Theory and Activism in Marxism

The previous post in this series on Gramsci's Selections from the Prison Notebooks concentrated on the socialist struggle against economism in the labour movement, and looked at the relevance of that position today. The next two major note fragments - 'Prediction and Perspective' and 'Analysis of Situations. Relations of Force' - address themselves to the place Marxism occupies in the formation of socialist strategy.

Understandably the ability to predict the consequences of unfolding social trends and processes is essential for any kind of Marxist political project. The capacity of theory as a guide to practice depends on identifying those moments where the application of the limited forces at its disposal can make a difference and effect the overall balance of the class struggle. By way of an example, it is to the eternal credit of Militant and others who brought the Anti-Poll Tax Federation together that they could mobilise a mass movement against it and help re-energise the organised working class after the defeats of the 80s. But this realisation wasn't just because of a particularly canny analysis of the situation. As a small but rooted organisation, Militant's analysis condensed the experience of tens of thousands of conversations its membership was having in the labour movement and beyond. Theory drove subsequent practice, but that theory was preceded and conditioned by practice from the outset.

As far as Gramsci was concerned predictions depend on seeing the present and the past as a movement. They are not discrete entities only distantly related to one another. The past is not a foreign country: it is the necessary foundation for all subsequent developments. But also theory and practice needs to generate (and subsequently be conditioned by) a programme. It's not enough to analyse and deploy our forces. Socialists need a road map, a sense of how to get from here to where we'd like to be. The programme mediates the relation of theory to practice and practice to theory, while striking a balance between what is and what ought to be (in their pathological forms, the former can be realised as the worship of accomplished fact, of capitulating to prevailing social relations in the manner of right wing labourism and social democracy), and the latter ultra-leftism and voluntarism). For socialist politics the immediate objective is always striking a new balance of forces, one that differs from the objective of its pathological forms because they work to transcend the present. Hence 'ought' is always concrete and should always be based on imminent historical possibilities. If this is neglected all one is left with is a revolutionary whimsy.

For Gramsci the Marxist analysis of class forces proceeds from different levels of abstraction. These are

1. International Relations (how these define a great power, position states in systems of international hegemony(ies), questions around small and medium state sovereignty and independence).
2. Society's "objective relations" (level of development of the productive forces, level of development of class relations and political force, hegemonic parties and party systems).
3. Immediate political relations (small scale actions and activism, everyday political activity, etc.).

Demonstrating their interpenetrated and interrelated nature, he writes

Any organic innovation in the social structure, through its technical-military expressions, modifies organically absolute and relative relations in the international field too. Even the geographical position of a nation state does nor precede but follows (logically) structural changes, although it also reacts back upon them to a certain extent (to the extent precisely to which superstructures react upon the structure, politics on economics, etc.) . However, international relations react both passively and actively on political relations (of hegemony among the parties). The more the immediate economic life of a nation is subordinated to international relations, the more a particular party will come to represent this situation and to exploit it ... (1971, p.176)

It's worth emphasising the separation Gramsci makes is an analytical one and is essential for constructing an accurate appreciation of the situation before the party. But as well as these he argues our principles of analysis must also distinguish between 'organic' movements and conjunctural (accidental) events. The accidental events of history have their roots in the various movements of capital and people that slosh around all societies, but ultimately they have little far reaching sociological significance in and of themselves. Instead they impact on the configuration of existing trends. For example, as psychologically shocking the September 11th attacks remain they were rooted in US policy toward the Middle East and the responses to it. Similarly it became a foil for the movement within the US ruling class favouring military action to impose its will on Afghanistan and Iraq. In a similar fashion personalities (history's "Great Men") emerge when they are invested in and borne aloft by these same class forces.

At moments of crisis organic forces and the conjunctural can coincide. For Gramsci the stuff of everyday politics is the attempt to preserve and overcome structural crisis, and can steer the course of subsequent developments. For example, though the Coalition and Labour leadership favour programmes for cutting the deficit by reducing the public sector, the different speeds and depth they advocate will make a major difference to how politics and the economy unfold over the next half-decade. Because organic forces are always open to modification by political action this is necessarily the terrain of the labour movement, but if it is to shape subsequent history the working class party - in the wide sense established here - has to convince wider public opinion that it alone is capable of offering a way out of the crisis. It has to strike a fine balance and avoid economism and 'ideologism' while relating to really-existing levels of consciousness.

Gramsci then moves on to the historical development of the bourgeoisie's collective political consciousness. As European feudalism decayed and capitalism began incubating in its decomposing womb the nascent bourgeoisie began to manifest a form of consciousness at the 'economic corporate' level of guilds and trade associations. Hence consciousness was partial and limited to sectional interests: they were unaware of what they shared with other sections of the rising class. This shared consciousness is eventually realised on the economic plane but as the threshold is approached and reached, the existing state structure looms as an obstacle to their achievement of equality with established ruling classes. This opens the period of struggle for political rights (for Gramsci the lead up to the experience of the French Revolution is the quintessential realisation of this process). At the final stage when the bourgeoisie are installed as the ruling class to secure their interests they have to become the repository of the interests of other classes too. This applies to the previous aristocracies displaced by their victory and the various subaltern classes. On each and every vital "superstructural" issue the bourgeoisie seeks to establish a political lead. The state co-opts, concedes, and corrupts the interests of other classes. It attempts - and often succeeds - in presenting itself as the embodiment of the universal (or national) interest. In other words, it consistently and systematically works to subordinate the interests of other classes to the hegemony of capital.

Be that as it may, no state is an island. As we saw before there are myriad connections between its internal relations and those of other states. Social relations are no respecters of borders. Hence policies carried out in one state can influence others - depending on the position it occupies in the international order. For example, Britain's role of the last 30 years in the EU can be described as a Trojan Horse for neoliberalism.

In summary, the theory and practice of socialist politics are intimately bound up with a programme. Successful interventions in large measure depend on having a correct diagnosis of the situation, which itself must crude determinism and voluntarism. We must also understand that socialists swim against the tide of bourgeois common sense.

With this in mind, Gramsci rounds this section off with a question. Does economic crisis necessarily lead to an historic (systemic) crisis of capitalism? No. Economic crises create conditions favourable to certain ideas, interventions, and ways of resolving particular social questions. An historic crisis therefore does not happen by itself. Though capitalism systematically creates the conditions that make socialism a real possibility it does not render it an inevitability. Gramsci's understanding of Marxism is about understanding the points of least resistance, of generating strategies and tactics appropriate to them and attending to the preparation of working class organisation to the task of transcending capitalism. It is nothing less than a call to arms.

A list of posts in this series on the Selections from the Prison Notebooks can be found here.

Ed Miliband at Prime Minister's Questions

It's not often I blog about the weekly ritual of Prime Minister's Questions. Most of the time there seems very little point. This ritual, which gives an appearance of accountability, seldom sheds lights on the government's actions - especially when the PM is a slippery customer deft in the art of answering everything but the question. And don't even get me started on friendly "don't you think the government are the best thing since sliced bread"-style queries. It's small wonder the public at best don't care or, at worst, find the whole spectacle alienating. It really puts the endless commentary trying to apportion points to the PM or the Leader of the Opposition into perspective.

But because today's questions saw Ed Miliband's debut at the despatch box, there will be a bit more interest than usual. As a new leader uneasy with the manner of his election and a whole host of Big Issues before Parliament, his performance had to satisfy the party faithful and those MPs eager to seize on any pretext to wield the knife. For once the points game did matter.

And how was it for Ed? Presentationally he did well. His measured questioning and passive-aggressive sparring with Dave may come across well. Ed stuck to the issue and stuck Dave with a barb where appropriate, whereas the PM came across as an Old Boy braggart desperate to win points through colourful insults. Those who tuned in might possibly see Ed's performance as a step away from Punch and Judy.

Ed Miliband's choice of issue, however, spoke volumes about political pose he wants to be seen striking. On the benefit cap and more medical tests for disability living allowance, Ed promised to work with Dave on supporting the coalition's proposals. But it was on the scrapping of universal child benefit and the well-publicised anomalies the proposed changes will throw up that Ed chose to attack the government. While any socialist worth their salt should defend universal benefits, Ed's angle focused on their "unfairness" rather than the correctness of the principle.

True, the government deserve condemnation on this matter, but given Ed's trajectory since winning the leadership I'm left wondering. Did he go for this (even though the Browne report is juicier) out of genuine concern, or because it's an issue championed by the self-proclaimed daily papers of Middle England?

It is right for Labour to try and win over relatively affluent voters in swing seats. But that Ed chose to do so on his first outing while the concerns of the vast majority effected by the cuts go unvoiced tells us who he wants to be seen championing. If this is the shape of Labour strategy to come, we might as well have voted in his brother.

Stuck in the Middle with Ed

Someone has been reading Lord Ashcroft's recent report. Given the nature of stupid red-baiting criticisms leveled at Ed Miliband since his victory in the Labour leadership contest, today's speech was never going to include the nationalisation of the top 100 monopolies. It struck a broadly social democratic tone while simultaneously appealing to the Middle England that obsesses the media and the triangulators alike. It was replete with buzzwords - new generation, good society, fairness, opposing new thinking to old thinking - and delivered with a conviction (whatever one may think of its content) that Blair's speeches often lacked. No, he didn't walk around the stage, and no he didn't speak without notes, but who really cares?

The key talking points were:

* The dogmatism of New Labour and its transformation from a "radical" and "establishment-challenging" force into a remote and out of touch establishment itself.

* The need to reduce the deficit with Alistair Darling's four year plan as a starting point. Neither was he necessarily opposed to every cut, accepted that certain things cut by Cameron would not be reinstated by a future Labour government, and was concerned with rebuilding Labour's "fiscal responsibility". He also attacked the Tories' lack of a plan for growth.

* Labour must understand why many voters are exercised by immigration. But instead of using it as a cue to start bashing them, he argued that employers should not be able to play different nationalities off on one another to undercut wages (when was the last time any mainstream politician fielded such an argument?)

* Unsurprisingly, Ed Miliband distinguished between responsible trade unionism for ensuring "decency" and "fairness" at work and the more militant kind. But also argued for a "disciplined" campaign against the coalition, one which does not see "irresponsible strike action" against the cuts for fear of alienating public support.

* While stressing the unions' responsibility, he also said business and the rich had their own. He reiterated his commitment to the living wage and to incentivise the tax system to encourage it.

* The ritual (coded) pledge to get tough on benefit claimants but again, using careful language to avoid demonising welfare recipients and speaking of a "benefits trap".

* Reinforced his commitment to civil liberties, wanting to reclaim this ground from the Tories and LibDems.

* A "values-based" foreign policy.

* The need to make politics more responsive via vote reform, an elected Lords, more local democracy, and a vague demand politicians have to speak to the issues and not focus group talking points.

Obviously this will be filled out with detail over the coming weeks. Who he appoints shadow chancellor will demonstrate the line of march on the deficit issue: his brother if he wishes to stick fairly closely to the Darling plan, Ed Balls/Yvette Cooper if he wants to assume a more combative approach (given his comments about strike action and "responsibility", he's more likely to go with the former, with qualifications). And of course there's the Autumn Spending Review: he has previously pledged to have ready an alternative to the coalition's demented slash and burn policies. But will it be that much of one?

It wasn't radical but it was something of a break with Blair/Brownism. And it did what it set out to do, stake out a new centre ground of mainstream politics and pitch a tent there. As he said himself, "Red Ed? Come off it ..."

Meet the New Boss ... Same as the Old Boss?

And so "Red" Ed Miliband pipped David Miliband to the post thanks to the affiliated votes of rank and file trade unionists. Predictably some Blairites have been crowing about this while mendaciously ignoring the affront to democracy of the MPs and MEPs section, where one of their votes counts for that of 600 members. The Tories and LibDems immediately jumped on it too, some of them making themselves look completely stupid in the process. Strangely, some of the loudest mouths attacking the trade union section are enthusiasts of open primaries. Well, what is more open than a primary of 250,000 people?

Andy has a good piece defending the trade union vote.

Contrary to the worst nightmares of the triangulators, we are highly unlikely to see the return of social democracy circa 1983. During the campaign he did make some very soft noises in this direction. There was the pledge to extend the 50% tax rate. The junking of New Labour's civil illiberalism. The commitment to review industrial relations legislation. A coherent industrial strategy. A more 'independent' foreign policy. A refusal to demonise immigrants. The need to reconnect with core working and middle class support. Hardly the stuff of a latter day transitional programme, but a clear break with New Labour into the sunlit uplands of (right wing) Labourism. And neither are they the electoral albatross some in the party and the press like to pretend.

But there is a gap in his politics that will ultimately determine the outcome of his political career and whether Labour are able to win the next general election. And that's his attitude to the cuts.

His piece in the Telegraph this morning flags up a certain ambiguity on this issue. He writes:

But I will do that in a way that doesn’t fall into the trap of opportunism. On the deficit, we will not oppose every cut. After years of expansion that transformed our public services from the days of leaky roofs and portable cabin classrooms, our public services will now need to learn to do more with less.

This is followed by a list of qualifications and excuses that amount to 'too deep, too soon'. This sounds more like a slightly fluffier version of Alastair Darling's commitment to arbitrarily cut the deficit in half in four years (this was also the programme David Miliband was wedded to). But then again the way the language is couched could leave the door open for Ed Balls' alternative, which doesn't talk about cuts (nor, for that matter, rules them out), but at least has the virtue of offering a powerful challenge to the coalition's cuts consensus. Unfortunately, rumours abound that his aggrieved brother's in the frame for the shadow chancellor's job - a move I believe will cost Labour dearly down the line. So on this crucial issue, the indicators point to an uncomfortable fudge that concedes way too much to the Tories.

Then there's Ed Miliband's attitude to workers' struggles and labour disputes. He might be committed to looking at the law in this area (without offering concrete proprosals), but on further commitments he's proving more slippery than an eel dipped in KY jelly. On this I agree with what Louise says, his Delphic language about genuine grievances and "justified strikes" means we won't be seeing Ed on a picket line any time soon.

Overall, Ed Miliband's election represents less a move to the left and more an awkward shuffle. But that in itself opens more political opportunities for socialist ideas than would have been the case under the alternative. However, it means those of us who want the Labour party to become a properly effective weapon in the battle against the Tories still have a job of work ahead of us.

2009 Party Accounts

Every summer the political quiet time begins with the Electoral Commission's release of party accounts for the year previous. For political anoraks it's an opportunity to pick over the financial standing of one's opponents during the previous year, and for those of us specialising in the ultra-niche domain of the leftist trainspotter, it provides a chance to see how the Trots and Tankies who've embraced bourgeois legality are doing in terms of members and funds.

2009's accounts continues the established tradition of fining the BNP for late submission, again. Unfortunately it means income and expenditure for their "breakthrough" year remains clouded in smoke until the Commission have finally received them. You could be forgiven for thinking something crooked's going on ...

Before the main course of far left party accounts, I know some readers will be interested in the starter: the incomings and outgoings of the three main parties and the 'major' minor parties:

Conservative Party Income £41,984,000 Expenditure £37,154,000

Green Party Income £813,841 Expenditure £813,382

Labour Party Income £26,798,000 Expenditure £24,732,000

Liberal Democrats Income £6,497,013 Expenditure £6,679,089

Plaid Cymru Income £798,805 Expenditure £768,982

Scottish National Party Income £1,842,127 Expenditure £1,737,609

Sinn Féin Income £1,177,727 Expenditure £1,183,693

Ulster Unionist Party Income £392,868 Expenditure £357,430

UK Independence Party Income £1,221,422 Expenditure £1,201,617

You can compare previous years at a glance on these charts. There's nothing really to note except the Labour party were in dire financial straits - but we knew that already. And I see the LibDems had to sell some of the family silver to fight the European elections.

But anyway without further ado, let's look at the far left's accounts. All +/- are on 2008 figures.

Alliance for Green Socialism Income £11,864 (-£658) Expenditure £12,582 (+£4,226)

Alliance for Workers Liberty Income £63,856 (N/A) Expenditure £65,544 (N/A)

Communist Party of Britain Income £102,499 (-£84,034) Expenditure £149,073 (+£10,853)

Left List Income £15,967 (-£87,806) Expenditure £3,040 (-£81,513)

Respect Income £32,852 (-£3,385) Expenditure £40,277 (+£126) (Members 1,085 (+591))

Scottish Socialist Party Income £72,228 (-£5,939) Expenditure £69,258 (+£324)

Socialist Labour Party Income £11,705 (+£2,450) Expenditure £9,466 (+£3,342) (Members 3,194)

Solidarity Income £38,424 (-£8,285) Expenditure £37,494 (-£8,814)

The major decline in the CPB's income isn't as bad as it appears. In 2008 their monies were temporarily boosted by a one off legacy of 70-odd grand. However, going over the accounts show an absence of Halpin's millions. Of course, it's up to her how she spends her cash, but she could afford to give the party she's been a member of all her adult life a nice wadge of dosh. It begs the question, why ever not? Is it because she has no confidence in the dozy old outfit?

SSP folk gearing up to refight the fratricidal battles of the Scottish left ahead of Tommy Sheridan's court appearance will find welcoming ammunition in the accounts. The SSP and Solidarity finances have more or less stabilised and neither are looking down the barrel of bankruptcy. Well, financially at least. I was struck by a particularly stupid and arrogant comment in Solidarity's accounts. Quite why they had to boast to a faceless Electoral Commission bureaucrat that they are the biggest force on the Scottish far left is beyond me. Especially as a comparison shows their income is approximately half that of their erstwhile SSP comrades. For those surveying the scene without sectarian blinkers fixed, it is entirely reasonable to assume the members' base is half theirs too.

The SLP's submission tickled me. It claims to have 3,194 members in total - 150 affiliated and 3,044 individual. I'm pretty sure the comrades are being a little economical with the truth. Swapping the individual for the affiliated figures around is closer to the mark. Long-time sect watchers will remember how Arthur Scargill wielded the 3,000-strong bloc vote of the North West, Cheshire, and Cumbria Miners' Association to see off pesky oppositionists. It's fair to assume this is now clumsily being used to give the impression the SLP has a sizable membership (by far left standards) rather than being the hollow shell it actually is.

The accounts give Respect some cheer. Despite a minority who were switched onto No2EU in last year's European elections (incidentally, no No2EU accounts were filed), 2009 was a period of consolidation. Finances have stabilised since the catastrophic split with the SWP and its membership more than doubled over the course of the year. Now Labour are in opposition I wonder if Respect can maintain this momentum under the coalition government? I doubt it.

This brings me to the Left List, the SWP's electoral front that contested the London Assembly elections in 2008 as an anti-Galloway spoiler. Its accounts make confusing reading. For all intents and purposes the front ceased to be after the elections. The Left List didn't rear its head in the European elections nor at any time since. So what campaigns did it spend £3,040 on in 2009? Also included are a number of general office costs - again, for what? And lastly, some £13,600 came in as individual members' donations (this is put under the 'donations below £200' category'), implying there was a Left List appeal of some sort. But there's been nary a mention of it in Socialist Worker since the 2008 contest. What's going on?

Ed Miliband Visits Stoke

Ed Miliband flew into The Potteries this afternoon for a question and answer session this afternoon organised by Stoke North Labour Party. About a hundred members turned up to listen to his views on everything from gender balance in the shadow cabinet to Cameron's diplomatic gaffe on Pakistan. But was he any good? Was he convincing?

His stump speech was framed in terms of the familiar nostrums. He ably ticked all the boxes: politics can make a difference ... politics should be about more than management ... Labour needs to listen more ... the leadership election provides us with a blank page ... etc.

Ed said Labour did some things in government we should be proud of, but it didn't do enough. On the economy, he believed the party came too late to the idea of having an industrial policy. The experience of government had taught them markets alone cannot be left to create jobs because it never will in sufficient quantities, therefore the state has the responsibility to fill this gap. He also knew millions of working class people were turned off from Labour because of its chummy relationship with business. Ed acknowledged this was a less a relationship and more a case of business's lording it over the party. In a New Labourish rehtorical flourish, he said if workers can expect fairness not favours from Labour, then it should be the same for business.

Warming to his theme, he thought New Labour was an overreaction to the 1980s. The managerial style, the centralised leadership under Blair and Brown, it was all top down. The new leadership must learn to listen to its members to avoid the heavy handed mistakes of the ancien regime. This means a proper party conference with serious debate, members' input into policy making, and the inculcation of a sense that members have influence on the party's direction. Part and parcel of this is rebuilding of the trade union movement. He said he was proud to be nominated by so many unions, but thought it was a real tragedy not enough people were in them. If he was voted leader he would work with the rest of the labour movement to make them more relevant.

The meeting then moved to questions. I won't bore readers with the ins and outs of every query, but will stick to the main points.

On the coalition, he said when the Tories are in government, they behave as if they own the place. When Labour are in, they feel like squatters. But the situation now is different to the 80s. Back then Labour were relatively powerless to stop the Tories. But because Cameron governs in coalition, the LibDems are particularly vulnerable. Our job is to make them feel like an endangered species. They've got to feel as if deposing Nick Clegg is the only way to save themselves from electoral oblivion. If we are successful in keeping up this pressure, the coalition will fall.

On parliamentary selection (obviously a controversial issue in Stoke), because it demotivates members and can drive them out of the party, he was asked if he would give an undertaking to stop the imposition of candidates by the central party? Ed replied the impositions happened because the 'special rule' period had been applied for longer than usual. To avoid this happening again, CLPs need to select their candidates earlier. If MPs are going to step down, they owe their CLPs the courtesy to give them plenty of time to organise a selection process.

On the deficit, the questioner felt the Tories had enjoyed a free ride at the despatch box and they were using the debt to railroad though an ideologically-driven cuts agenda. Ed replied that when the Tories have completed their spending review in the autumn we have to be ready with an alternative to their draconian cuts. We have to challenge them on their rewrite of history: this was a crisis of the banking sector and not the public sector.

On foreign policy, though he avoided direct discussion of Iraq, Ed said that under Blair New Labour mistook the alliance with the USA as the need to agree with Bush's on everything. Britain needs to disagree with America when necessary, and also be more willing to criticise Israel for its actions (in fact, he went as far to say Britain and the EU should not upgrade its relations with Israel (whatever that means) until it has made real progress on Gaza).

As a trade unionist I was particularly interested to hear his opinions on workplace rights. I got the impression from elsewhere that Ed more or less supported the status quo. If he did hold this position, then he's recently moved on it. He believed all industrial legislation needs to be reviewed: he thought the labyrinthine rules on strike ballots were utterly absurd. He was also for union access to workplaces as of right, a strengthening of rules on unfair dismissal and redundancy, and get away from how the rest of the world views Britain: as a country that hires and fires in cavalier fashion.

Lastly, Trotskyist readers of a certain pedigree might be interested to learn Ed was fully in favour of Young Labour having more independence and the right to take its own positions on things. This is necessary if we are to build a culture where the party can trust itself, and a movement fully in touch with the concerns and struggles outside of parliament.

This meeting pleasantly surprised me. In contrast to gloomy comment on other blogs, I thought Ed Miliband's stall was solidly labourist. For example, whereas Ed Balls combines a Keynesian orientation to the economy with a near-Powellite view on immigration, Ed Miliband eloquently argued that immigration was a lightning rod for discontent. An economic programme that places jobs and house building at the core of a coherent industrial strategy would undermine the antipathy large sections of Labour voters feel toward immigrant workers. Sure, it's not the solidly socialist programme some demand as the condition for taking out Labour membership, but it's a clear social democratic break with the Third Way/neoliberal claptrap that went before.

Speaking to various folk afterwards, more than a few members said it reaffirmed their decisions to back Ed. It's fair to say he picked up some converts too. Speaking to a local leading trade unionist, he said if Ed Miliband won his (sizable) branch would join the party en masse. Of course, they should join now to help make sure he does. And again, the atmosphere was convivial, friendly, and there was plenty of time after for socialising.

Whether one supports him or not, if Ed Miliband wins the leadership contest Labour will be a more interesting, more gratifying place to be. Why not come aboard?

The Worst of All Worlds

Nick Robinson's Five Days That Changed Britain was not the revelation-fest BBC trailers led us to believe. Predictably, it turned out to be a mix of banalities and stories that have been around the media block. I don't know what readers thought, but I was almost knocked out my chair to discover Nick Clegg and Gordon Brown "didn't get on". And my jaw hit the floor when it was revealed David Cameron thought Clegg was someone he could do business with.

Okay, I'm being a bit facetious. But I did come away with the impression the real story of the post-election negotiations between Labour, the Tories and LibDems is yet to be told.

For the LibDems, ultimately a deal with Labour couldn't be done because of Gordon: the real reason, it turned out, had more to do with Clegg's volte-face over spending cuts. The official ConDem narrative claims the LibDems changed their minds once they saw the books. In fact, as Clegg says in his interview, he had changed his mind because of the Eurozone's sovereign debt crisis. Curiously, he couldn't bring himself to mention this while the campaigning was in full swing, making his attacks on the Tories particularly hypocritical.

I was of the view the best we could have hoped for in the election, given Labour's standing in the polls, was a coalition with the LibDems. That didn't preclude Labour fighting to win. In fact, given the balance of political forces, every single vote would have strengthened its hand in any negotiated settlement. Neither was it a result I desired. But it was a sober assessment eventually borne out by the election results. So what did come as a genuine surprise was how little prepared the Labour leadership were. In his interview, Peter Mandelson said Cameron's public offer to the LibDems was met with genuine bemusement and scepticism by Brown and the rest of his team (the Dark Lord had already divined a coalition between the two was more than possible, of course). If this is true, if they did expect the LibDems to spur the Tories' advances, why weren't the leadership already preparing for serious negotiations? Asking Ed Balls and Mandelson about their first meeting with the LibDems, their admission that there was no briefing document or even a discussion beforehand damns Brown's team as criminally complacent.

It seems the prospect of a deal was more or less fluffed by Labour before negotiations begun. But it was not all the Brownites' fault. At the second formal meeting between the two parties, the LibDems dropped Clegg's cuts bombshell, a position all wings of Labour would have found unacceptable. In truth, while the voters on May 6th didn't know it (nor, for that matter, the vast majority of LibDems), the yellow party's policies were already in alignment with the Tories.

A rather softer portrait of the Tories emerges from the documentary. Apparently Cameron had originally decided to go for a minority government if the Conservatives had won over 300 seats but were short of a majority. But then, we're told he woke up on the Friday morning thinking "a coalition [with the LibDems] seemed the right thing to do." In other words, the coalition began life as a whim. This explanation of its origins were reinforced by William Hague's contribution - he said apart from some idle musing before the election, no one thought about forming a coalition. I know the Tories are not-so-affectionately known as the Stupid Party, but surely there was some hard political calculation going on.

Returning to the LibDems, Clegg, David Lyons, et al. all emphasised how accommodating they found the Conservatives. Reporting on conversations with his party's negotiators, Paddy Ashdown said they were amazed at the speed Tories were conceding key points on their brief. He paraphrased their positions as "Would you like this? We've been trying to get rid of this for some time." More evidence Cameron calculated a tie-up with the LibDems would marginalise the moonbats on the hard Tory right. What I'd like to know is just what they conceded (apart from the AV referendum) considering the coalition's programme is barely distinguishable from the Tory manifesto.

We know the rest. The Tories and LibDems tied the knot and their grotesque offspring weren't slow to materialise. They have set about dismantling what remains of the welfare state. The cold dead hands of neoliberal dogma is driving economic policy. And Nick Clegg is overseeing the sorts of constitutional gerrymandering he would have roundly denounced in the past. Of course, the Tories were always going to do this. But as Andrew Adonis points out in his interview, the LibDems chose to align themselves with a right wing agenda. So much for social liberalism.

One thing Ashdown says in Five Days That Changed Britain stands out. On the hung parliament result, he said "The electorate had invented an excruciating instrument of torture for the LibDems." Going by the policies they are now promoting, you could say they're returning the favour.

Speaking and Listening in Political Theory

Not the most exciting of titles ever to have appeared on this blog, but Andy Dobson's paper, 'Democracy and Nature: Speaking and Listening' (delivered at Keele's Environmental Politics Summer School) addressed a fundamental absence in political philosophy and democratic theory. For all the stresses on deliberation, dialogue, consensus-building and the like the focus has (pace Derrida) traditionally been on speaking and speech, about getting one's ideas and arguments across to an audience. Andy arrived at this lack by way of a journey through green political thinking.

Andy's paper began with a quotation from Aristotle. A key foundation stone of his political philosophy is the distinction between humans and animals. He argued the difference lies not in gregariousness, or the ability to feel pleasure or pain but in the capacity for reasoned speech. This is what makes politics possible and exclusionary: without it participation is immediately ruled out. On this basis Andy suggested progressive politics (a slippery phrase if there ever was one) could be defined as the struggle for the right to speak and be heard. This receives support from an Aristotelian perspective: seeing as politics is premised on reasoned speech, excluding anyone from participation on other grounds is supremely irrational.

This definition is problematic for environmental politics because, under Aristotle's definition, the subjects of green politics lack the facility of speech. Future generations cannot speak yet, though as reasoned beings-to-be it is possible to represent their interests in the present. But the rest is 'dumb nature': it can never speak.

Nevertheless there have been efforts to extend the range of politics. For example, animal rights philosopher Peter Singer and others participate in the Great Ape Project. This tries to argue that excluding the rest of the great ape family from politics altogether is inconsistent. They may be incapable of reasoned speech and therefore human politics, but their sapience is such that they should be afforded certain protections that sees them removed from the sphere of property to personhood. In Spain for example, the government's environmental committee granted great apes certain rights in 2008.

This project of course is limited: it only extends to certain related species who bear obvious resemblances to us. Other species who are as equally sapient but different - such as whales and dolphins - are excluded from the project. Therefore how can the rest of nature be brought into political theory?

For Andy, the work of French philosopher of science, Bruno Latour can be of use here. In his influential The Politics of Nature (2004) he argued the intermeshing of social and the natural world means we cannot but help be involved in 'political ecology'. Therefore we should, epistemologically speaking, treat politics and nature as a single, unified case. In his book, Latour argues we can make a metaphorical distinction between the house of nature and the house of humans. The former possesses certainty and objectivity and is therefore a realm of 'authority'. In contrast, the latter is an abode of doubt, uncertainty and value judgement. Nature lacks speech but has authority. Humans have speech but lack authority, and so it's unsurprising so much political theory has put a barrier between the two.

As far as Latour is concerned this has led to a situation where some environmentalists have constructed a political theory that ignores politics. The human/nature dichotomy is collapsed entirely into nature's authority: it is the ultimate legislator of human existence, therefore we have no choice but to curb economic growth, deindustrialise, etc. etc. The question of the kind of politics appropriate to this project is left hanging, hence the diversity of viewpoints that accept the premise of nature's unimpeachable authority, from anarcho-primitivism to eco-dictatorship.

This is a dead end for Latour, as are the interminable debates over what bits of dumb nature should be included in politics. If we start from his premise that politics and nature are intertwined and accept that the outcome of various postmodern/post-structuralist debates has been to philosophically problematise statements of fact, the politics appropriate to this is not one based on speech but on uncertainty. This 'new collective' moves away from subjects to propositions, from people who can speak to things that need to be taken into account. To use a current example, the concern with the decline of Bees and other pollinating insects is a political problem in that it impacts on agri-business, food supply, raises questions about pollution and climate change, etc. It is a political problem, even though the apparent subjects - insects - cannot speak.

Andy argued this view breaks with Aristotle. Using his terms, Latour's new collective endows everything with the capacity to "speak". Non-humans have become beings of concern that provoke discussion and political action. But because they lack speech in the Aristotelian sense, they can only become political propositions if we listen. This however is far from straightforward because, as a category of political thought, listening has been virtually ignored. For all the ink spilt on shared speech, mutual recognition, toleration and collaboration listening is, at best, only implied. By way of a demonstration, searching for speech in democratic theory returns millions of links off tens of thousands of articles. Doing the same for listening yielded just three. This means there's an absence in urgent need of working on.

By way of exploring a listening category, Andy briefly drew on two pieces. The first was the absence in Iris Marion Young's 2002 book, Inclusion and Democracy. Considering the title, it does not consider how deficiencies in the capacity to listen reduces the quality of democracy. This isn't the flipside of Aristotle - that some people lack the ability of political listening - instead it is an effect of power. As John Dryzek argues in his book, Deliberative Democracy and Beyond (2000), the refusal to listen is a property of the privileged and therefore an exercise of their power.

I found Andy's paper fascinating, but there are two points I would like to make - the first on humanity/nature and the second on listening. Latour's replacement of the society/nature divide by a messy but unified collective subject isn't really new. The seeds of conceiving the intertwining of the two are present in Marx, as amply demonstrated by John Bellamy Foster's investigation, Marx's Ecology (2000). The relationship human society has with nature is akin to a dialectical interpenetration of opposites. It is not analogous to a transaction between two discrete independent entities. What historical materialism describes is human history's gradual estrangement and alienation from nature. As the productive forces have grown we are less immediately abound by the vagaries of natural necessity . The problem is this human-nature 'metabolism' is unregulated: from the standpoint of capitalism as a social formation it is only dimly aware its operation undermines the natural supports that make it possible. Protecting the long-term interests of the beings that animate the system is low down on the list of priorities.

Of course, this isn't to say Marxism has applied Marx's insights systematically. Academics and other political opponents can get away with writing nonsense about Marx's 'Prometheanism' because Marxists themselves have often gone along with technocratic understandings of (economic) development - not helped by Marx's occasional lapses into phraseology that endorses this view. But sometimes you have to use Marx against Marx to extract the historical materialist kernel from the hyperbolic shell.

On listening, it seems to me this property is present but repressed in social democratic/labourist and socialist politics. In his concluding remarks, Andy suggested feminist and green politics are predisposed to listening because of their concern with identifying and exploring conflicts marginalised and ignored by mainstream political thinking. At least where the current rhetoric of Labour is concerned, the emphasis is on listening. But the listening it has in mind is that consistent with the previous 13 years in government. It is rather the *appearance* of listening. For example, for all the hand wringing about the so-called core vote, at least three of the leadership candidates thinks reconnecting with the working class base means bashing benefit claimants and immigrants. This is not hearing: it's telling people what the candidates think they want to hear, which perfectly sums up the New Labour attitude to listening. It is an example of what Dryzek argues above. This wilful hard-of-hearing extends to the party organisation too. The gutting of member-led democracy in the party from the late 80s on has seen a decomposition of what political science calls the linkage function, the idea members and the party organisation keep political elites aware of what's going on 'on the ground' by feeding up information, policy ideas and feedback. This isn't surprising: Labour and social democratic traditions, for all their positives over conservative and liberal traditions, are fundamentally paternalist. From the outset, listening (at best) is about representing working class interests within the system. It is not listening aimed at making workers politically active themselves.

Marxist political thought is (theoretically) different. Regardless of whether you see yourself as some sort of Leninist or not, if Marxism is about encouraging the working class to organise in its own interests for the winning of political power. Such a project is premised on listening. i.e. If Marxists do not listen to the working class, how can it ever be won over to socialist politics? There seems to me to be two ways in which the Marxist tradition has dealt with listening. The first is with reference to the revolutionary organisation. In Lukacs's History and Class Consciousness essay on the party ('Towards a Methodology of the Problem of Organisation' (my commentary here), while the individual is subject to party discipline the health of the organisation is absolutely dependent on the free flow of critical discussion. Without it the formulation of tactics and strategy is impossible. In other words, the communist leadership has to listen to its members: listening is crucial for the linkage function to operate. A similar albeit less democratic point was made by Mao in relation to the 'mass line'. Here the party listens to the masses. The information is relayed upwards to cadre and leaders who, on this basis, formulate the line which is then transmitted back down and is agitated for among the masses. Here listening is absolutely crucial to the party becoming a concretisation of the masses' interests.

Then there is Gramsci. Hegemony is absolutely key to the bourgeoisie's rule. While it is, in the classical sense, guaranteed by the "armed bodies of men" organised by (and synonymous with) the capitalist state their rule is sustained by systems of cross class alliances who have been won over not just thanks to material privileges, but also (and interrelatedly) on the basis of consent. The assimilation of the outlook of these classes and class fractions to the common sense of capital is only possible because their historic bloc listens to their aspirations and demands. If this is not met it can result into a section splitting away and forming a sectional political party, or can be more serious and call the whole basis of their collective will into question. For Gramsci the job of the modern prince - the revolutionary socialist party - is to construct a counter hegemony. Everywhere this means winning the working class over to its political programme, which is a process of consent-building that cannot proceed on any other base than listening to the class. But elsewhere where the working class do not comprise the overwhelming majority of the populace its own historic bloc of allied classes has to be forged. Such class alliances are premised on not only organising among the other classes but listening to them and finding room for their expression in the counter-hegemonic bloc. The relationship between the workers and the peasantry in Russia was, for instance, the condition of the Bolshevik's success in 1917 and the subsequent civil war. And it was the break down of this relationship - the refusal of the bureaucratising leadership to listen - that contributed to the crises of the 1920s.

So while listening is present in Marxist political thought, there has been a tendency for it to be buried by the stress on what constitutes the correct political leadership.

In sum, following Latour's lead Andy is right that green politics (or, for that matter, any radical politics) must treat the human and the natural world as a continuum, and that this calls for a certain recasting of political theory in terms of listening. I agree. But while there may only be pregnant implications in mainstream democratic philosophy in this direction, I argue that of the 'old' traditions listening reaches its clearest, albeit slightly suppressed expression in Marxist thinking about politics.

Same Trough, Different Snouts: Why IPSA Sucks

Guest post from Richard Smith

In Portcullis House and among politicians' constituency offices up and down the UK there is one thing causing disgruntled rumblings and has people spitting blood: the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority (IPSA). Readers will recall IPSA was set up last year in the wake of the MPs' expenses scandal, and has since considerably tightened MPs' office budgets. Some might say, "well it's the MPs fault for abusing the system in the first place". This is understandable: there is no doubt that the actions perpetrated by some MPs would constitute nothing less than fraud had they been perpetrated by someone with less political capital. The problem however is that IPSA and their many rules have completely missed the point of why voters were so upset in the first place. The new rules may hit MPs hard, but they hit the MPs' staff even harder.

The new expenses system has cut £20,000 off the budget for staff overnight, as pensions and national insurance now have to be taken into account in this budget. Also staff that perform well are no longer entitled to a bonus.

Constituency offices are getting hammered. Only 85% of calls from the constituency will be paid by IPSA meaning many MPs are asking their staff not to use their constituency office phones. This policy affects one group of people: the constituents who need their MP. Constituency offices have also been hit by this strict budgeting as MPs have to rent a "ready-made office" and cannot rent an office that may be very cheap but needs a new carpet, or a fresh lick of paint unless the MPs pay the cost of renovations themselves. It’s worth noting these limitations do not apply to an MPs parliamentary office, a scenario which could easily create a two-tier system advantaging MPs within the London area.

If following these new regulations is problematic, it is nothing compared to actually trying to get a handle on what the rules are. IPSA have even made getting clarity on the new rules difficult. Yes they give you a number to call, times to call it, but do they answer the telephone? No. Such is the chaos flowing towards them from Portcullis House that even their answerphone is full, crippled by the volume of collective screams of mercy from interns across the land. Staff are trying to organise offices, sort out computers and, God forbid, even trying to see when on earth they are going to get paid.

Did IPSA really think that the MPs themselves were going to sit and get their heads around the new system? Nope, its the staff that deal with it. So on top of the pay cut, the problems with getting staff paid, the lack of a bonus, the inability to save on one budget and add the saved money onto another budget, MPs' staff are expected to be the resident expertise on their own worst nightmare. It is no wonder they’re spitting blood.

Thankfully last night while channel flicking many staff of MPs got their chance to vent some of that anger as BBC Parliament showed the IPSA Committee, and I for one welcomed the opportunity to yell at someone, even if it was via the television screen.

I say thankfully because of the actions of two wonderful Tories (I never thought I'd say that!): John Bercow and Charles Walker. IPSA, crowned by many as the knights in shining armour stopping the greedy MPs from wasting tax payers money, were shown to be the new gravy train laying down the rules for others but not following them themselves.

So here are a few key points that I pulled out of my hour of venting. The director of IPSA is to be paid £85,000. If that is not enough money for them they will also get a performance related bonus, unlike MPs staff who no longer get this. And it’s not just the director that gets a bonus, all IPSA staff are eligible.

The Compliance Officer which is being recruited will be paid up to £90,000 plus accommodation costs. A Compliance Officer for a system that you would be nuts to break is being paid this much for a job that will have hardly any work. I see scope for savings.

There will also be three communications officers, these will also be paid upwards of £60,000, which is on a par with the MPs themselves. So much for the members of staff trying to get their head around this new complex system. Perhaps instead of paying out exorbitant sums for non-jobs, this money could be better spent by investing in a larger IPSA answering machine.

Just when I thought that this new system could not be more hypocritical Charles Walker then pointed out that if IPSA make savings in one budget they can use those savings to top up another budget, something that is no longer allowed by MPs and their staff. In addition, if IPSA needs more money they can just ask for more, unlike MPs themselves.

Finally scrutiny for IPSA is this one IPSA committee. How often does this committee meet? Once a year. Contrast this with the continuous scrutiny MPs and their staff are now under. Will the media be holding IPSA to account, or cheering them on in their mindlessly populist way?

There maybe fewer snouts in the trough, but all that means more generous helpings of slurry for the unelected and the unaccountable. Meanwhile it's thin gruel for the staff who do the MPs' donkey work.

Machiavelli and Marxist Politics

The 'Modern Prince' is among Gramsci's most important writings. Because of their significance, his notes on the modern prince (i.e. the political party) will be spread over a number of posts. In this short piece I will be concentrating on Gramsci's appreciation and appropriation of the early Florentine political theorist, Niccolò Machiavelli.

Machiavelli's had a bad press these past 500 years. Along with the Communist Manifesto and Mein Kampf, The Prince is regarded as a notorious tract of political pornography. Why? For dictators, careerists and climbers of the greasy pole, The Prince is *the* handbook for achieving and maintaining political power. Machiavelli is said to be responsible for exposing political calculation in all its naked cynicism and bad faith. For example, this piece is typical of the commentary on Machiavelli. Gramsci however had no truck with this sort of hand wringing and goes some way to rehabilitate him for Marxist political theory.

What did Gramsci want to recover from centuries of hypocritical commentary on The Prince? It was the fact Machiavelli and Gramsci were motivated by analogous political projects. Whereas Gramsci theorised the political strategy appropriate to socialism in an age where capitalism appeared exhausted (what is fascism if it is not an attempt to freeze historical development by state violence and dictatorship?), Machiavelli was concerned with developing an ideal construct/individual that could unite a "shattered people". In other words he was motivated by a political vision of a united and strong Italy that could compete on equal footing with the powerful unitary states of England, France and Spain. In this sense he was an enemy of the feudal land owners and the Pope, whose interests were served by the division of the Italian peninsular into petty states and fiefdoms. From the standpoint of the development of the productive forces, Machiavelli's project, had it been a success, would have set Italy firmly on the path to capitalist modernity centuries before Italian national unification actually occurred.

For Gramsci what made Machiavelli a modern political thinker as opposed to a utopian dreamer like Thomas More and Plato was the rooting of his project in the prevailing social conditions of his day. Gramsci argues Machiavelli knew that a movement for national unity would need to mobilise the mass of the peasantry, and the means for doing so lay in the emerging urban bourgeoisie. He favoured the reformation of militias - which were the preserve and playthings of aristocrats and princelings - into truly popular forces. And of course 'the Prince' of his work's title was to spearhead this movement. Therefore the hard headed advice Machiavelli dispenses is really a programme for building consent, winning power and consolidating a new nation-wide regime in 16th century Italy.

As far as Gramsci was concerned, Machiavelli's work was not written for those already 'in the know': it was addressed to the (would-be) constituents of the historic bloc for whom politics was not part of their complex of socialisation. In so doing he systematised the existing political practice of elites - an enterprise that may have seen the traditional classes in the centuries since reap the benefit, but also and more significantly he introduced the mechanics of political technique to those outside these exalted circles. For many commentators on Machiavelli's work, this is his real, unpardonable sin.

What was Machiavelli's relevance to Gramsci? In a very basic sense their respective political projects were similar, that is to forge a new collective will that could bring together an historic bloc of classes whose interests lay in a revolutionary direction. But that is where the similarities end. For Machiavelli, the movement he desired was personified by the prince: a figure who would act as a lightning rod for the popular social forces and who, in turn, would stamp this bloc with his personality. Under modern conditions the roles and functions of 'great men' are much more tightly circumscribed. For Gramsci it's only at specific conjunctures where politics allows decisive individual action, such as moments of crisis (cometh the hour, cometh the man is a political myth, but it contains a grain of insight by recognising individuals can exercise a crucial influence over the course of events). However the actions of the individual political leader are capable of "restoration and reorganisation", but not the major shift the supersession of capitalism by socialism would require. Therefore individual leadership is an improvisation that serves particular interests at particular times.

Instead of an individual standing at the front of the workers' movement we have (or should aim to have) the modern prince: the revolutionary socialist party. Only a collective actor is capable of the immense task of organising for socialism. As the harbinger of the socialist future and the expression of working class interests, of necessity it must address itself to the question of 'Jacobin' (i.e. insurrectionary) technique, but more importantly it is the chief agent for organising a new collective will from political and (seemingly) non-political moral, intellectual and cultural phenomena and promote the vision of socialism.

This is why Machiavelli was significant for Marxist politics. Just as The Prince stresses building the consent necessary for achieving and stabilising the prince's reign (while recommending violence be deployed when necessary), Gramsci emphasises the patient work of developing the collective will, putting off a violent confrontation with the ruling class to the point where the modern prince can pull the rest of society in its train.

Gramsci's discussion of Machiavelli raises a couple of points about the role of personality in modern politics. At first glance his idea that politics have rendered the individual redundant appears to sit uneasily with his own circumstances. If this was the case, how would he have explained the Mussolini personality cult of the fascist regime that jailed him? Furthermore the bulk of his notes date from the time when dictatorships were mushrooming all over Europe. By the time the second world war broke out, liberal democracies were thin on the ground. However if one applies Gramsci's understanding of the modern prince to the likes of Nazi Germany and Stalin's USSR, the qualitative difference between modern and late feudal/early modern politics is plain.

Most dictatorships regardless of their professed ideologies rest on a political party or a party-style organisation. This is no accident of history: parties provide the indispensable foundation for dictatorial rule. In liberal democracies, theoretically speaking parties link (mass) memberships and electorates to competing sets of political elites. The same can be said of Iraq's Ba'ath party, the Korean Workers' Party and Italy's Fascist Party, albeit the linking they performed was with a permanent leadership. While these parties possessed a monopoly on political power and enabled their figurehead considerable license to mould party and society in their image, this was only possible because of the organising capacities of their party. The party did not exist because of their leader: the leader existed because of their party.

Many may moan today about the dominance of personality politics, but this is a far cry from Gramsci's understanding of personality in the political process. Sure, personalities have become more important as the political differences between the main bourgeois parties in the West have narrowed, but it is very rare for an individual to utterly dominate their party. Whatever they like to pretend now, the Tories were never united behind Thatcher. Where personalities persist in having a 'prince-like' effects on their parties, this tends to be toward the fringes where social weight gradually drops away the further the distance travelled from the centre left and centre right (this helps explain why so many far left organisations are grouped around petty gurus, and to greater or lesser extents collectively project the personality of their comrade number one).

Returning to the main point, for Gramsci the modern prince was the revolutionary socialist party. Its task is nothing less than winning over the mass of popular classes (the working class, the peasantry) to a force (the historic bloc) is with the potential to make a revolution. Intertwined with this is the forging of a national-popular collective will that successfully challenges the hegemony of the modern day 'traditional class' (the bourgeoisie), overturns their legitimacy, and justifies the socialist transformation of society.

A list of posts in this series on the Selections from the Prison Notebooks can be found here.

Andrew Gamble on the Election

A couple of weeks ago Andrew Gamble visited Keele to speak about the general election results and what it means for mainstream politics.

He began by asking if he thought the result was as expected? One one count, it was. The spread betting turned out to be inaccurate but the exit poll many commentators sneered at on election night was spot on. The opinion polls were largely on the money too. What was entirely unexpected by the commentariat was the Tories' decision to go for a coalition as opposed to a minority government. Gamble included himself in this group: he thought coalition was unlikely because they had only previously happened under the special circumstances of war. The 1918-22 coalition was really a Lloyd George premiership supported by the Tories, and similarly 1931 wasn't a true coalition: it was basically a Tory government with Liberal and Labour ministers. Hence from the standpoint of British political history the present coalition is breaking new ground.

Coalition government offers certain advantages to both parties. For Cameron the alliance with the LibDems solves a number of problems. He can sideline the Tory right, drop manifesto commitments he didn't really want (such as the pledge to cut inheritance tax), and with the LibDems in the treasury the political damage from his cuts programme doesn't fall entirely on him. It has the further advantage of allowing Cameron to position himself as a modern, liberal Tory and dilute the hard euroscepticism and xenophobia still endemic in his party.

For Clegg the prize was getting LibDems in the cabinet for the first time since the war, ensuring his position in the annals of British politics. He can now set about dismantling its reputation as the party of perennial opposition and demonstrate the advantages of coalition politics - one that ensures the LibDems will be a contender in future elections. He will also preside over the implementation of LibDem policies, not least the referendum on the Alternative Vote.

There are a number of dangers that lie in wait that threaten to derail the coalition government. The first is the Tory right. Many Tories kept mum before and during the election for entirely pragmatic reasons. They had the disagreements and were displeased with the direction the Tory party were heading, but knew to keep a lid on things for electoral expediency. They wanted to see Labour form a progressive coalition with the LibDems and others because when it would (inevitably) fall apart the electorate would punish them by voting for the Tories in droves and return them with a healthy majority. For this scenario to be thwarted by their leader in favour of coalition has left them seething. If that wasn't bad enough, the five cabinet posts and 20 ministerial positions reserved for the LibDems will have put some careerist noses seriously out of joint. But even more unforgivable has been Cameron's compromises over key policy shibboleths, especially on tax cutting. Who could have forseen a Tory government committed to raising the rate of capital gains tax? The move to an early reform of the Lords, the AV referendum concession, fixed terms, and the 55% no confidence threshold have poured more oil on the blazing back benches.

The second risk to the Tories are the consequences of the coalition succeeding and seeing out the full term. By moving the Tories more toward the liberal centre the LibDems could be partially absorbed but at the same time leave their right flank exposed. This presents the likes of UKIP and the BNP an opportunity as the Tories have traditionally mopped up the xenophobic hard right vote. With an opening of this political space some in the party might be tempted to jump ship to UKIP or a yet to be formed populist outfit, gradually whittling down the coalition's majority.

The third is the risk the LibDems face. There has been little in the way of an organised rebellion in its ranks so far. Vince Cable might not look comfortable with his Tory mates, and Charles Kennedy has grumbled away in think pieces but it's steady as she goes. However, seeing as the coalition will become unpopular very quickly how will the LibDems cope under the extra pressure and scrutiny? As we've seen these last couple of days, David Laws departure was very swift after his expenses scandal came to light. Could this be the shape of things to come? Another problem for the LibDems is that historically, previous associations with the Tories have led them being absorbed. The 1895-1912 Liberal Unionists and the 1931-68 National Liberal splits have met this fate - could Clegg lead the bulk of his party into a liberal Tory party, especially if the latter's rebranding succeeds and presents more of a liberal face in the LibDem's heartlands?

What about Labour? Gamble felt there was palpable relief in Labour's ranks, especially after post-TV debate polling put Labour behind the LibDems. However that there wasn't a total wipe out obscures the real dangers it faces. First, the number of seats gained do not reflect the slump in the vote - only the arithmetic of first past the post saved its bacon. Second with Cameron's pledge to cut the number of MPs by 60, you can bet the boundary commission's recommendations won't fall too heavily on Tory seats. This will create more marginals and make it difficult for Labour to win outright in the future.

Another problem for Labour is the geographic concentration of its support - it remains disproportionately weak in England. For it to win back the marginals New Labour won in 1997 some serious thinking needs to be done. But that won't be assisted by a leadership contest comprising of men all from a very similar background without much in the way of policy difference between them.

By way of a conclusion, Gamble noted a number of issues that will dominate the next five years. The first is the deficit. Associated with this will be a major defence review, which inevitably will downgrade Britain's capacity to project its power (as well as invite rebellion on the part of Tory back benchers). The union will come under strain too. Between them the coalition won 36% of the Scottish vote, but given Cameron's comments about the dependency the economies of the north, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland on the public sector, pushing through cuts there could be fuel for the nationalist fire.

The one thing Gamble didn't mention was how much the 'new politics' is business as usual. He talked about the periods 1976-92 and 92-08 as Tory and Labour hegemonies, but these were times marked by consensus around the subordination of society to market imperatives. Regardless of what realignment the coalition brings about in Westminster (if any), policy wise the platforms of all three parties are determined to make the working class pay for the crisis by cutting public sector employment, services, welfare benefits, and raising national insurance and VAT. But working class people are not responsible for the crisis. Commentators who flag up easily available credit to explain the crash overlook the reckless business practices of the banks, practices that cannot be separated from the short termism of making billions for their share holders. This is not to forget the role governments have played in engineering regimes whereby business is cut free from any social obligation, giving capital free reign to roam the planet for profitable opportunities.

The transformation of the banking crisis into a crisis of public finance will inevitably produce a wave of opposition up and down the country. The scenes from Greece could easily be repeated on British streets. But what remains unclear is how this will work its way through politics. Will a resurgence of the labour movement push Labour more to the left? Can dissatisfaction work to exacerbate political divisions in the LibDems and the Tories? Will small, marginal forces to Labour's left and the Tories' right benefit from the struggles and social dislocations to come?

Tory/LibDem Leaked Agreement

Here is the leaked Tory/LibDem coalition agreement, via Liberal Conspiracy

Conservative Liberal Democrat coalition negotiations

Agreements reached

11 May 2010

This document sets out agreements reached between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats on a range of issues. These are the issues that needed to be resolved between us in order for us to work together as a strong and stable government. It will be followed in due course by a final Coalition Agreement, covering the full range of policy and including foreign, defence and domestic policy issues not covered in this document.

1. Deficit Reduction

The parties agree that deficit reduction and continuing to ensure economic recovery is the most urgent issue facing Britain. We have therefore agreed that there will need to be:

a significantly accelerated reduction in the structural deficit over the course of a Parliament, with the main burden of deficit reduction borne by reduced spending rather than increased taxes;

arrangements that will protect those on low incomes from the effect of public sector pay constraint and other spending constraints;

and protection of jobs by stopping Labour’s proposed jobs tax.

The parties agree that a plan for deficit reduction should be set out in an emergency budget within 50 days of the signing of any agreement; the parties note that the credibility of a plan on deficit reduction depends on its long-term deliverability, not just the depth of immediate cuts. New forecasts of growth and borrowing should be made by an independent Office for Budget Responsibility for this emergency budget.

The parties agree that modest cuts of £6 billion to non-front line services can be made within the financial year 2010-11, subject to advice from the Treasury and the Bank of England on their feasibility and advisability. Some proportion of these savings can be used to support jobs, for example through the cancelling of some backdated demands for business rates. Other policies upon which we are agreed will further support job creation and green investment, such as work programmes for the unemployed and a green deal for energy efficiency investment.

The parties agree that reductions can be made to the Child Trust Fund and tax credits for higher earners.

2. Spending Review

NHS, Schools and a Fairer Society

The parties agree that a full Spending Review should be held, reporting this Autumn, following a fully consultative process involving all tiers of government and the private sector.

The parties agree that funding for the NHS should increase in real terms in each year of the Parliament, while recognising the impact this decision would have on other departments.

The target of spending 0.7% of GNI on overseas aid will also remain in place.

We will fund a significant premium for disadvantaged pupils from outside the schools budget by reductions in spending elsewhere.

The parties commit to holding a full Strategic Security and Defence Review alongside the Spending Review with strong involvement of the Treasury.

The Government will be committed to the maintenance of Britain’s nuclear deterrent, and have agreed that the renewal of Trident should be scrutinised to ensure value for money. Liberal Democrats will continue to make the case for alternatives.

We will immediately play a strong role in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty Review Conference, and press for continued progress on multilateral disarmament.

The parties commit to establishing an independent commission to review the long term affordability of public sector pensions, while protecting accrued rights.

We will restore the earnings link for the basic state pension from April 2011 with a “triple guarantee” that pensions are raised by the higher of earnings, prices or 2.5%, as proposed by the Liberal Democrats.

3. Tax Measures

The parties agree that the personal allowance for income tax should be increased in order to help lower and middle income earners. We agree to announce in the first Budget a substantial increase in the personal allowance from April 2011, with the benefits focused on those with lower and middle incomes. This will be funded with the money that would have been used to pay for the increase in Employee National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives, as well as revenues from increases in Capital Gains Tax rates for non-business assets as described below. The increase in Employer National Insurance thresholds proposed by the Conservatives will go ahead in order to stop Labour’s jobs tax. We also agree to a longer term policy objective of further increasing the personal allowance to £10,000, making further real terms steps each year towards this objective.

We agree that this should take priority over other tax cuts, including cuts to Inheritance Tax. We also agree that provision will be made for Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain on budget resolutions to introduce transferable tax allowances for married couples without prejudice to this coalition agreement.

The parties agree that a switch should be made to a per-plane, rather than per-passenger duty; a proportion of any increased revenues over time will be used to help fund increases in the personal allowance.

We further agree to seek a detailed agreement on taxing non-business capital gains at rates similar or close to those applied to income, with generous exemptions for entrepreneurial business activities.

The parties agree that tackling tax avoidance is essential for the new government, and that all efforts will be made to do so, including detailed development of Liberal Democrat proposals.

4. Banking Reform

The parties agree that reform to the banking system is essential to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis, to promote a competitive economy, to sustain the recovery and to protect and sustain jobs.

We agree that a banking levy will be introduced. We will seek a detailed agreement on implementation.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals for robust action to tackle unacceptable bonuses in the financial services sector; in developing these proposals, we will ensure they are effective in reducing risk.

We agree to bring forward detailed proposals to foster diversity, promote mutuals and create a more competitive banking industry.

We agree that ensuring the flow of credit to viable SMEs is essential for supporting growth and should be a core priority for a new government, and we will work together to develop effective proposals to do so. This will include consideration of both a major loan guarantee scheme and the use of net lending targets for the nationalised banks.

The parties wish to reduce systemic risk in the banking system and will establish an independent commission to investigate the complex issue of separating retail and investment banking in a sustainable way; while recognising that this would take time to get right, the commission will be given an initial time frame of one year to report.

The parties agree that the regulatory system needs reform to avoid a repeat of Labour’s financial crisis. We agree to bring forward proposals to give the Bank of England control of macro-prudential regulation and oversight of micro-prudential regulation.

The parties also agree to rule out joining the European Single Currency during the duration of this agreement.

5. Immigration

We have agreed that there should be an annual limit on the number of non-EU economic migrants admitted into the UK to live and work. We will consider jointly the mechanism for implementing the limit. We will end the detention of children for immigration purposes.

6. Political Reform

The parties agree to the establishment of five year fixed-term parliaments. A Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government will put a binding motion before the House of Commons in the first days following this agreement stating that the next general election will be held on the first Thursday of May 2015. Following this motion, legislation will be brought forward to make provision for fixed term parliaments of five years. This legislation will also provide for dissolution if 55% or more of the House votes in favour.

The parties will bring forward a Referendum Bill on electoral reform, which includes provision for the introduction of the Alternative Vote in the event of a positive result in the referendum, as well as for the creation of fewer and more equal sized constituencies. Both parties will whip their Parliamentary Parties in both Houses to support a simple majority referendum on the Alternative Vote, without prejudice to the positions parties will take during such a referendum.

The parties will bring forward early legislation to introduce a power of recall, allowing voters to force a by-election where an MP was found to have engaged in serious wrongdoing and having had a petition calling for a by-election signed by 10% of his or her constituents.

We agree to establish a committee to bring forward proposals for a wholly or mainly elected upper chamber on the basis of proportional representation. The committee will come forward with a draft motions by December 2010. It is likely that this bill will advocate single long terms of office. It is also likely there will be a grandfathering system for current Peers. In the interim, Lords appointments will be made with the objective of creating a second chamber reflective of the share of the vote secured by the political parties in the last general election.

The parties will bring forward the proposals of the Wright Committee for reform to the House of Commons in full – starting with the proposed committee for management of programmed business and including government business within its scope by the third year of the Parliament.

The parties agree to reduce electoral fraud by speeding up the implementation of individual voter registration.

We have agreed to establish a commission to consider the ‘West Lothian question’.

The parties agree to the implementation of the Calman Commission proposals and the offer of a referendum on further Welsh devolution.

The parties will tackle lobbying through introducing a statutory register of lobbyists. We also agree to pursue a detailed agreement on limiting donations and reforming party funding in order to remove big money from politics.

The parties will promote the radical devolution of power and greater financial autonomy to local government and community groups. This will include a full review of local government finance.

7. Pensions and Welfare

The parties agree to phase out the default retirement age and hold a review to set the date at which the state pension age starts to rise to 66, although it will not be sooner than 2016 for men and 2020 for women. We agree to end the rules requiring compulsory annuitisation at 75.

We agree to implement the Parliamentary and Health Ombudsman’s recommendation to make fair and transparent payments to Equitable Life policy holders, through an independent payment scheme, for their relative loss as a consequence of regulatory failure.

The parties agree to end all existing welfare to work programmes and to create a single welfare to work programme to help all unemployed people get back into work.

We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants facing the most significant barriers to work should be referred to the aforementioned newly created welfare to work programme immediately, not after 12 months as is currently the case. We agree that Jobseeker’s Allowance claimants aged under 25 should be referred to the programme after a maximum of six months.

The parties agree to realign contracts with welfare to work service providers to reflect more closely the results they achieve in getting people back into work.

We agree that the funding mechanism used by government to finance welfare to work programmes should be reformed to reflect the fact that initial investment delivers later savings in lower benefit expenditure.

We agree that receipt of benefits for those able to work should be conditional on the willingness to work.

8. Education

Schools

We agree to promote the reform of schools in order to ensure:

that new provider scan enter the state school system in response to parental demand;
that all schools have greater freedom over curriculum; and,
that all schools are held properly accountable.

Higher education

We await Lord Browne’s final report into higher education funding, and will judge its proposals against the need to:

increase social mobility;
take into account the impact on student debt;
ensure a properly funded university sector;
improve the quality of teaching;
advance scholarship; and,
attract a higher proportion of students from disadvantaged backgrounds.

If the response of the Government to Lord Browne’s report is one that Liberal Democrats cannot accept, then arrangements will be made to enable Liberal Democrat MPs to abstain in any vote.

9. Relations with the EU

We agree that the British Government will be a positive participant in the European Union, playing a strong and positive role with our partners, with the goal of ensuring that all the nations of Europe are equipped to face the challenges of the 21st century: global competitiveness, global warming and global poverty.

We agree that there should be no further transfer of sovereignty or powers over the course of the next Parliament. We will examine the balance of the EU’s existing competences and will, in particular, work to limit the application of the Working Time Directive in the United Kingdom.

We agree that we will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that any proposed future Treaty that transferred areas of power, or competences, would be subject to a referendum on that Treaty – a ‘referendum lock’.

We will amend the 1972 European Communities Act so that the use of any passerelle would require primary legislation.

We will examine the case for a United Kingdom Sovereignty Bill to make it clear that ultimate authority remains with Parliament.

We agree that Britain will not join or prepare to join the Euro in this Parliament.

We agree that we will strongly defend the UK’s national interests in the forthcoming EU budget negotiations and that the EU budget should only focus on those areas where the EU can add value.

We agree that we will press for the European Parliament only to have one seat, in Brussels.

We agree that we will approach forthcoming legislation in the area of criminal justice on a case by case basis, with a view to maximising our country’s security, protecting Britain’s civil liberties and preserving the integrity of our criminal justice system. Britain will not participate in the establishment of any European Public Prosecutor.

10. Civil liberties

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to reverse the substantial erosion of civil liberties under the Labour Government and roll back state intrusion.

This will include:

A Freedom or Great Repeal Bill.
The scrapping of ID card scheme, the National Identity register, the next generation of biometric passports and the Contact Point Database.
Outlawing the finger-printing of children at school without parental permission.
The extension of the scope of the Freedom of Information Act to provide greater transparency.
Adopting the protections of the Scottish model for the DNA database.
The protection of historic freedoms through the defence of trial by jury.
The restoration of rights to non-violent protest.
The review of libel laws to protect freedom of speech.
Safeguards against the misuse of anti-terrorism legislation.
Further regulation of CCTV.
Ending of storage of internet and email records without good reason.
A new mechanism to prevent the proliferation of unnecessary new criminal offences.

11. Environment

The parties agree to implement a full programme of measures to fulfil our joint ambitions for a low carbon and eco-friendly economy, including:

The establishment of a smart grid and the roll-out of smart meters.
The full establishment of feed-in tariff systems in electricity – as well as the maintenance of banded ROCs.
Measures to promote a huge increase in energy from waste through anaerobic digestion.
The creation of a green investment bank.
The provision of home energy improvement paid for by the savings from lower energy bills.
Retention of energy performance certificates while scrapping HIPs.
Measures to encourage marine energy.
The establishment of an emissions performance standard that will prevent coal-fired power stations being built unless they are equipped with sufficient CCS to meet the emissions performance standard.
The establishment of a high-speed rail network.
The cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow.
The refusal of additional runways at Gatwick and Stansted.
The replacement of the Air Passenger Duty with a per flight duty.
The provision of a floor price for carbon, as well as efforts to persuade the EU to move towards full auctioning of ETS permits.
Measures to make the import or possession of illegal timber a criminal offence.
Measures to promote green spaces and wildlife corridors in order to halt the loss of habitats and restore biodiversity.
Mandating a national recharging network for electric and plug-in hybrid vehicles.
Continuation of the present Government’s proposals for public sector investment in CCS technology for four coal-fired power stations; and a specific commitment to reduce central government carbon emissions by 10 per cent within 12 months.
We are agreed that we would seek to increase the target for energy from renewable sources, subject to the advice of the Climate Change Committee.

Liberal Democrats have long opposed any new nuclear construction. Conservatives, by contrast, are committed to allowing the replacement of existing nuclear power stations provided they are subject to the normal planning process for major projects (under a new national planning statement) and provided also that they receive no public subsidy.

We have agreed a process that will allow Liberal Democrats to maintain their opposition to nuclear power while permitting the government to bring forward the national planning statement for ratification by Parliament so that new nuclear construction becomes possible.

This process will involve:

the government completing the drafting of a national planning statement and putting it before Parliament;
specific agreement that a Liberal Democrat spokesman will speak against the planning statement, but that Liberal Democrat MPs will abstain; and clarity that this will not be regarded as an issue of confidence.