on a single class of members using STV, there is no system of voting which can guarantee a viable government-in-waiting if the most popular party starts to attract 50-60% of the votes.

If the electors are happy with continued government by a single party (whichever party) and continue to elect it with a majority in successive elections, any claim that a functioning democracy depends on there being a viable alternative sounds a lot like saying that the electorate have got it wrong, and have no right to exclude other parties from government.  It’s up to those other parties to enthuse the electors enough to make them want to vote differently. 

The problem that dogs politics in the UK is that for too long, the ‘alternative’ parties have believed that the only way to do that is to sound increasingly like the party that they want to dislodge, and to fight elections on the basis of being different people rather than people with different views.  But having two parties saying the same thing and taking turns at governing is really little different from a ‘one-governing-party state’ in practice, because they become more like two factions within a single party than two different parties. 

In that sense, the idea that there needs to be an alternative to keep democracy functioning is a very superficial one.  Unless that alternative government is actually offering something very different, it’s more a way of preventing democratic change than facilitating it, by trying to convince the electorate that they have a choice when they don’t.

Dutch Auctions

Tweet Fortunately, there’s only another two days to go.  I dread to think how far the collective insanity to which Cameron and Miliband seem to be succumbing would go given another week or two.

First they tried to outbid each other as to which of them could most effectively tie his own hands once in government; now they’re trying to outbid each other to see who can lay out the most convincing obstacles to becoming Prime Minister.  Miliband will not lead any government which in any way depends on the SNP or Plaid; Cameron will not lead any government which does not commit to a referendum on membership of the EU.

I can understand why each of them would be trying to make things as difficult as possible for the other, but am struggling to understand why they’re both so keen to stockpile rods for their own backs, with which they’re threatening to beat themselves if we don’t do as they ask.

Perhaps I’ve just misunderstood the whole process, and neither of them actually wants the job at all.

Chaos, confusion, lies and enlightenment

Tweet On Monday, the first full day of formal electioneering, Miliband and Cameron each accused the other of promoting policies which would lead to chaos.  It didn’t add a lot of light to anything, but it did remind me of the old story about the engineer, the architect, and the politician debating which was the oldest profession.

The engineer pointed out that God had created the whole universe in just seven days, saying that “this was a marvellous feat of engineering – God is obviously an engineer.”

“No, no, no,” said the architect.  “The bible says that God created order out of chaos – that required design and planning – God is surely an architect.”

“Ah,” said the politician, “but who do you think created the chaos in the first place?”

I don’t believe that either Miliband or Cameron are capable of creating chaos on that scale, but what they clearly are capable of is deliberately lying about the implications of each other’s policies, creating confusion and avoiding sensible debate.  And there’s still five weeks to go.  Still, I suppose that all of that is marginally better than the total chaos of the story.

Just keep digging

Tweet

They say that the first law of holes is that, when you’re in one, you should stop digging.  Faced with the impending SNP landslide in Scotland in the coming election, both Miliband and Cameron seem not only to be ignoring that law, but digging with gusto to see which one of them can get himself into the deepest hole.

The statements being made by the SNP - that they would veto a minority Conservative Government, and expect to have a degree of influence over the budget in exchange for supporting a minority Labour Government  - may not be to the taste of either of the two main UK parties.  But they are an accurate reflection of the reality of the Westminster system, in which any government is expected to be able to command a majority in the House of Commons for a small number of key votes, including the Queen’s Speech and the budget.

There have been times in the not-so-distant past when the Conservatives have actually done very well in Scottish elections, but in the light of a string of poor performances in more recent years, they have been reduced to a rump.  Their tactics to date suggest that they’ve completely abandoned all hope of recovery, and don’t really mind if they get completely wiped out in Scotland.  Their cartoon of Miliband dancing to Salmond’s tune was obviously designed to appeal only to voters outside Scotland – given that the most popular choice amongst Scots for the next government seems to be an SNP-influenced Labour minority government, the cartoon can only have helped the SNP.

Their latest statement, that a decision by the SNP to vote against the Queen’s Speech of any minority Tory Government would be “trying to sabotage the democratic will of the British people”, can only be interpreted as confusing British with English, and treating the Scots as outsiders with no business involving themselves in UK politics.  Again, it will do more good than harm to the SNP.

Meanwhile, over on the Labour side, Miliband is doing no better.  Suggesting that a minority Labour government would attempt to behave as though it had a majority and dare anyone other than the Tories to vote against its policies may play well in those parts of England where they are trying to out-Tory the Tories, but seems calculated to frustrate any efforts by his Scottish branch manager to recover the situation in Scotland.

There’s a hint in what some commentators have suggested that the SNP are somehow ‘cheating’ by only standing in Scottish constituencies, so that their representation in Westminster will be out of proportion to their vote across the UK as a whole.  Whilst Miliband and Cameron haven’t quite said that, their current approach seems to suggest that they at least half-believe something similar.

All the polls could be wrong; there could still be a massive swing back to the Labour-Tory parties in the next few weeks, however unlikely it looks at present.  But somehow, I don’t think that merely repeating the same mantra time and again is likely to do other than harden the resolve of Scots to reject both of them.  There’s been a change of paradigm in Scotland since last September, and neither Miliband nor Cameron seem to be able to comprehend that or adapt to it.  Still, as long as they have their spades…

Boris is right, sadly

Tweet London’s mayor has inflamed some with his claim that the directors of Boots have a duty to their shareholders to pay as little tax as possible.  But actually, he’s absolutely correct in what he says.  Company directors do indeed have a duty, placed on them by company law, to act at all times in the best interests of their shareholders, and maximising profits whilst minimising taxes is entirely consistent with that.

It is, though, the wrong question to be asking.  The right question is whether things should be that way, and why the law of the land puts the interests of shareholders above those of the rest of us.  There’s nothing immutable about company law, and no fundamental reason why it cannot be changed to rebalance the responsibilities of directors.

Boris isn’t the right person to be raising such a question of course.  I wouldn’t expect him to, and he’s unlikely to surprise me by doing so.  But there are others who could and should be asking the question, and thinking about how the law can be changed.  In that context, the spectacle of Miliband wringing his hands and limply telling the bosses of Boots that they should pay more tax is more than a little weak and pathetic.  And it tells us that he’s more concerned about getting a headline or two than he is about changing anything.

Promises, promises

Tweet I don’t know when the Labour Party first adopted a policy of reforming the House of Lords, but it sounds like one of those things that has ‘always’ been policy.  I can certainly remember many Labour leaders talking about it when in opposition, even if ‘it’ hasn’t always meant exactly the same thing.  But they’ve never got around to actually doing anything about it when in government.  It’s one of those things that are just ‘too difficult’, although the euphemism usually adopted is that ‘there are more important priorities’.

So Ed Miliband’s statement that a Labour government led by him would actually do something needs to be read in the historical context, and is probably not worth a great deal as promises go.  Besides, at this stage his suggestion of it becoming some sort of Senate with regionally-elected representatives has not been thought through a great deal – apparently that’s to be left to the constitutional convention that he plans to establish.  Giving them a few years – perhaps the whole term of a parliament – is enough to sound like a commitment to radical reform whilst leaving Miliband with a cunning ruse to kick the issue immediately into the long grass.

It raises a question, though, about the purpose of the constitutional convention itself.  Slowly but surely, he’s announcing all the decisions in principle before it’s even established – the second chamber will be retained with similar functions, but with the method of election to be determined; there will be more power delegated to cities; there will not be two or more different classes of MP; the list grows.

Setting up a convention to carry out a thorough review of the constitution sounds like a radical idea, but it increasingly looks like it’s going to be little more than a means of getting someone else to put the flesh on the bones of an already determined Labour policy.

Still, sounding radical whilst delaying action is a familiar approach.  It’s been successfully deployed by many of his predecessors, so why wouldn’t it work for him too?  I suspect that their lordships will still be around for a few more decades yet, sadly.

Bringing back socialism

Tweet While Labour’s leader was speaking on the streets of Brighton last Saturday in advance of his party’s conference, one member of the audience asked when he would “bring back socialism”.  Miliband’s response was “That’s what we’re doing, sir.  It is about fighting the battle for economic equality, for social equality and for gender equality too.”

Now I don’t for one moment question the importance of all three of those equalities.  I do question though whether they are enough in themselves to equate to “socialism”, which is the way Miliband presented them.  I’m sure that they are values which all socialists hold, but they don’t strike me as being an adequate and complete definition of socialism, or even a sufficient starting point.

I suppose it depends on how one defines one of the three equalities in particular – namely economic equality.  The economic system under which we live is ultimately based on power relationships - where power resides with those who have the economic wealth, not with those who do not.  Any meaningful move to economic equality has surely to tackle that inequality of power.  Without addressing that basic fundamental inequality of power, the words ‘economic equality’ are mere spin. 

To date, I see nothing in what Labour is saying which suggests they have any real intention of tackling that basic fundamental inequality.  And without that, “Bringing back socialism” is something we going to be waiting for some time to see if it depends on the Labour Party.

Following, not leading

Tweet Tony Blair’s very public message to Ed Miliband not to turn left is a timely reminder of the way in which new Labour became the natural inheritor of Thatcher’s political legacy.  But I found his message both confused and confusing.

He seemed to be stressing the need to show leadership, but warning against taking a clear alternative position on just about anything – as though the question of leadership can and should be completely divorced from the question of direction.

There was one part of what Blair said in particular, which very much distanced him – albeit probably unintentionally – from Thatcher’s approach, although not from her ideology.  He said that British politics has not moved to the left and that there is no appetite for such a move.  It is most un-Thatcher like to seek to follow, rather than lead opinion.

When Thatcher led Britain to the right during her period in office, she didn’t do so on the basis of any pre-existing consensus of which she merely took advantage.  She did so on a proactive basis.  And I’m not convinced that her election in 1979 had much to do with any shift in political opinion; it was more to do with despair and desperation at the dog end of the disastrous Callaghan administration.  It was an election which it would have been difficult for any Tory leader to lose, regardless of ideological position.

Within the limited political spectrum of UK politics, what Thatcher showed was that a determined Prime Minister could create political change and shift opinion rather than merely responding to pre-existing opinion.  Yet, doing that in the other direction is precisely what Blair is warning against.

A point which I’ve made many times in recent years is that you do not change public opinion – on any issue – by reflecting current opinions rather than challenging them.  Reflecting opinion helps parties to win elections, but it doesn’t bring about change.  Following Blair’s advice is the best way of securing the Thatcher-Blair legacy; but then I suppose that’s what he was trying to achieve.

Unionists and separatists

Tweet

Two short-hand terms for very different political outlooks, but I don’t really like either term.  Neither really conveys what it is that people are about.  The debate and vote in the UK parliament yesterday underlines the limitations of the terms as explanations of the political stance of the respective camps.

In that vote, the ‘unionists’ were those supporting the continued existence of the European Union, whilst the ‘separatists’ were those demanding an immediate vote on exit.  Yet, when it comes to the future of Wales and Scotland, yesterday’s UK ‘separatists’ tend to find themselves in the unionist camp, whilst those of us at whom the term ‘separatist’ is frequently hurled by way of insult tend to be supportive of the European Union (even if we don’t always agree on the form of that union).

Those who seem most keen to tell us that ‘we’re stronger together’ often seem to take quite the opposite view when it comes to that strange place which they call Europe, of which they think that the islands of Britain are somehow not quite a proper part.  The fact that their belief in the value of union and togetherness stops at the white cliffs fatally undermines the integrity of their argument about strength in unity when applied ‘domestically’.

The size of the rebellion yesterday should concern us; it suggests to me that the real level of hostility to the EU within the Conservative Party is much greater.  The tactics of the Government in trying to tell the rebels that they agree with them really, and that it’s just a question of timing, underline that change in mood.  I wasn’t overly impressed with Miliband’s contribution either, telling MPs that Britain could not afford to leave the EU at the moment.  That’s hardly a robust counter-argument.

We’re at a point in history where Scotland seems poised to rejoin the world as a free nation, and there is at least a chance that Wales would follow later; it would be perverse if the UK Government were to decide that this was the time to try and stop the world and get off.  The attitude of the 'separatists' is probably one of the consequences of the imperial past, but the failure to accept and understand that ‘the past’ is where that attitude belongs is one which can only lead to further decline.

I want to see Wales and Scotland taking their places at the European table.  And I hope that, when we get there, England will choose to be there as well.  But I’m less confident about that now than I used to be.

Not asking the right question

Tweet

The meeting between the Prime Minister, the Energy Secretary, and the ‘big six’ energy companies seems to have been a classic case of creating the appearance of action without actually doing anything very much.

That high and rising fuel prices are a problem is indisputable and that they impact disproportionately on the least well-off is equally so.  But exhorting energy companies to make their bills clearer, and to make it easier for consumers to switch supplier, is little more than tinkering on the fringes.  And there’s nothing new in any of it, as one of the more independent suppliers who was present stated after the meeting.

The response of opposition politicians has been little better.  Ed Miliband’s statement that the companies should use their profits to reduce prices is merely the most glaring example of a lack of will to implement real change.

There does seem to be some doubt as to whether the claim that the energy companies are making an average profit of £125 per household per year is true or not.  The companies themselves claim that it’s closer to £15, but I’m not sure how relevant any figure is. 

‘If £125 is too high, what’s the right figure?’ is not a question to which I’m hearing any answers.  And in any event, the percentage figure is more relevant that the absolute figure, and energy companies’ profits do not seem that far out of line with other profit-making businesses.

That goes to the heart of the inadequacy of the political response.  The underlying question – whether we want these services provided by companies whose main aim is profit – is not even being asked.  Suggesting that companies should sacrifice the interests of their shareholders for the benefit of their customers is like criticising the outcomes of the free market without challenging the underlying basis.

Government (or opposition) politicians could propose an alternative ownership model for energy companies, or they could propose legislation to limit profits or enforce lower tariffs, but they do none of those things – because they accept the basic economic model under which the companies operate.

That leaves them nothing to fall back on except pious words and spin, which will do little to alleviate the problems which many will face this winter.

The hecklers' accolade

Tweet

Ed Miliband, I’m sure, knew exactly what he was doing when he spoke to the TUC yesterday – being heckled was just a bonus for him.  His words weren’t really aimed at those sitting in the hall, they were aimed at the television cameras, and the hecklers merely ensured that they made the news.

He, and his party’s strategists, will have concluded in advance that the trade union delegates – in England, anyway, which is where the bulk of them live – have nowhere else to go politically.  It doesn’t matter what Labour do or say, they’re not going to turn to the Tories or Lib Dems; their votes are safe.

Outside the hall, however, Labour need to attract back the votes which Blair attracted in three successive elections, and it is to their prejudices and opinions that Miliband needs to appeal, since – like most politicians – he’s more interested in saying what people want to hear than in offering an alternative vision.

I don’t know whether it will work or not, but the accolade of being heckled by the TUC will certainly do him no harm.  It could almost have been scripted.

The People's Party

Tweet

In a speech on Saturday, Labour’s new leader Ed Miliband proclaimed that he wants Labour to become once again the ‘People’s Party’.  Whilst I’m completely convinced that he would like people to believe that Labour can return to its roots to that extent, I’m rather less convinced that he really wants it to be true, or that it would be achievable if he did.

The British Establishment has always had a superb record of drawing discordant voices into itself and assimilating them without actually changing very much in the process.  I was re-reading parts of Bob McKenzie on British Political Parties the other day.  First time for years, but it reminded me of how different the origins of the Labour and Conservative Parties are, given how similar they’ve become.

The Conservative Party was founded in Parliament, of parliamentarians – indeed, if I remember correctly, until the 1980s, no-one who wasn’t an MP could actually join the party, they could only join the local ‘association’.  Labour, on the other hand, was founded outside parliament, with the aim of getting its representatives elected and securing radical change.

They’ve both changed.  People can now join the Conservative Party as ordinary members (although the party has never embraced the concept of democratic decision making!). 

Labour has changed far more; it’s become more top-down, less democratic, less open to serious debate on policy, and very much part of the establishment.  People sometimes suggest that Blairism was some sort of aberration; I suspect it was merely the latest manifestation of a very long set of processes.  The chances of Miliband (or Brown before him) reversing other than a few superficial policies were always negligible.

One could have an interesting debate about the causes.  Was it really the power grab by leaders and parliamentarians as which it’s sometimes been painted?  The problems certainly began very early in the party’s history, as entries in Beatrice Webb’s diaries reveal.  (One of my favourites was her description of Ramsay MacDonald as “a magnificent substitute for a leader”; her comments on others were equally acerbic.  I’d love to see what she would have had to say on Blair or Brown.)

I’m not convinced that what happened to the Labour Party was as simple as being the result of individuals pursuing their own interests.  I suspect that it was close to being an inevitable outcome when an initially radical party succumbed to the temptation to work entirely within the system, and fell under the control of the civil service in the process. 

The comparison between achieving something by working in and with the institutions and achieving nothing by being in perpetual conflict with them is a stark one; the temptation to do what they could to help people in the here and now must have been pretty much irresistible.  Given the social and economic conditions of the time, it’s harsh to be overly critical. 

But combining that sense of urgency in the here-and-now with keeping alive a radical vision was never going to be an easy thing for Labour to achieve; we shouldn’t really be surprised at the extent of their failure.  The surprising thing for me is more that so many people who do have a different vision have stuck with the party for so long.  

 In opposition, Labour generally have a tendency to sound rather more radical than their behaviour in government would suggest.  Miliband will, no doubt, follow that historical habit.  Somehow, though, I don’t see Labour ever really recapturing the idealism of the party’s founders.

The man is not for turning

Tweet I'll admit to never having been a fan of globalisation, whether economic or cultural. Reading Marcuse (One Dimensional Man) in the 1970's was a significant influence on the development of my own political philosophy, and as I recall, Sartre said something along the lines of "merely insisting on being Basque is itself a revolutionary act".

At a cultural level, Welsh nationalism is at least partly about maintaining human cultural identity and diversity, and at an economic level, it combines with environmental concerns in supporting a more localised economy. Localised is not necessarily the same thing as protectionist or isolationist, nor does it exclude the promotion of trade with developing countries in ways that assist them. But when I read that shrimps are caught off the British Isles, landed in Scotland, and then shipped to the Far East to be shelled before being shipped back to Scotland for packing – then I know that globalisation has gone too far.

That's an absurd example, obviously – although there are plenty more like it – but one of the consequences of globalisation has been the creation of long thin supply chains; and I think even supporters of globalisation ought to be more worried about that than they appear to be. The complexity built into the supply of goods and services, coupled with rigorous attempts to ensure 'just in time' delivery and reduce the amount of 'working capital' employed by businesses, makes the whole economic system extremely vulnerable to a failure at a single point.

The failure of financial markets has hinted at that; but there are a range of potential events in the real world which could be even more devastating. As a simplistic example, I'm not convinced that people really understand the potential economic impact of a major flu epidemic in the Far East, even if no-one in the UK even caught a cold.

What sparked this train of thought today was reading about David Miliband's speech in Cardiff last night, where he seems to have said that the financial turmoil won't deter Britain from continuing globalisation. I struggled to find any trace of a logical basis for that statement. It reminded me of the remark attributed to Keynes, "When the facts change, I change my opinion. What do you do, sir?".

It worries me that, in the face of a clear warning about the way in which globalisation has led to an essentially US problem being exported to the rest of the world, the response seems to be to accelerate the process of locking us into an approach which has an increasing potential for systemic failure. The facts have changed – shouldn't policy also change to reflect that?