If politics is war by less violent, constitutional means, it follows that truth fares no better in the peaceful competition between interests. This is especially the case when politics is staking out new territory. If one can define what a problem or challenge is, your solutions, such as they are, have a certain credibility from the off while everyone else plays catch up. Consider the deficit determinism Dave's administration served up for for six years, and scored him a general election result too. The truth didn't matter. By linking the crisis in the public finances with alleged Labour profligacy and not with bail outs and recession, the Tories controlled the story.
Theresa May is doing exactly the same with Brexit. And that means dishonesty at the very basic level is fundamental to how she defines it. In her short speech at Tory party conference earlier, she had this to say:
I believe there is a lot of muddled thinking and several arguments about the future that need to be laid to rest. For example, there is no such thing as a choice between “soft Brexit” and “hard Brexit”. This line of argument – in which “soft Brexit” amounts to some form of continued EU membership and “hard Brexit” is a conscious decision to reject trade with Europe – is simply a false dichotomy. And it is one that is too often propagated by people who, I am afraid to say, have still not accepted the result of the referendum.
She and every leading Tory knows full well this is untrue. When matters turned to Brexit over the summer, proponents of soft Brexit - presumably favoured by reconciled remainers and a large number of leave voters because, after all, a soft exit is what the likes of Johnson and Grayling talked up during the referendum campaign - defined it as fundamentally non-disruptive. Britain after Brexit was to be business as usual with as many benefits retained as is practicable. The hard Brexit position, which has only recently started speaking its name this last month or so, isn't the rejection of trade with the EU as May pretends. It's the reckless abandonment of arrangements that have strengthened the British economy and allowed for the interpenetration of capitals, of workers, of flows of trade and the circulation of goods. The EU sells more to us than what we buy, say the idiots, but as an entity where risk is distributed among a market of 440 million people, the sundering of free ranging economic ties with Britain are going to hurt us far more than our withdrawal will hurt it. And we know from the 2008 crash who'll end up paying for this failure.
In the Bermuda Triangle of the Foreign Office, Dept of International Trade, and the Brexit office sense disappeared right after truth vanished from the radar. May has swallowed the Leave line that Britain can negotiate its own exit that retains all the benefits of the EU with none of the responsibilities simply because, well, we're Britain and we're a Very Important Place. As an assumption to hang a negotiating position, it's utterly reckless. For one, as the default party of British business the Tories show scant awareness of capitalist economics. To demonstrate, there is some evidence British car exports to the continent have taken a hit post-referendum. Who benefits? Well, that would be other manufacturers. Imagine that on steroids. Two years of Article 50 negotiations means a drop in inward investment for companies wanting unimpeded access to the single market. Meanwhile multinationals with a significant presence in the UK, such as Toyota and Nissan, will no doubt hold negotiations of their own with a view to relocation. And European competitors are going to go hell for leather on EU market share held by UK companies because they cannot respond quickly to competitive pressures thanks to Brexit uncertainty. May's foolhardy Brexit is going to put British capital at a disadvantage. Again, remember, this is supposed to be the party of business.
There's a strategic deficit when it comes to the 27 member states too. She seems to have forgotten they have politics too. As above, some would gain from a Brexit as UK-based business relocates and their companies muscle in on markets: they have an interest in a bumpy landing for Britain. At the same time, EU member states - Germany especially - working toward greater integration have to strike a fine balance between maintaining stability that won't negatively impact on their economy, and ensuring no one else has exiting thoughts. While the Tories believe in appealing to the rationality of unimpeded Mercedes sales in Britain, German and EU politics are divided over detente or punishment because EU business benefits differently and unevenly from Brexit. The second big political issue is the Tories' fantasy of free trade without free movement. If by some fluke Britain negotiated such a deal, the populist and the far right in the EU could be emboldened to demand the same. With immigration and the refugee crisis a perennial issue, it's difficult to see how Brussels, with the backing of Paris and Berlin would sign up to an arrangement that could accelerate EU disintegration.
Recall how we got into this mess? That's right, the short, medium, and long-range interests of the country were put into jeopardy for the sake of a small number of Tory voters tempted by a declining and doomed fringe party. May likes to pose as a different kind of leader, but I can't shake the feeling this negotiating position is also conditioned heavily by parliamentary party management. The Brexiters were always going to be her bastards, so the pre-announcement of Article 50 and a clear, if stupid and dangerous position on hard Brexit would keep them happy. But couple it with the Great Act of Repeal (an invite for a limited but publicity-hungry backbencher to call for a national holiday in perpetuity to fall on that date, to be sure), due to be legislated for as the EU negotiations take place and the PM can now look forward to a trouble-free conference. Let this be clear. The government are adopting the weakest negotiating position vis a vis the EU because it preserves party unity.
Asked about his son's role in negotiating Britain's future, Stanley Johnson reportedly said his Boris needs to avoid Brexit becoming a wrexit (wrecks it). Even if he was competent, which he is not, his boss is determined to steer the ship of state right into the harbour wall.
When I used to write letters to ministers for a living, it struck me that Damian Green was relatively decent. Well, if you ignore the appalling voting record, the missives we got back from the civil servant who scribbled his letters in immigration suggested he was a reasonable bloke, albeit one hemmed in by the politics he chose to associate himself with. This was entirely of a different character to his predecessor at the Department for Work and Pensions. Iain Duncan Smith's letters cadenced his cruelty with evangelism and zealotry. Now Damian Green has taken over from the execrable IDS, in a rare Tory concession to decency he has announced the government will no longer subject the chronically ill to repeat work capability assessments. Good.
Readers not familiar with the Work Capability Assessment will recall the well-publicised misery its work fitness test has caused. Not only have seriously ill and disabled people been found work fit, because the "trained medical professional" assessors deemed them capable of some form of employment, it has exacerbated illness in a great many cases as the dread of the assessment and the anxiety of going through the appeal process for many hundreds of thousands of people have compounded their conditions. We know it's been a factor in several premature deaths and suicides. Whether you believe whether some kind of independent, non-medical test is appropriate to qualify an applicant for social security or not (and I don't), if you can be found work fit simply because you went to your interview in a suit then obviously something is horrendously wrong.
Nevertheless, the Tories do not deserve any credit for exempting the chronically ill from future evaluations. It is true that Labour, for its sins, introduced this horrendous test. But the Tories made it their own, aided (lest we forget) at all times by the Liberal Democrats. The main question they have to answer is why chronically ill people, who aren't going to get better (the clue is in the name) were subject to repeat testing in the first place. The government have overseen social security policy for six years. If common sense proved elusive, there was evidence aplenty pouring in from the rate of successful appeals, repeat submissions from disability campaigners and charities, and the petitioning of Tory MP constituency surgeries by worried people. For years they've turned a tin ear to the experiences of some of our most vulnerable, and that alone condemns them.
On The Sunday Politics this lunch time, the formerly media-shy IDS was asked about this. He put up some waffle about the nature of the test. Under the old Disability Living Allowance system, access to disability payments was on the basis of medical diagnosis and need. Employment Support Allowance, which is basically dole for ill and disabled people, came with all kinds of conditionalities around income, capacity to undertake work-related tasks, and availability for "training". IDS argued he wanted to change the system to recognise the long-term ill and incurably sick, but was thwarted by the incompatibility of the two sets of support. The genius of the WCA was to disregard any and all medical evidence presented by applicants and recipients, and focus on whether they could lift a cardboard box or sit still for more than five minutes. Therefore to do what Damian Green has said means overhauling the test quite radically, tilting it - rightly - toward medical evidence. If indeed IDS is speaking the truth, and we know that our self-serving friend has form for a fib or two, then he was actively being overruled by Dave. That makes for another nail in the ex-PM's wretched coffin.
There's a whiff of cynicism about this. Since May appeared in front of Downing Street to do her Ed Miliband impression, this has been a government on a go-slow. The media again focused on the unnecessary Labour leadership contest and so a summer of Tory to-ing and fro-ing over Brexit, with May having to intervene publicly to slap down the likes of Johnson and disgraced international trade minister Liam Fox, went virtually unnoticed as far as folks outside of Westminsterland are concerned. They can't hide their paralysis forever - governing things involves being seen to govern things, after all. Piloted by Green, this change generates positive headlines, helps radiate an aura of Tory sensiblism and fluffiness, and gives some substance to May's one nationist pose. Pure coincidence the announcement is timed perfectly for Conservative Party Conference. If the decision was heartfelt and genuine, it would have been enacted in July. Meanwhile, the WCA continues alongside the system of punitive welfare sanctions. Note no change here: misery is fine as long as it remains politically expedient.
Jacqui Berry is a nurse, Unison, and Socialist Party activist from Medway. Jacqui's vlog, Austerity Blows went viral after her message to Jeremy Hunt was featured by Cosmopolitan magazine. When not vlogging, campaigning, or working Jacqui can be found tweeting her thoughts and opinions here.
After the leadership contest, what do you think is next for Jeremy and his support? Can he reach the parts other political leaders cannot?
So I’m not a full member of the Labour Party, but I am an affiliated supporter via my union. I am delighted for Corbyn, his team and for all of us who have supported him. I’m a nurse. I work on an Intensive Care Unit which is about as far away a person can get from the Westminster bubble and there are girls who I work with who have never voted before but bloody love him! His programme, which to be honest is not exactly a radical one, gives people hope.
My concern for him is that despite the increased mandate he got in the most recent leadership election, the Labour right won’t rest. If it’s true that it was representatives from my own union UNISON who led the charge in getting through a package of rule changes, I would be more than disappointed and given that its members voted heavily to support Corbyn I think there would need to be a reckoning for those involved.
And can you see a way back for Progress, Labour First, et al?
Absolutely! If anything they’re in a stronger position now than there were before the election. Now that they don’t have to pretend that Owen Smith is in any way credible they can set their sights on the next plot. By manoeuvring themselves a majority on the NEC, allegedly propped up by trade union allies, the Labour right wing are in a strong position to push through shadow cabinet elections which will give the PLP no end of opportunity to undermine Corbyn. I really liked that Corbyn closed Labour Conference with the Bill Shankley quote “The socialism I believe in is everyone working for each other …” but on the football pitch if half your team are trying to put the ball in the back of their own net, as a manager you would replace them before the fans stopped showing up every week.
Moving on, are there any blogs or other politics/comments websites you regularly follow?
Definitely this one.
You use YouTube to get your point across. Do you think it's a useful outlet for left and labour movement activists?
Vlogging is just another way of popularizing socialist ideas. I definitely think if Lenin was developing is ideas around revolutionary organisation today, he’d have vlogged. I cover local pickets, protests, demonstrations, trade union stuff and comment. The medium allows you to chronicle real life in austerity Britain without necessarily being preachy. It’s recorded in working class homes, using equipment that a nurse can just about afford. People will be able to look back and see how working class people dressed and talked, what was considered funny, where we shopped. If it feels authentic, that’s because it is. Sometimes when people put a camera in front of their face, the patter of their speech becomes very newsy but vlogging should be more relaxed. It’s a video diary at the end of the day and political diaries have been inspiring people for decades. People like the personal. I would urge anybody struggling against capitalism to have a go!
Are you reading anything at the moment?
Last week I picked up a copy of Seeing things as they are: Selected journalism and other writings by George Orwell. Because I want to start writing again but the best parts are the poems he writes about death. It’s one of my favourite subjects.
Do you have a favourite novel?
Watership Down by Richard Adams.
Are there any works of non-fiction that has had a major influence on how you think about the world?
Lots! My favourite would probably have to be The Revolution Betrayed by Leon Trotsky.
Who are your biggest intellectual influences?
Between the ages of about 17 and 20 I consumed a diet almost entirely of Marx, Engles, Lenin and Trotsky, so obviously that has had a big impact on the way I see the world. I’ve also been influenced not just in my nursing practice but also in how I approach politics by nursing academics like Susan Jo Roberts, whose work on lateral violence and oppressed group behavior have got me through many a night shift!
And has there ever been an event/moment that has exercised a similar influence?
I had a fairly tough time as a teenager. I had some mental health problems, and my family and I didn’t always get on. I was homeless for a bit. Not everything influences you in a good way, but it made me resilient. I know what it is to be dirt poor. I think it’s given me a sense of perspective which means I’m someone who looks for the funny side even in the darkest circumstances. I don’t think I’ve laughed so much as the week me, my mum and her brother spent with my grandma on her death bed. It was a hoot! I try not to take myself too seriously. Some people have real problems.
How many political organisations have you been a member of?
Loads! I think the first one was Greenpeace when I was about 10 and I read a leaflet about deforestation in The Body Shop.
Is there anything you particularly enjoy about political activity?
For me, once the initial enthusiasm had worn off, activism had always been a means to an end. It’s easy to get burnt out, especially in the political period prior to Corbyn’s victory when the situation wasn’t that open. An incredibly conservative trade union bureaucracy stifled the confidence of workers to resist austerity. In the NHS the real value of our pay has fallen by 15% since 2010. This has been met with four hours of strike action. Things have changed now. Corbyn’s victory was based on him tapping into a mood that was always there under the surface, that there is an alternative to austerity. Maybe that’s why some in the trade union movement allegedly don’t like him! Either way he’s enthused hundreds of thousands.
Vlogging also gives my activism a new dimension, I feel like it’s more meaningful. Being able to reach a few hundred people with a vlog from a local picket line not only spreads the message but it builds relationships. People love it when I stick my phone in their face. Also the editing process forces me to work out what’s important. No one wants to see Junior Doctors faffing about trying to decide whether to allow more than 6 on a picket line. People do want to feel like their fight is our fight.
Can you name an idea or an issue about which you've changed your mind?
I’ll be honest, I didn’t expect the re-populisation of socialist ideas to have anything to do with the Labour Party.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to disseminate?
The other day I was making up a syringe of IV morphine and my line manager came up to me and asked me what a Trotskyist is.
What set of ideas do you think it most important to combat?
Racism and bigotry are always bad. Also, this idea of “wiping the slate clean” as Corbyn puts it is bogus. The definition of madness is making the same mistake over and over again, expecting a different outcome. Purge the purgers or be purged yourself mate.
Do you have any political heroes?
No.
How about villains?
Plenty! Although special mention to Jeremy Hunt who has literally no redeeming qualities, apart from making Patricia Hewitt look not so bad.
If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?
I would love to nationalise the banks. It would make me really happy. Whatever my sister manages to achieve, I’d always be the sibling who nationalised the banks.
What do you consider to be the main threat to the future peace and security of the world?
Capitalism. Always capitalism.
What would be your most important piece of advice about life?
Have a bit of humility. We all sit down for shit and no one gets out alive.
What is your favourite song?
I’m having a Fleetwood Mac revival. Such a millennial.
And what was the last film you saw?
I think it might’ve been Beauty and the Beast.
What do you consider the most important personal quality in others?
I have a lot friends from many different background and the one thing they all have in common is bravery.
What fault in others do you most dislike?
People who can’t acknowledge their own shortcomings and mistakes.
And any pet peeves?
The lift in my hospital is the bane of my fucking life.
What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
Get regular smears, dickhead.
What do you like doing in your spare time?
I like micro-pubs! They’re brilliant.
What is your most treasured possession?
Probably my phone. That’s bad isn’t it?
Do you have any guilty pleasures?
Nah, I’m shameless.
What talent would you most like to have?
Genuinely wish I could sing but I’ve tried and it really is terrible.
If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for?
I’d lose a stone. I know that’s really shallow but we’re all subject to bourgeois patriarchal conditioning when it comes to body norms.
And if you were to suddenly win or inherit an enormously large sum of money, would it change you and how would you spend it?
I’d pay off my mortgage and my mum and dad’s. I’d get my sister a place as well, her landlord sounds like an arse. I’d get some fancy vlogging equipment and have a couple of years travelling. The rest I’d set up a workers co-operative and build a shit ton of wind turbines with solar panels on top. I’d also get Spotify Premium.
If you could go for a drink with three people, past or present, who would they be?
Natalie from work, Lenin, and Stevie Nicks. I think Lenin would have a really boring night. Poor Lenin.
And lastly ... why are you a socialist?
I really can’t cope with injustice.
The five most read posts this last month were:
1. Why I Voted for Jeremy Corbyn
2. Jeremy Corbyn's Prime Ministerial Speech
3. Jeremy Corbyn in Stoke-on-Trent
4. Now What for the Labour Establishment?
5. Some Critical Advice for Jeremy Corbyn
Critical Corbyn studies absolutely dominated the blog last month, with my piece explaining why I voted this time for Jezza cleaning up and going semi-viral on the old social media. Jolly good. Its ilk helped push the blog to its third highest page view total ever with a monthly tally a shade under 101,000 page views. Perhaps now the summer's interest in Jez dies down and the Westminster slog resumes after next week's Tory conference, the numbers might drop back. We'll see soon enough.
Party
|
Number of Candidates
|
Total Vote
|
%
|
+/-
Q2
|
Average/
contest
|
+/-
Q2
|
+/-
Seats
|
Conservative
|
82
|
34,774
|
28.0%
|
-1.4%
|
424
|
-294
|
-8
|
Labour
|
73
|
35,883
|
28.9%
|
-5.8%
|
492
|
-392
|
-3
|
LibDem
|
65
|
22,388
|
18.0%
|
+7.1%
|
344
|
-31
|
+16
|
UKIP
|
52
|
11,562
|
9.3%
|
-0.7%
|
222
|
-163
|
-2
|
Green
|
33
|
4,632
|
3.7%
|
-2.3%
|
140
|
-162
|
0
|
SNP*
|
4
|
4,813
|
3.9%
|
+1.5%
|
1,203
|
-747
|
-1
|
PC**
|
5
|
1,421
|
1.1%
|
+0.9%
|
115
|
+115
|
+1
|
TUSC
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ind***
|
30
|
5,957
|
4.8%
|
-0.6%
|
199
|
-154
|
-5
|
Other****
|
18
|
2,711
|
2.2%
|
+1.6%
|
151
|
+45
|
+2
|
* There were four by-elections in Scotland
** There were seven by-elections in Wales
*** There were four Independent clashes
**** Others this quarter were Yorkshire First (91), People Before Profit (129), Justice and Anti-Corruption (41), Christian Alliance (29), Mebyon Kernow (161) (111), Socialist Labour Party (131), SDP (15), United Thanet (44), North East Party (15), Farnham Residents' Assoc (754) (386) (356), English Democrats (24), MIF (148), British Peoples Party (6), People First (64), and the Communist Party of Britain (86)
Overall, 124,141 votes were cast over 85 local authority (tier one and tier two) contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. 29 council seats changed hands. For comparison see Quarter Two's results here.
The first full quarter since the Brexit vote and what do we see? Stasis from UKIP and a surge for the pro-EU LibDems, with a net gain of 16 councillors. Coincidence? Yes and no. As a party, it is in ruder health than the immediate aftermath of the general election. It's undergone a few mini (by Labour's standards) member surges and is standing more widely than when it was in government, so an element of its support are those who didn't necessarily have the opportunity to vote for them previously. On the other hand, it is reasonable to assume there are some die-hards who are casting their vote to protest Brexit, though the rising support for LibDems in by-elections can be traced back to May 2015.
Meanwhile, not much is separating the main parties, with Labour having a slight edge. Can the logjam be broken and swing one way or the other any time soon?
Party
|
Number of Candidates
|
Total Vote
|
%
|
+/-
Aug
|
Average/
contest
|
+/-
Aug
|
+/-
Seats
|
Conservative
|
31
|
13,829
|
29.7%
|
+0.9%
|
446
|
-65
|
-5
|
Labour
|
30
|
12,512
|
26.9%
|
-3.0%
|
417
|
-281
|
-1
|
LibDem
|
25
|
10,142
|
21.8%
|
+13.1%
|
406
|
+202
|
+8
|
UKIP
|
25
|
5,276
|
11.3%
|
+1.0%
|
211
|
-95
|
-1
|
Green
|
14
|
1,242
|
2.7%
|
+0.5%
|
89
|
-13
|
0
|
SNP*
|
1
|
1,261
|
2.7%
|
-6.8%
|
1,261
|
+77
|
-1
|
PC**
|
2
|
378
|
0.8%
|
+0.8%
|
189
|
+189
|
+1
|
TUSC
|
0
|
|
|
|
|
|
0
|
Ind***
|
6
|
1,610
|
3.5%
|
-1.9%
|
268
|
+16
|
-1
|
Other****
|
4
|
329
|
0.7%
|
-0.5%
|
82
|
-133
|
0
|
* There was one by-election in Scotland
** There were three by-elections in Wales
*** There was one Independent clash
**** Others this month consisted of Mebyon Kernow (111), MIF (148), British Peoples Party (6), People First (64)
Overall, 46,579 votes were cast over 32 local authority (tier one and tier two) contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. The Conservatives won 10 contests, Labour nine, LibDems 10, UKIP one, Plaid Cymru one, and Independents one. Conservatives and an Independent successfully defended a seat apiece by a safe margin (500+ votes), while 13 council seats changed hands in total. For comparison with Auguest's results, see here.
It was shaping up to be a dismal month for Labour, with the party losing three seats to the LibDems and on to the Tories, but something was salvaged by taking two back from the Conservatives and one from the SNP (!). It just kept getting worse for the Tories and they seemed particularly vulnerable to the yellow by-election surge, with the Libs seemingly coming from nowhere in a number of seats and taking them out. Can't say there will be many tears shed in my house about the blue team's performance though, annoyingly, they came out on top of the utterly meaningless by-election popular vote.
Meanwhile, as the LibDems surge in defiance of the polls, UKIP's under performance continues. 11.3% is certainly nothing for a minor party to be ashamed of, but considering how two years ago they were pulling in numbers like the Libs are now (though not the same numbers of seats, it has to be said), it's not looking great for them. Nor for the thesis they're about to displace Labour all across the north.
