The Fiscal Charter: Damned if you support, damned if you oppose

I think John McDonnell and the Labour leadership were right to oppose George Osborne's Fiscal Charter yesterday. It is not the job of the current government to try to impose it's will on future governments. It is for future electorates to decide what kind of government they wish to install in 2020 and beyond, and to decide what type of economic policies to oppose or support.
The Fiscal Charter is clearly nothing more than a publicity stunt designed to either undermine Labour's credibility as an anti-austerity party (had they supported it) or to make them appear economically irresponsible in the eyes of the general public in the event that - as was the case - they opposed it.
Perhaps the best approach would have been a mass abstention on the part of the parliamentary Labour party. This would have avoided disunity in the party ranks while treating the Fiscal Charter with the contempt it deserves.

Why Jeremy Corbyn is so popular with the 'grass roots'

In my opinion, the current popularity of Jeremy Corbyn is not, on the whole, to do with any real increase in the level of support for left wing or traditional socialist ideology. In some ways, the old distinction between left and right wing politics is becoming outdated (or, perhaps, transcended), at least among large sections of the public. For many people, the more relevant distinction today is that between the ‘elite’ (both in political and economic terms) and the ‘masses’ of ‘ordinary’ people (the so-called 99% of the Occupy movement rhetoric). This explains why some people who voted UKIP at the general election now warm to Jeremy Corbyn (I know this because I have heard a number of them discussing their newfound interest in Labour on radio phone-in shows. They are not ‘saboteurs’ trying to wreck the Labour Party but people who are cynical about slickly professional mainstream politicians and drawn towards anyone who comes across as someone they might bump into in the local pub).
This phenomenon (the viewing of politics specifically in terms of the ‘little guy’ versus the elite) is, of course, partly a response to the growing momentum behind globalisation, with the increase in influence of the European Union and the growth of multinational corporations. But in some ways it is also a very old movement. The allies in World War 2 overthrew fascism and the ‘West’ then resisted communism because support for liberal democracy with its championing of the rights of the individual is embedded deeply in our collective psyche and, I would argue, this helps to make our culture predisposed to favour the dispersal (as opposed to the concentration) of power.
The distinction is deeply rooted in many aspects of our culture. From Tolkien to Harry Potter, the underlying theme is that of the small, the weak, the ordinary and the everyday (and therefore the good) versus the big, powerful enemy with its huge plans and ambitions for global domination.
Put simply, Corbyn is doing so well because his obvious sincerity and commitment to represent those who vote for him mean that he is trusted, to defend their corner, by those who feel alienated and powerless in this increasingly elite-controlled and globalised world.

Labour Leadership Limerick

When a Labour MP named Corbyn
Whose views were a trifle left wing
Joined the leadership race, many laughed in his face
Now it seems he may actually win!

Labour should have the confidence to be itself!

Yesterday, at the behest of their acting leader, Harriet Harman, the majority of Labour MPs chose not to oppose the government's Welfare Reform Bill aimed at reducing welfare spending through such measures as lowering the cap on Housing Benefit and completely doing away with Child Tax Credits for any but the first two children of a household. Harman's objective in not opposing this bill was to reassure the public that Labour is the party of the workers and not the party of welfare claimants.
In my opinion, the Labour Party is so busy trying to please all those people who didn't vote for it in the general election that it is forgetting it's real job - that of Her Majesty's loyal opposition.
Swing voters are, by definition, capable of having their minds changed by the policies, arguments and record of the parties between whom they have been asked to choose. In my view, rather than trying to belatedly conform to the wishes expressed by such voters at the last election, Labour needs to come up with positions and policies that reflect its traditional values of egalitarianism and social solidarity and offer a clear and credible alternative to the anti-public sector/benefit claimant/immigrant stance of the current government and then set about the business of persuading the potential swing-voters of 2020 that such policies are worth endorsing at the ballot box.
As for the committed Labour voters, such an approach would surely be welcomed by many of them, too - especially considering the amount of grass roots support their seems to be for the most left wing of the current leadership candidates.

Spitfire over Hertfordshire!

This morning I was in my garden when i saw a Spitfire circle overhead then roar off into the distance, dipping its wings in a Battle of Britain style salute! I thought I must be imagining things but a quick internet search revealed that there was indeed a Spitfire flypast today as part of the (somewhat belated) V.E. Day anniversary celebrations of nearby RAF Halton.
Click here to see my extremely clumsy attempt to film this unexpected visitation from the majestic and legendary defender of the skies!

Why Labour lost

The accepted narrative about why Labour did so badly in the General Election seems to be that they failed to appeal to the aspirations of the 'squeezed middle' or to inspire confidence in their ability to manage the economy. I am not convinced by this. I have no solid evidence so my own 'analysis' is purely anecdotal and based largely on conversations (both participated in and overheard) with friends and work colleagues.
I believe that in the last week or so before the vote, scare tactics employed by the Conservative Party and the media around the possibility of a coalition between Labour and the SNP began to have the effect of convincing 'undecideds' that a vote for Labour would be a bad idea (I certainly heard people express the view that the SNP 'only care about Scotland' and that they would somehow use any power they might have in government to benefit Scotland at the expense of the rest of the UK) and, realising that it was working, the purveyors of this narrative concentrated very hard on getting their message out as powerfully as possible, particularly via the tabloid press.
I believe Ed Miliband's response to this development was mistaken and actually exacerbated the effect of the scare. What he did was to make increasingly shrill declarations of his determination never to do any deals with the SNP, which I believe had three (inter-related) negative effects. Firstly it confirmed in people's minds that the SNP were to be feared, secondly it was very difficult to believe since the prevailing view was that Labour would not win enough seats to be in a position to govern alone and thirdly, if he was telling the truth then what was the point in voting for a Labour party that wasn't prepared to do what was apparently going to be necessary in order to form a viable government and keep the Tories out of power?
In my opinion, Miliband should have embraced the idea of an anti-Tory coalition involving Labour as the dominant partner with support from the SNP and others and made the case for the SNP as having a valuable contribution to make to the politics of the UK as a whole. This could have taken the sting out of the Tory and right-wing media scare tactics.
When asked by Jeremy Paxman, earlier in the campaign, whether he was tough enough to stand up to the likes of Vladimir Putin, Ed Miliband's response was a strident "Hell, yes!" Surely, then, he should have been able to convince middle England's swing voters that he was strong enough to be in coalition without being dominated or manipulated by Nicola Sturgeon or any other potential coalition partner.

Devol u-turn? (Part 2)

In part 1 of this post I outlined some of the questions and doubts I’ve had lately about regional devolution. Below are the conclusions I have come to after giving these issues some more consideration
It’s true that if regional authorities are given tax raising powers similar to those that have been promised to the Scottish parliament then there is a risk of a fiscal and economic 'race to the bottom' – but in this globalised economy, competition to attract business and investment is inevitable anyway. With devolution, however, there could be a complementary 'race to the top' as, with the increase in local accountability and scrutiny that should accompany its implementation, regional politicians compete to be the best at using revenue as efficiently, and as beneficially to their electorate, as possible. And they would be aided in this by the possibility of emulating examples of best practice that would accrue from the diversity of approaches to governance that would proliferate under a system of regional devolution.
As for the matter of Conservative domination of the East of England region, hopefully any devolved regional assembly would be elected using a proportional system, as in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. This would go some way to reducing the extent of the Tories’ dominance. Also, the very fact of devolution itself would hopefully spark a greater level of local involvement in politics, both in terms of activism and of voting, which could have an unpredictable effect on the current political status quo in the region. Nevertheless it is still highly unlikely that any regional government for the East of England would be anything other than a Conservative government.
One possible counterbalance to this Conservative domination of the region could be the retention of an important role for central government in a devolved UK, in terms of guaranteeing a certain level of protection for vulnerable groups within society. The best solution, in my opinion, would be for central government to have the role of establishing overall policy in regard to such areas as the NHS, public investment, benefit levels etc, while the regional assemblies take responsibility for local implementation of those policies on the ground. This could be quite an effective system, helping to counter the effects of over-centralisation that have often been a problem in the past. In fact, many of the regions have deeply ingrained traditions of support for one or other of the main political parties although the UK electorate as a whole has, over the last 100 years or so, regularly replaced central government of one political stripe with that of another. It is, therefore, in the interests of democracy that central government retain its role as the main tier responsible for major areas of policy – the alternative would be the potential disenfranchisement of all those who, like myself, would find themselves stranded in political ‘enemy territory’.
After much consideration, then, I still believe that there are huge benefits that could be derived from the introduction of regional devolution in terms of enhancing democracy and bringing power closer to the people and that the potential disadvantages could be offset by putting in place the proper checks and balances – and in particular by the establishment of a system of proportional representation in the election of regional governments – to prevent the existing political demographics of England from holding back that potential increase in popular involvement and democratic empowerment.