We are not them

Tweet

According to one Labour MP, John Mann, Owen Smith’s leadership campaign failed largely because it “boiled down to one key message: I am not him” (i.e. Jeremy Corbyn).  Whilst I have considerable sympathy with the idea that such a campaign message is unlikely ever to motivate anyone, I can understand why so many in the Labour Party would think that it was entirely suitable and adequate.  I thought Mr Mann's verdict was, in context, more than a little harsh; after all, doesn’t the whole party’s key message in election after election boil down to simply saying “We are not them” (i.e. the Tories)?

Different types of democracy

Tweet

Years ago, the Labour Party’s version of internal democracy included taking policy decisions at conferences where all members had a direct vote in determining party policy.  In theory, anyway – the crucial decisions were usually taken by ‘card vote’ where each delegate cast the number of votes which the organisation (s)he represented was allowed.  So leaders of the big unions could and did cast a million or more votes each at a time.  And the number of votes available to them was the number which the union chose to register as ‘members’, without those ‘members’ ever needing to be named.  That number was usually based on a calculation of the balance between the cost of registering them and the influence thereby purchased, and bore little relationship to the actual political views of the ‘members’ concerned.

Still, it was democracy, of a sort, and it gave the members some sort of feeling of ownership of policy.  Mind you, if the leadership didn’t like the policy that the members voted for, they simply ignored it.  Sometimes people think that this is a peculiarly Blairite tendency, but I can remember Harold Wilson happily ignoring conference votes half a century ago.

Over the years, the right of the party’s membership to determine policy through an annual conference was slowly whittled away, and that process certainly came to a peak in the Blair years, leaving members with little real ownership of anything – and I’m sure that that has been a factor in the falling membership numbers of the party.

Yesterday, Owen Smith declared that he would, if elected leader, seek to restore the right of members to determine policy, and that he would then abide by decisions taken by the membership.  That’s certainly in line with what many of Corbyn’s supporters would like – but is he really serious?

What would happen, for instance, if a Labour Party conference voted for nuclear disarmament?  It’s happened before (and was duly ignored by the leadership), and with the influx of Corbyn-leaning members, it must be highly likely that it will happen again.  Is Smith really saying that he would suddenly drop his support for Trident renewal, and admit that he was wrong all along, because the members have now spoken and that must therefore be his new position?  And would all the other rebel MPs fall in line behind him, in a way that they have not done for Corbyn?

That seems an unlikely scenario to me, which leads me to a rather different conclusion.  It’s easy for someone to commit to something if he believes that he will never be called on to deliver on any promise.  The game is no longer about winning, but about trying to reduce the gap in order to provide a ‘justification’ for running the process again in the next year or so (and again thereafter if necessary) until the members finally take the ‘right’ decision.  It’s a form of democracy that he’s supporting, but it’s not democracy as we know it, to adapt a phrase.

I nearly agreed for a moment...

Tweet

There is little that Owen Smith has said during the Labour leadership debate thus far that I find it easy to agree with.  Until yesterday, when I found myself agreeing with what I thought was a bold and realistic statement … and then he issued a qualification so sweeping as to come close to negating what he’d said in the first place.

He is surely only stating the obvious when he says that, eventually, there will need to be negotiations with ISIS, or whatever they want to call themselves at the time.  I might have been inclined to add “or its successors”, on the basis that even if there were to be a military ‘victory’ at some point, the ideas and ideology will not simply go away.  Accommodation and agreement will be necessary at some point, as they have been in other situations around the world in order to bring an end to conflict.

And I thought he was also spot-on in arguing that the leaders of ISIS are clearly not interested in negotiating at present; bringing them formally round the conference table today is clearly a non-starter.  But it’s usually a mistake to assume that all members of any organisation are entirely homogeneous in their beliefs and aims; whilst the idea that ISIS has some sort of ‘moderate’ wing may seem highly unlikely, it is not certain that, at all times and in all circumstances there is no possibility of dialogue with anyone.

I thought Smith was only stating the obvious up to this point.  And given the way in which all other politicians are keen to demonstrate only their absolute resolve in giving no quarter and accepting no compromises, it was also a very brave thing to say.  The condemnation by others which followed was as predictable as it was wrong-headed.

The sad part is that, having actually made a brave stand for the first time that I can remember, his reaction to the criticism and condemnation was to backtrack to such an extent that it made his initial statement almost meaningless.  Arguing that there can be no negotiation “… until they renounce violence, cease all acts of terror and commit themselves to a peaceful settlement” is imposing a level of pre-condition on negotiation which was not imposed, for instance, on the IRA or on numerous other violent groups around the world.  Those criticising Smith know all this as well as he does.

Sadly, the way in which he backtracked so rapidly and completely tells us more about him than his initial bold statement.

Alas Smith and Corbyn

Tweet

In the latest debate between the two contenders within the Labour Party, Corbyn made his view clear that the Brexit referendum is final and there can be no second thoughts, whilst Smith made it clear that he wants the vote taken again, either as a new referendum or else as a manifesto pledge.  I see problems with both of those viewpoints.

The problem with Corbyn’s stance is that it does not allow people to change their minds, under any circumstances.  That’s inflexible and unrealistic; people do change their minds about all sorts of things in the light of events.  And the consequences of Brexit were so poorly – or even misleadingly – set out that it is likely that people may reach a different conclusion as the consequences become clearer.  Corbyn’s stance denies people the opportunity to reconsider.

The problem with Smith’s stance is that it sounds like he wants to over-ride the democratic will of the electorate.  The issue was put to the electorate, and the voters gave what is to him the ‘wrong’ answer.  I can’t think of a better way of hardening opinion than telling people they must vote again until they get it ‘right’.  It’s the wrong answer from my perspective as well, but I can’t honestly argue that people must vote on the issue again just because I don’t like the answer.  On that basis, I’d be calling for almost every election to be re-run as well.

There is, though, a middle way between the two positions which both respects the decision taken and respects the right of people to reconsider in the light of additional detail.  That middle way is to argue that the negotiations should commence and the detail start to be filled in, and then, if over a sustained period it becomes clear through opinion polling that opinion has significantly changed and that a different result would ensue, then, and only then, could a second referendum be held.

What’s so difficult or challenging about that?

Meaningless words

Tweet

One of the habits of spin merchants and PR teams is to come up with fine-sounding phrases which have an immediate appeal but don’t actually say very much.  This was always central to New Labour, and given his background as a lobbyist, we should not be surprised if Owen Smith follows a similar pattern.

Even so, his call for a new industrial revolution was something of a classic.  It sounds very dramatic, but what on earth does it actually mean?  The Industrial Revolution was a transition from small-scale craft production methods to large scale manufacturing; it brought about huge changes in life style and conditions.  Yet Smith’s new ‘revolution’ seems, when looked at in detail, to be about the government giving out a few subsidies to selected industries.

And that brings us to a second point - is it even within the power of politicians and governments to bring about significant change anyway?  It wasn’t governments which brought about the first industrial revolution; indeed, it wasn’t planned or co-ordinated by anyone.  Governments, unless they want to take control of the “commanding heights of the economy” as the Labour Party used to argue, can do little more than create the conditions under which others control and take advantage of events.  But the consensus position of Labour and Tory alike has been for decades that globalisation is inevitable and we have to adapt to it.  It is, of course, that very globalisation that they so love which has destroyed so much of the manufacturing industry in the UK.

Whilst I agree with Smith’s claim that previous governments (including the Blair and Brown governments of which this claim is an implicit criticism) have been too reliant on financial services and insecure, low-skilled and low-paid jobs, I’m not at all convinced that it is in the power of governments to rebalance the economy back to manufacturing.  At least, I don’t see it as being possible without the government taking a much more interventionist role in the economy than is represented by throwing a few subsidies around.  Perhaps I misjudge him; perhaps he really is planning to try and control the economy in the way the Labour Party used to believe was possible.  Or then again, perhaps it really is no more than a sound-bite after all.

Buying and selling nonsense

Tweet

One of the key policy differences between the leader of the Labour Party and the man seeking to depose him is the issue of nuclear weapons, and specifically the replacement of Trident.  Whilst there seem to be some in the Labour Party for whom the main justification for keeping Trident is that it provides jobs (making it the most expensive job creation scheme ever), the position of Owen Smith seems to be that he actually wants to get rid of nuclear weapons completely, but believes that the only way to do that is through bargaining with other nuclear weapons states, and to get a seat at the table, the UK needs to spend a vast sum of money renewing its current systems.

Whet they have not explained to date, as far as I can see, is why the UK so desperately needs to have a seat at that particular table in the first place.  If we didn’t currently possess such weapons, would anyone – in the Labour Party or elsewhere – seriously suggest that we needed to develop them simply in order to take part in the negotiations to get rid of them?  Of course not – the idea is a silly one.

But if that looks like nonsense, stop and consider another aspect of the question for a moment.  Does possession of such weapons actually guarantee a seat at the table, even if we were to agree that it was desirable to have one?  The evidence suggests otherwise.

The closest the world has actually come to an agreement to rid the planet of such weapons was in 1986, when Gorbachev proposed to Reagan that nuclear weapons should all be scrapped within ten years.  Sadly, the proposal came to nothing, largely because Reagan was not prepared to abandon the Strategic Defence Initiative.  But where was the UK in this?  Er – nowhere.  No seat at the table, no invite to the talks.  Although, formally, it was agreed that the nuclear capabilities of the UK and France should be excluded from the US-Soviet talks, it was implicitly assumed that if the ‘big boys’ did come to an agreement, then the ‘minor players’ would fall into line.  It’s unthinkable that they would not.

It remains true that any serious progress on nuclear disarmament depends on the US and Russia, and that the UK’s input to that will be close to zero, with or without weapons.  And that must be as obvious to the pro-nuclear lobby in the Labour Party as it is to me.  So why are so many people buying a line which is such patent nonsense?

The genesis of parties

Tweet

The first embryonic political parties in the UK were born inside the House of Commons itself as the members of that institution formed themselves into groups around different opinions or personalities.  For generations, the bodies which formed outside parliament in support of the parties were known as ‘associations’ rather than parties; each constituency would have its own ‘Conservative and Unionist Association’ or ‘Liberal Association’.  These bodies existed to support the parties, but were not formally part of them; the parties only existed inside parliament itself.  The idea that anyone outside parliament could join the Conservative Party is a novel one, which has existed for a few decades at most.

In this view of the world, MPs are elected to express their own opinions freely, not to represent the views of any outside group or party; and they are answerable to the electorate as a whole not to any party or other sub-section of the electorate.  That view of the world is, effectively, what the unwritten constitution decrees.  And from this perspective, it is indeed outrageous, as Owen Smith seems to be saying, that members of a political party outside parliament should ever dare to think that they can hold their elected members to account, let alone replace them with people closer to their own views.

However, what this man claiming to be steeped in Labour traditions and values seems to be forgetting is that the Labour Party did not originate in the same way, but had a very different origin.  The Labour Party was started outside parliament, as a movement to give expression to interests and opinions which were not represented inside the legislature.  It was a movement which sought to change the world, not merely run it better, and it was a movement owned and controlled by its members at large, not by the tiny minority of them who would ever become members of the legislature.

From that perspective, the anger of many ordinary members at the outrageous behaviour of a tiny minority of members – who just happen to be the party’s voice in the legislature – who are unwilling to accept the decisions of the membership, let alone attempt to represent them, is entirely understandable.  Why wouldn’t people who feel that way seek to replace people who they see as being out of touch with their views and concerns?  And why should they not have every right to do so?

One of the things which Labour’s current row is highlighting is the extent to which that party’s elected members have signed up to the idea that they are answerable only to the electorate at large, not to their party.  This blind acceptance of the constitutional status quo is nothing new, of course.  (And it isn’t only true in relation to matters constitutional either.)  It’s been true for most of the party’s history, even if it hasn’t always been as obvious as it has been over the past few decades.

It would be a brave person who would predict the outcome at this stage, but it is at least a possibility that two parties will emerge from the wreckage.  One of them will be a party belonging to the membership, run largely outside parliament but with a phalanx of perhaps 30 – 40 MPs as its parliamentary wing – a bit like the original Labour Party.  The other will be a party with perhaps 170 or so MPs, but with virtually no organisation outside the legislature itself.  Like the Tories of old, this will be a party born inside the legislature rather than a result of political activity outside, seeking to form support groups to do their bidding at election time.  And looking at the policy positions of most of them, that won’t be the only similarity with the Tories.

The greater of two evils

Tweet

Poor Owen Smith.  People are being a bit beastly to him over a press release which he issued some years ago when he was working as a lobbyist for Pfizer.  It certainly seems to be clear that the press release in question expressed support for greater privatisation in the NHS; I can’t see how anyone can seriously deny that.  But the man himself has also been absolutely clear that he has always believed in the idea that the NHS should be free.  The problem is that people are having difficulty reconciling those two statements.

However, in fairness to him, it seems perfectly simple to reconcile the two things; at that time, he was speaking for his employer and expressing the employer’s opinion, but now he’s speaking as a politician and expressing his own views.  All perfectly straightforward and obvious.

The part I don’t understand though is this: why would anyone think that being willing to argue and lobby for a privatisation which you fervently oppose simply because you’re being paid to do so is somehow a lesser sin than actually supporting privatisation because you think it’s the right thing to do?  I’d have thought that was a bigger problem for a politician claiming to be principled, not a lesser one.

A curious belief

Tweet Plenty of others have already drawn attention to the twisting and turning of Labour politicians as they attempt to explain how they all hold the same view on devolution of tax, particularly income tax.  It isn’t pretty, and they’re deluding themselves if they think that their unity is in any sense credible.

The reason given by the Shadow Secretary of State for supporting the so-called lockstep struck me as a curious one.  He said:

“We agree with the Government that the principle of progressivity ought to be retained, which is why we agree, broadly speaking, with the notion of the lockstep, tying together those bands.”

I suspect that a Labour politician’s public agreement that Tory policy on income tax supports progressivity will come as a surprise to many, not least within his own party.  Perhaps my memory about the disagreement over whether the highest rate of tax should be 40p, 45p, or 50p is just an illusion.

But the basis of his argument seems to go further than that.  It is implicit in supporting the lockstep on that basis that he believes that the wicked evil Tories in London (which is a rough translation of the usual Labour description of them) are more likely to maintain progressivity in income tax than any conceivable government which might come to power in Wales.

It’s a very curious thing to believe.