Getting over it

Tweet

I’ve fought around 20 elections at different levels as a candidate over the years, winning 7 and losing the rest.  Not the best of records, but from experience I can say that, in most cases, the campaigns have been civilised and friendly, with the candidates able to debate and argue in a reasonably calm fashion as they put their case to the electors.  One or two have been rather more acrimonious, of course, where one or more candidates have been particularly objectionable; but as a general rule, it has been possible to end up on amicable terms, with the losers congratulating the winners and looking forward to the rematch.  I was going to say that it’s a bit like a football game, but football fans are often much more tribal than politicians.

With that as background, it’s easy to see why some would argue that, once the dust has settled, we should all accept that the result is as it is, that it will stand for the relevant term of office, and that we can then play the next round.  It becomes a little harder to do when one or more participants are widely perceived to have lied or cheated their way to a victory however, and the ‘reconciliation’ demanded by the PM has to be seen in that light; if it’s difficult to achieve reconciliation, a large part of that difficulty is down to his own cavalier approach to truth and the normal rules of debate.  In any event, reconciliation does not – and cannot – require that people change their views about future directions, nor that they stop campaigning for them.  After an election in which Party X has lost, no-one seriously expects that it will therefore accept all the policies of Party Y and stop putting forward its own views.  And no-one really expects that the ‘opposition’ will cease to oppose, using all the democratic means at its disposal. There is, in short, a difference between accepting the result of the vote and agreeing with the winners.

Why then do some people’s expectations seem to be so different when it comes to a referendum?  The expectation that those of us on the losing side of the EU referendum in 2016 will somehow ‘get behind’ the result is as silly as expecting those who didn’t vote Tory last week to ‘get behind’ the PM.  I don’t expect those who lost the referendum on establishing the Senedd in 1997 to change their views; they have every right to continue to campaign for its abolition if they wish.  And if the 2016 EU referendum had gone the other way, there would have been plenty who, like Farage, saw it as ‘unfinished business’. 

Part of the underlying debate about the EU (and the Senedd, come to that) is that it goes beyond mere differences about policy and starts to impact on the question of identity.  Many opponents of the Senedd saw it as having an unwanted Welsh identity imposed on them, just as many Brexiters (and, interestingly, they’re often the same people) see the EU as imposing an unwanted European identity on them.  Brexit has, to some extent, been driven by a particular view of what it means to be ‘British’, and a corresponding demand that political structures should both reflect that identity and impose it on others.

One of the major successes of the Good Friday Agreement on Northern Ireland was that it established a framework which allowed people with different identities to co-exist, and structures which enabled different identities to be lived and expressed alongside each other.  It sometimes seems that the demand to ‘get over it’ from the English nationalists driving Brexit implicitly requires an acceptance that our identity is what they say it is – no more, and no less.  It isn’t just the delicate balance in the six counties which is threatened by that attitude.

One nation?

Tweet

The term ‘One Nation’ has always been little more than an attempt to mislead, so it is no surprise that the current PM is so keen on it.  Apparently, Disraeli never actually used the term, but he did refer to his perception that the UK was divided between rich and poor, and his paternalistic belief that the better-off have a duty and a responsibility towards the less well-off.  That ‘duty’ is open to different interpretations of course, and which Johnson will favour is yet to be seen.  But it’s already fairly clear that he does not see it in redistributive terms.  He  may be making the right noises about regional disparities, but at the moment that looks more like an attempt to cement his electoral position than a serious attempt to address inequality.

The term ‘One Nation’ could have other implications as well, and his attitude towards devolution in particular, and Wales, Scotland and Ireland in general suggests that he has little time for the idea that nationality and identity are in any way complex, or that anything other than British (for which read English) identity can or should exist in the UK.  (And there is an even more extreme interpretation of being ‘One People’ which has unfortunate historical echoes, to say the least.)

The gulf between the traditional patrician Tory interpretation of the phrase, which is that the government should govern for all with the aim of helping the less fortunate, and the alternative interpretation, which is that all must accept that they are part of what the leader defines that one nation to be is enormous.  I’d like to think that he was talking about the former, but I rather fear that the latter is closer to his view.

Labour's failure

Tweet

Whilst ‘Corbyn’ was a factor in what has happened to the Labour Party in recent years, the real malaise goes much deeper than that.  The party’s origins lie in a belief in a different kind of world, founded on socialist rather than capitalist principles.  Defining ‘socialism’ isn’t easy; there seem to be as many definitions as there are people claiming to be socialists, but if I had to draw out just two key elements of what it means to me, I would say that it is to do with the economic power relationships in a society, and with acting collectively rather than competitively.  I think that the party’s founders understood that, and their mission was as much – if not more – about winning people round to that view as it was about seeking power through elections.

It was a worthy mission, but one in which the party ultimately failed totally, moving gradually instead to a more election and power-seeking approach, under which the implementation by the state of the policies put forward by the party was somehow seen as the equivalent of ‘delivering socialism’, leaving the vision thing down to a vague notion that ‘Labour is for the workers’.  But without a change in consciousness, it could never be equivalent.  Whilst the policies put forward might well have been based (most of the time, anyway – I’m not sure that the same could be said for the Blair years, for instance) on at least a partial vision of an alternative world, they have not made much effort to sell that vision, instead relying on the obviously flawed assumption that people voting for the policies are also bought in to the vision.  That is a partial explanation for a situation where the party leadership seems genuinely surprised that people who have historically voted for them in support of that vague notion hold a range of views which are anathema to the leadership.  Jingoism and an aversion to foreigners and immigrants are just two of the factors which seem to have surprised many in Labour; but as anyone who’s ever knocked doors in an election (and I’ve done many thousands in my time) will know, small ‘c’ conservatism is rife amongst the party’s voter base.  It has been ignored as long as they kept putting their crosses in the right boxes but has created a situation in which a switch of loyalties was always possible.

It has all culminated in recent elections in a largely transactional approach to manifestos – vote for us and we’ll give you ‘x’.  It’s not that the policies themselves have been devised free of all vision of an alternative society, it’s more the lack of any attempt to spell out that underlying vision, leaving voters who want to find one to join up the dots themselves.  But worst of all, encouraging voters to see things in such transactional terms – ‘what’s in it for me?’ – plays into the hands of economic conservatives, reinforcing the notion that people can and should act as individuals in pursuit, at all times, of their own personal interests.  For a party which started out believing in collective action to build a different world to end up promoting one of the essential components of the existing one is quite some fall.

Labour fight to see who has the loudest voice

Tweet

In the aftermath of last week’s election, I saw a vox pop from somewhere or other in the north of England in which one gentleman explained that he was a life-long Labour voter who had voted Tory because of Corbyn.  When asked what it was about Corbyn which had led him to that conclusion, he was unable to give much of an answer.  Such brief interviews provide anecdotal rather than empirical evidence, of course, but it does rather look as though ‘Corbyn’ did indeed play a significant role in the outcome, and that those in Labour who are trying to argue that it was all about Brexit and nothing else are somewhat detached from reality.  They’re unlikely to change their minds, though – I have the distinct impression that Labour’s post-election autopsy is going to be more about which faction’s interpretation is shouted the loudest rather than being based on hard data and analysis.

If answering the question, ‘Was Corbyn a factor?’ is easy enough, the ‘why and how?’ are much more difficult questions.  Was it because, as some (even in his own party) are claiming, he was a poor and incompetent leader, was it because of the policies he promoted, or was it because he was demonised in the Tory press?  It’s worth noting that it’s at least possible (or even, as I suspect, highly probable) that all three are true to a greater or lesser extent; there’s nothing mutually exclusive about them.  That won’t stop either his detractors or his fans demanding that others accept their own interpretation of which is correct, making me wonder whether Labour is capable of learning anything from the outcome.

The long-running antisemitism issue may well have been seized on by political opponents who have racism problems of their own seeing an opportunity to promote an anti-Labour narrative, but the way in which the Labour leader responded looked weak, slow and reluctant.  Whether that is fair or unfair is almost irrelevant – it meant that he didn’t give the impression of competence and determination in dealing with the issue.

That he was unfairly smeared and demonised by a section of the press is surely undeniable, as well as being entirely understandable.  Billionaire press barons and their friends who saw him as a threat to their position had every incentive to portray him as a dangerous extremist, and didn’t hesitate to do so, even if a more objective analysis of his policy programme for this election would place him and his party squarely in the mainstream of European social democracy.  But part of what Brexit is – and always has been – about for those most keen on it was taking the UK as far away from that mainstream as possible; it’s part of a long term project of moving the Overton window further in the direction of neo-liberalism.

There’s no doubt that many of the individual policies put forward by Labour were themselves popular, but it looks as if Labour’s ability to deliver them all simply wasn’t believed.  That shouldn’t be surprising – it was a highly ambitious programme, and I have doubted previously whether it was physically do-able.  I wonder, though, whether part of the reason for the public doubt about viability might have been a result of Labour, like the Tories, having spent the last decade promulgating the neo-liberal economic demand that government finances should be balanced.  Suddenly arguing for a programme which implied quite the opposite, whilst still arguing for fiscal rules which suggest that their basic position hasn’t changed looks dishonest.  I doubt that it’s a case of the electorate as a whole doing that economic analysis and reaching a conclusion; more a question of people who have had it drummed into them by Labour and Tory alike that some things are ‘unaffordable’ simply not being in the right frame of mind to believe the opposite.  Moving from ‘two legs bad’ to ‘two legs better’ overnight works in fiction, but not in reality.  There would have been nothing wrong with pivoting the party’s position over the last year or two to an alternative interpretation of macro-economics as a basis for the manifesto commitments, but without doing that, without explaining why so much of the economic establishment is wrong, they failed to lay the groundwork for their own programme.

There is much in what Corbyn has said over the years, as well as in this year’s Labour manifesto, which I could readily support (although there are a few major blind spots, such as the question of nuclear weapons and the support for independence for all nations except Wales and Scotland, to say nothing of Brexit itself).  Whether they have the courage to build on that, or whether the party’s timid careerists will demand a reversion to Tory-lite policies is yet to be seen.  I’m not optimistic.

Elections and mandates

Tweet

Within the space of a few minutes yesterday, the Tory Party Chair, James Cleverly – a man whose whole life seems to be dedicated to proving that nominative determinism is not a thing – managed to claim both that the Conservative Party (which won 56% of the seats on 43.6% of the vote) had a clear mandate for delivering Boris Johnson’s Brexit deal and that the SNP (which won 81% of the seats in Scotland on 45% of the vote) had no mandate for a second referendum on independence because they didn’t win a majority of the votes.  A mandate is only a mandate when the Tories say so, apparently.

His assertion that the SNP did not have a majority of the popular vote has the merit of being true, but then the Tories didn’t win a majority of the popular vote in the UK as a whole either, a fact which he seems to think irrelevant.  The results overall show, yet again, that there is a problem with the voting system used for parliamentary elections in the UK, in that it does not ensure fair representation of the votes cast; winner takes all in a majoritarian system is not a good way of expressing the ‘will of the people’.  But to the extent that we accept that ‘them’s the rules’, those rules cannot morally be applied selectively.  The fact that they can be legally so applied highlights, yet again, another flaw in the UK’s constitution, namely the belief that parliament’s sovereignty stems from the monarch, not the people.

It seems inevitable that the Scottish government will now demand the power to hold a referendum, and that the PM will, initially at least, refuse it.  Legally, there can be no doubt that he can make that refusal absolute for the whole of his term in office, and perhaps he will, even if it becomes apparent over coming months that such a refusal is fuelling rather than suppressing the demand from Scotland.  That would, though, require him to actually believe in the perpetuation of the union, and there have been scant signs to date that he actually believes in anything other than that he should be PM.  I don’t know what the SNP will do in the face of the initial refusal - they have wisely avoided revealing their next steps to date, but I can’t believe that they will simply say “OK, your call, we’ll go away and forget it then”.  We do know that there is a general lack of concern among the members and supporters of the PM’s party about whether Scotland stays or goes, and if he starts to see a growing demand in Scotland; if Scotland starts to become the same sort of preoccupation which Brexit has been for the past three years; and getting rid of Scotland looks like something that will help to maintain his own grip on Englandandwales, I wouldn’t be at all surprised to see him changing course.  After all, it’s not as if changing course is unusual for him, is it?

Classic leaflet fail

Tweet

Yesterday, at last, the long-awaited (I might be exaggerating ever-so-slightly there) Labour Party election leaflet arrived.  This was my favourite part:

Fair play, I thought.  Good point, I thought.  And they’re obviously very serious about it as well – they have repeated the exact same message on all three of the individually-addressed copies of the leaflet sent to the house to make sure that we all understand their seriousness.  But one might be excused for thinking that someone in the campaign team might just have paused for a second and wondered whether this would lead some readers to ask themselves whether they should believe anything else in the leaflet…

How long are the lies good for?

Tweet

Election promises have always come with caveats and been subject to fudgy wording, but the PM has excelled himself in the number of different categories which he has applied.  The strongest category is, famously, dying in a ditch, and we know from experience that that is good for around 110 days.  Assuming less strong promises are broken more easily and that the additional lifespan of each type of promise is roughly equal, we can calculate how long each type of promise is good for, which gives us a table like this:

	Number of days	Expiry Date
Commitment	15	27 December
Pledge	30	11 January
Promise	46	27 January
Guarantee	62	12 February
Cast-iron guarantee	78	28 February
Absolute cast-iron guarantee	94	15 March
Die in a ditch	110	31 March

That gives the manifesto a 'use by' date of 31^st March and a 'best before' date of 27^th December.  So, if you happen to have a copy of the Tory manifesto in your store cupboard, it’s worth bearing in mind that it will probably start to go off before the end of the year.

Trust in liars

Tweet

An inveterate and pathological liar who can happily say one thing today and the complete reverse tomorrow came to London this week and declared that his country had no interest whatsoever in opening up the NHS to private companies.  His host, another inveterate and pathological liar, who can happily say one thing today and the complete reverse tomorrow said that it didn’t matter what the first liar said, because he would not allow it in any case.  The only surprising thing is that some parts of the media regard the statements of either or both as being enough to settle the argument once and for all.

A simple fiscal rule

Tweet

I mentioned yesterday the way in which party manifestos have been criticised by various think tanks over their tax and spending proposals.  It has unfortunately become widely, but erroneously, accepted that government spending is like household spending, and that governments should only spend money which they have first raised through taxation.  For the last few elections, all three of the main UK parties have taken this as being close to gospel and criticised each other for any apparent mismatches, elevating the elimination of the surplus to almost a fetish.  It’s been strange, though, that although it’s the Tories who have pushed this approach most, it is the Tories who also, in practice, have regularly ignored this ‘requirement’, pushing the date at which the budget is balanced ever further into the future, whilst Labour have, rather foolishly, allowed their own economic policies to be defined by this crude and unnecessary approach.  The Tories set a trap and Labour fell for it – maybe not so strange after all, then.

Things look different in this election – the rhetoric about ‘fully-costed’ manifestos is still there, but it all seems half-hearted given that the Tories have thrown their own rules to one side and decided to simply spend more.  Only the Lib Dems are still really hung up about the mad demand that the budget should be balanced, leading them to propose what is probably the stupidest economic policy ever put forward by a major UK party, that the government should run a permanent surplus on its current expenditure budget, regardless of the circumstances at the time.  Richard Murphy sets out some pretty trenchant views on the proposal here, and has a nice graphic from Deficit Owls asking why politicians want to push people into debt here.

There is, and never has been, any need to keep the government’s spending in balance; it is the economy as a whole which needs to be in balance, bearing in mind the various sectors.  The concept of sectoral balances is explained well here with a particularly good graphic, but in essence, a permanent public sector surplus requires a permanent deficit elsewhere, and that essentially means businesses and individuals in the private sector.  Anyone arguing for a public sector surplus needs to be able to explain why a private sector deficit is a good idea, and that’s not an explanation that I’ve heard to date.

All the parties are keen on having, and being seen to have, a set of ‘fiscal rules’, but in practice these are largely ignored.  They’re just window-dressing as an alternative to trying to explain why things don’t work that way.  In reality, the only fiscal rule any government needs is one that says it will do what it considers appropriate in the circumstances which exist at the time.  That’s not much of a rule at all, but any other rule is just a means of trying to hide the fact that government spending is more a matter of ideology than economics.

'Experts' are not always as independent or objective as is claimed

Tweet

A feature of the way in which the media report on the manifestos of the various parties is the use of ‘independent’ think tanks to express their opinions.  Thus we have reports like this one in the Guardian, covering the response of the so-called ‘Institute for Financial Studies’, claiming that “neither Tories nor Labour have credible spending plan”, and describing the IFS as a “respected think tank”.  It isn’t just the Guardian, of course – the IFS is regularly quoted by other media including the BBC and treated as an expert source.  I don’t doubt that this makes them ‘respected’; clearly several media sources have a great deal of respect for their work.  Neither do I doubt that they are ‘independent’, at least in the narrow sense of not being affiliated to any of the political parties. 

What they are not, however, is independent of ideology, as Richard Murphy explains here.  The organisation is closely aligned to the neoliberal view of the world, and their analysis starts from a number of assumptions.  The result is that, inevitably, they are predisposed to a particular policy direction, and are critical of proposals which don’t match that ideology.  The fact that, in this case, they end up criticising both Labour and Conservative spending plans might underline their independence from both of those parties, but it also highlights the fact that other interpretations of economics are possible, and increasingly main stream, given that the Tories have (in rhetoric at least, even if not yet in terms of spending levels) moved towards the Labour position in an attempt to win votes.

There is another ‘independent’ think tank, the Resolution Foundation, which is, if anything, even worse but which is also extensively quoted as an ‘expert’ source by the media.  I don’t agree with the Gove position that we have all ‘had enough of experts’, but there is unquestionably a need to apply a critical eye to people who either themselves claim to be experts or else who are presented as experts by those quoting them to ensure that they are really as independent and objective as might at first sight appear – and the media seem remarkably unable to apply that critical approach.  It has become all too easy for people to set up institutes and foundations which look independent and objective yet which, in reality, start from a clear ideological perspective.