High time we indulged one of these.
1. Army of All (Unaligned) (Twitter)
2. Forward March (Labour) (Twitter)
3. Frank Parker (Labour) (Twitter)
4. Jill Mountford's Momentum Blog (AWL) (Twitter)
5. John Burgess (Labour/Unison)
6. Justin Schlosberg (Labour) (Twitter)
7. McDuff (Labour)
8. Renewing Labour (Labour) (Twitter)
9. Roger C (Labour) (Twitter)
10. The Clarion Magazine (Labour) (Twitter)
11. The Jeremy Corbyn Effect (Labour) (Twitter)
If you know of any new(ish) blogs that haven't featured before then drop me a line via the comments, email, Facebook, or Twitter. Please note I'm looking for blogs that have started within the last 12 months. The new blog round up appears on the first Sunday of the month, usually.
Sunday, 6 November 2016
Saturday, 5 November 2016
How Likely is a General Election?
The press are accustomed to exercising their power without responsibility, and it's an unalloyed good that the circulations of our most irascible organs are plunging downwards. However, the government, content to let the press mobilise rape and death threats (which, true to hypocritical form, The Sun subsequently branded sick), certainly isn't immune to consequences. On the one hand, it gives more power to the elbows of Cameroons like Nicky Morgan and Anna Soubry - any old rope will do to remind folks they exist and are halfway relevant. On the other it stirs up uneasiness among the wider Tory fraternity as they interpret press outrage as the stirrings of a populist mob of demented bigots venting anger toward institutions the Conservative Party cherishes while simultaneously making their new, strong leader appear powerless. And it can lead to some quitting in disgust, like Stephen Phillips's resignation from Parliament. Despite being a Tory and a Leave supporter, his objection to the sidelining of Parliament in the Brexit negotiations is right and principled. Furthermore, he's not returning to the Commons either. See, Zac, that's how you resign in protest.
Theresa May's project has two strands to it. First off, there is the patching up of the Thatcherite settlement and, of course, securing Brexit. Her base in big business will ensure as softer a Brexit as possible is secured for them, despite current disagreements and round robin letters from our captains of industry. And, indeed, the High Court judgement, which seems unlikely to get overturned on appeal, is going to help that. The problem for May is the former, for the foreseeable, is destined to be conditioned by the latter. If she makes efforts to follow through on the one nationism, which is ultimately about giving British capitalism some degree of stability, they are under threat of getting blown off course and/or undermined by the volatile mess of the latter. Given circumstances are less than ideal, what with a small majority and all that, and commanding huge leads in the opinion polls (which, lest we forget, have historically overstated Labour support), there are voices in the cabinet and media urging her to go for a general election. A whopping majority would, after all, shrink to insignificance the rebellious potential of Cameroons and diehard Brexiteers and ensure, should the Supreme Court find against the government, a large majority to get Article 50 through the Commons with the minimum of fuss.
I still think a general election is unlikely. Firstly, and it often appears that professional commentators need reminding of this, it is no longer in the gift of the Prime Minister to call an election. If there is to be an early election, it requires either a vote of no confidence in the government or a two-thirds majority in the House assenting to Parliament's dissolution. Now, some figure that a way around this is for the introduction of a bill for its abolition, which would only need a simple majority, or the Act's amendment granting the Prime Minister discretion. The problem is both would take up Parliamentary time. It would be very surprising if opposition parties opposed such a move, but it means every party can see it coming a mile off. Effectively, the day it appears on the parliamentary timetable is the day electioneering begins. And it could go on a while if the Commons gets into a game of legislative ping pong with the Lords. The process of calling an election is far from easy.
Second, an election means May would be forced to do the very thing she doesn't want to do, and that is set out the government's Brexit negotiating positions. It is simply not sustainable for the next Conservative government to issue a manifesto and merely say it is dedicated to the best possible result for Britain on page after page. Ordinarily, most voters don't pay attention to detailed minutiae, but with millions politicised by the referendum, this time's would be a little bit different. Oh yes, and there's EU politicians too. While it is impolitic for governments to give running commentary on the internal politics of other governments, there's nothing stopping politicians that are more junior, or are in opposition parties from making statements about the latest Brexit news to come from the UK. And in the febrile atmos of a general election, they could make quite a splash. In short, it's an absolute nightmare that defies the imposition of control.
And there's the issue of whether May could win an outright majority. On the basis of the polls, it might appear absurd to suggest she wouldn't. The PM, however, is nothing but ultra cautious. With politics behaving strangely, she knows it's possible Jeremy Corbyn's Labour could do better. In 2010, despite getting its second worst result since the war and led by a perceived lame duck, it ran the Tories much closer than mid-term polling would have suggested. The second is what would happen to the Liberal Democrat vote. May's majority rests on the ruthless wipe out operation Dave pursued against his erstwhile partners, particularly in the South West. Yet, as we know, the LibDems have been kicking up a storm in local council by-elections. Ordinarily, they mean very little but the trend is sustained and consistent across a spread of constituencies. Not only have they outpaced UKIP, reclaiming the position of third party in England and Wales, but their performance is well in advance of polling figures. If there's a trend in actual elections as opposed to the polls, then chances are it's real. Seeing as May has foolishly flirted with Wrexitism, she is doubly exposed as liberalish Tory types recoil and strong Remain identifiers give the LibDems a punt where they are best placed to win. And if I know this, you can bet she does as well.
How likely is a general election? Not very is the answer. I could be mistaken, but a review of the political terrain and the additional problems a poll in the Spring entails should rule it out. And yet, if she does go to the country despite all this it wouldn't be a first in recent times if politics indulged the irrational.
Friday, 4 November 2016
Wednesday, 2 November 2016
The Importance of Arguing Honestly
He makes some interesting points about May's flirtation with populism, another thing she borrowed from Ed Miliband. Yes, who knew? But it is an argument with some legs. As Ed was positioning Labour to mount his crusade against the predators of 21st century capitalism, it meant setting up a rhetorical structure in which the rip off merchants and spivs were opposed to the pure, unsullied, and virtuous electorate. May, during her Milibandist moment annexed those positions for electoral expediency. Lump them together with simplistic authoritarianism and clamping-down-on-immigration pitch, provided she carries through her promises May's in with a shout of patching up the post-1979 settlement and securing a lengthy period of government That is if Brexit and other unforeseen nasties don't spring any surprises.
The other thing in May's favour is personality, where conventional wisdom has it that she's a more serious and substantial figure than Jeremy Corbyn. Keep on saying it like Robert does and it must be true. Yet when you take the blinkers off and look at the evidence, we've seen nothing to suggest that so far. Her PMQ outings tend toward the blundersome and the wooden, suggesting the economic pitch isn't the only thing stolen from Labour's former leader. She's proven cackhanded in her Brexit appointments, has fallen out with big business (which, of course, doesn't mean they're about to beat a path to Labour's door), ducked a scrap over Heathrow, and doesn't appear any more competent in post than her predecessor. It's almost as if there is political value in Labour people talking her up. Yet when it comes to the role of personality in elections, despite the stress laid on the importance of having the right woman or man at the helm, actual evidence is much more equivocal. The classic study of the 1992 general election found perceptions of party leaders had a marginal effect. The influence it exerts is always heavily mediated by other issues. And so it also proved in 2015 - the drag of the blessed Ed was much weaker than is supposed. As ever, elections are defined and won on the basis of a small number of key issues, and even then it's a much more complex matter than owning the centre ground.
I digress. Robert's piece is interesting because he's among the first Blairite figures to catch the waft of coffee grains fanned by long-term demographic, occupational, and cultural shifts in all the advanced countries. Citing a policy paper that merely repeats stuff sociologists have been saying for years, he notes Britain is raising a generation "which is more socially liberal, internationalist and pro-immigration", but simultaneously aren't attached to the NHS in the same way preceding cohorts of voters were, and are more moderate on economic matters - whatever that means. It means long-term, May's project is in trouble - by implication, the hare-um scare-um of Tory campaigns will reach a use by date. But so is Jeremy Corbyn. It follows that as neither party are offering "a politics which is open, optimistic and future-focused" and are opting for "closed, pessimistic and backward-looking" positions, then we're screwed too.
Unless you believe Labour is offering something different, which it is. Yvette Cooper, for example, has been caught out on occasion (deliberately?) misunderstanding and passing off as fact the party's position on nationalisation. One would have thought that the nationalisation, democratisation, and cooperatisation of privatised utilities and rail is something that could catch the zeitgeist. Or the traction the basic income is getting among Labour's new leading layers, or the need for green industries, economic planning, life-long education (minus the tax on aspiration tuition fee debt represents), and the occasional use of QE for reasons other than bailing out banks and inflating property bubbles. Any casual observer without a dog in Labour's internal struggles would be hard pressed to agree with Robert that any of this is "pessimistic" and "backward-looking". In fact, its refreshing to see glaring social problems and future challenges spoken about plainly and addressed accordingly.
I get it. Robert isn't keen on the new leadership and thinks it's steering the party onto the rocks. Yet at his most polemical, he has to rely on insinuation, convoluted positioning, Delphic language and, I'm afraid to say, fibbing. It's as if a whole layer of Jeremy opponents are congenitally incapable of grasping his actual positions and offering honest, reasoned critique. And when they can't get to grips with their opponent properly, why should anyone else take their views on anything else seriously?
Tuesday, 1 November 2016
Momentum's Double Vision
I'm not a member of Momentum, but I do think it's vital for Labour's continued health. It has helped mobilise a new layer of activists around matters not confined to the party leadership. But, for sure, its existence certainly helped resist this summer's failed putsch and played its part in ensuring Jeremy Corbyn was reaffirmed by a country mile. People entirely new to politics have got involved and are slowly, steadily integrating into the timetable and rhythms of party activity without being stultified by it. There are future MPs, cabinet members, and perhaps even a Prime Minister who've joined Momentum. In short, the organisation is integral to the Corbyn project of opening the Labour Party up to the people we were set up to represent, and drawing in the rising layer of networked working class people. Momentum is in the process of becoming a conduit between the party and the ceaseless budding of grassroots mobilisations that often times bypass the labour movement, its promise working toward combining power politics with the sweep and breadth of a movement of movements. What happens here matters.
The present dispute is ostensibly caught up in constitutional matters, of whether Momentum's steering committee, formally a sub-committee of the National Committee, has the right to cancel the latter's meetings, and the meeting that decided this was called with 19 hours notice. Not great as it reminds one more of the kind of shenanigans the party's NEC has long been accustomed to than the straight talking, honest politics of Corbynism. While wrong and a touch shabby, the dispute has opened up two visions of the way forward.
The first is traditional organisation. Momentum groups should elect delegates and send them to national conference to steer policy and determine objectives. The alternative, as set out by Christine Shawcroft, is to try and build an electronic infrastructure that allows for the participation of all members. A noble reason, but perhaps not the real reason. Worth noting here is that local campaign groups, where they exist, can easily come under the control of unrepresentative cliques. The Alliance for Workers' Liberty and sundry sectarians spring to mind, seeing as their presence has been a focus of recent media attention. Yet as annoying, out-of-place, and out-of-step they are with what Momentum could be, much worse are careerists and opportunists riding the bandwagon. There is very little to be gained and everything to lose by empowering them.
The second point is that Corbyn's original campaign married the movement networks of the Labour left with huge numbers mobilised via social media. Momentum already has considerable experience with this method of organising and, crucially, many thousands got their first taste of participating in politics this way. It's messy and might not work, but it's worth experimenting with. After all, local groups as foci of activity aren't about to be abolished - rather decision making will be dispersed across networks. Members in the middle of nowhere will have as much chance to input as those crowded in the big cities. It aligns with the networked sensibilities of the activists already drawn into Momentum's orbit, of their habits of doing and thinking about politics - a culture that sits at odds with the delegate model.
As the former approach hasn't got the left very far in recent years, why not give something new a try?
Five Most Popular Posts for October
The most read posts last month were:
1. Jeremy Corbyn and the SWP
2. Understanding Jeremy Corbyn's Reshuffle
3. Theresa May: Brexit Means Wrexit
4. Theresa May and Thatcherism
5. The Woolfe was on the Floor
Critical Corbyn Studies, the Tories, and UKIP make the cut this month. Which is hardly surprising as that's pretty much all I've written about. Bringing together Jeremy Corbyn and the SWP was always going to add significantly to the audience figures. And indeed it did, giving this blog its biggest single day of visits since this dreary piece went viral a few years ago. That helped me to my fourth best monthly page views ever, so no complaints.
In posts you may have missed is this case in support for Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader. Outdated because Raheem Kassam showed his mettle and pulled out, it nevertheless diagnoses the two roads facing the purple party.
Monday, 31 October 2016
Ghouls 'n Ghosts for the MegaDrive/Genesis
Before Sonic the Hedgehog came along and sold millions of machines for Sega, the MegaDrive's main selling point was its ability to host arcade conversions that were supposedly indistinguishable from the coin operated original. There were a few failures, but some very creditable efforts. But supreme among them was GnG. An arcade monster from Capcom, for a period on import it was then the most expensive MegaDrive game yet seen (weighing in at £44.99 in 1989 money). Probably because the cartridge was a whopping six megabits, which is a mammoth 768 kilobytes to you and me. Small, but as it turned out, perfectly formed.
Yes, the game is hard. Indeed, in the canon of hard retro games it can often find a citation or two. But what makes it particularly fiendish is a little trick Capcom include in the franchise's games. Picture the scene. Your armour is rusty with the ichor of demons. In each of the lands behind you, corpses of dead bosses and assorted abominations are attracting flies and carrion eaters. You fling the final daggers into the huge fly thing waiting at the end of the game. It explodes like so many others, the gates open and ... you're sent right back to the beginning of the first level. Yes indeedy, you have to go through the game twice to complete it. No, that's not annoying at all. The in-game narrative justifies it in terms of having to backtrack to acquire a weapon that can slay Loki - the wonderfully named Psycho Cannon. In truth, it's a fancy ball of blue lightning, but to have to go through an already tough game again is proper trolling.
Ghouls 'n Ghosts was about as scary as games got in the late 1980s. But it also pulls the trick of binding existential dread up with rock solid gameplay. Terrifying.
Sunday, 30 October 2016
Suzanne Evans for UKIP Leader
Let's be clear. Despite their rhetoric, of the three main contenders - Paul Nuttall, Suzanne Evans, and Raheem Kassam - all are offering different visions of their party's stagnation and fall. As explained on other occasions, UKIP was made, paradoxically, as a declining force because its volatile core constituency was and is in long-term decline. Therefore its options are somewhat limited. What our runners and riders are putting before the party's selectorate are plans to keep the garishly coloured show on the road.
The favourite is Paul Nuttall, deputy chair and one of the few kippers to have name recognition - at least among the Westminster cognoscenti. He comes across well in the media, even if his arguments are complete nonsense. He also has some nous about him. For instance, in a canny bit of internal positioning he's pledged a referendum on capital punishment. For the party's diminishing membership it's just the sort of thing they would lap up. As they share, along with the Westminster elites UKIP professes to despise, the assumptions behind the MacKenzie theory of the working class, they would assume it could find an echo there too. Nuttall then is the standard bearer of the Northern strategy, of talking up immigration, stirring up Islamophobia, and hoping his scouse accent turns the man-of-the-people trick for him. The problem, however, is that despite his Merseyside origins Nuttall is definitely not on the "red" side of his party. On matters economic, he's on the record for supporting NHS privatisation because it "stifles competition". And he quite likes the idea that modestly-paid workers and billionaires should pay the same rate of income tax - except the latter get a tax cut and the former can look forward to a rise. As is well known, Nuttall is opposed to abortion (he'd like a referendum on that too), and he wallows in the usual climate change denialism. This is no barrier for a party content with polling averages between four and 10 per cent, but there are too many policy hostages to fortune here to pose Labour a serious and sustained challenge beyond the odd council by-election.
While Nuttall would take UKIP back to its 1999-2012 levels of support, albeit with added decline and stagnation, Suzanne Evans at least offers something different. Politics-wise, she's arguably a sidestep to Nuttall's left, but on matters of presentation they're worlds apart. Apart from the immigration obsession, like the late and unlamented Steven Woolfe she's competent in the media, but comes across too much like a mainstream politician. And a distinctly Tory one at that. As a former BBC journo, her rendering of Auntie speak gives her tone and diction a posh-sounding aspect sure to alienate those northern constituencies UKIP is hanging its hopes on. For that matter, Nuttall is unlikely to make much headway in the leafy shires among the nation of disaffected shop keepers. By contrast, Evans-led UKIP would be a respectable protest outfit with appeal to disaffected Tories disappointed Theresa May isn't the second coming of the blessed Margaret. Her leadership would be best placed to win back those who switched from the Tories after Dave saw equal marriage through the Commons, and are drifting back now Notting Hill Toryism spectacularly folded.
Nuttall and Evans lack that crossover appeal. The former thinks he's the man that can pull behind UKIP the non-Labour voting sections of the working class and make new inroads. By knocking off some of the party's sharp edges, Evans believes she can keep the party a going concern by staking the Tory territory that netted UKIP a few hundred councillors and two MPs as it peaked in 2013-15. These are mutually exclusive strategies. For his part, Nigel Farage's charisma, while divisive and repellent to the majority of Britain's voters, spoke to different constituencies with some success. While neither have Farage's pull, from the party's point of view at least UKIP can look forward to a future, however stunted and unappealing that will turn out to be. Under the third contender, there probably won't be a party left by Christmas. Which, admittedly, would be a nice present for all socialist and left-minded people.
Yes, Raheem Kassam is the kill switch candidate. If kippers want to obliterate their party, members should follow their former leader's endorsement and cast their ballots for him. It's not just that Kassam is a political ingénue who thinks swearing a lot, scribbling nihilist boiler plate, and having the ear of Farage and members of Trump's campaign team qualifies him for the job of leading a political party, it's that he's completely clueless. Seriously, if your time in hitherto was spent undertaking grutal shaftings with real and imagined enemies of the leader, don't be surprised to be on everyone's shitlist. Remember, no one thanked Beria for services rendered to Stalin. Far from making UKIP great again (what an original slogan), "Team Raheem" would find himself in a position no different to that occupied and swiftly vacated by the hapless Diane James. His stupid libertarianism, which is a rationale for childish, amoral fuck-youism won't find many takers among the party ranks, let alone the voters. And then, in the unlikely event of winning, there would be a legitimacy vacuum at the party's centre to match his lack of sense, tact, and basic decency. Under him the self-styled people's army would not be a serious proposition, and surely splintering and extinction would lie in its immediate future. Which begs the question, why is Kassam standing? I can't help but think this is about profile raising in pursuit of a media, rather than a political career. After all, there aren't any more European Parliamentary seats for UKIP's waifs and wastrels.
Kassam for UKIP leader, then? Actually, no. As much as I'd quite like UKIP to do one, they serve two political purposes. The first is they keep a foot firmly on the neck of the far right. For as long as it scoops up its electoral support, the splintered Nazi scene with their petty fuhrers can't get their act together. The second is, despite the rhetoric, UKIP still tends to appeal more to disgruntled Tories than fed up Labour. There are fewer of those working class "right old fascists" than MacKenzie, Westminster, and kippers suppose. It stands to reason that, for purely partisan reasons, Evans is the the progressive choice because she would cause the Tories more grief than either Nuttall or Kassam. So say it loud, say it proud, Suzanne Evans for UKIP leader!
Saturday, 29 October 2016
Saturday Interview: George Aylett
In both Labour leadership elections, you backed Jeremy Corbyn. Was this an easy decision to make? And why do you think Jeremy still attracts a huge following in the party, despite the well-publicised criticisms and negative polling? Also, If the party is to transform that enthusiasm in the party to widespread election-winning support, what do you think we have to do?
I backed Jeremy as I believe his vision can appeal to key swing voters. Labour need to appeal to four key groups as well as maintaining its base: sole traders, middle class, pensioners and ex-Labour voting working class voters.
These are the key groups that will decide the outcome of the election in swing seat marginals, and Corbyn’s policies have the potential to appeal to them.
For sole traders, I wrote this for Open Labour:
"In 2020, there will be more sole traders than trade unionists. These people lack basic rights at work – no sick leave, no maternity pay etc. Our goal should be to reassess social security arrangements for sole traders so that they have access to essential worker’s rights. For example, if they were to fall ill they would not risk their business going under. In 2015 Labour were portrayed as ‘anti-business’ so we must win the support of those who run their own businesses, we must embrace the self-employed and ensure that they are protected."
For the middle class – a home building programme, as many aspire to own a home of their own. House building is at a 90 year low – Labour need to counter this and become the party of home ownership. Under Corbyn, this can happen. We have already pledged to build one million homes within five years. On top of this, commuting has become more expensive: public ownership of the railways could cut ticket prices by 18% (according to the RMT). We need to be the party of affordable housing and affordable transport, this will help us appeal to middle class voters.
For pensioners – we need to ensure that we appeal to them considerably better than we have done in the past. Owen Jones has led the way on this, and his ideas can help us a lot, as will Corbyn’s policies. I think Labour should pledge to triple-lock pensions, support WASPI and point out the failures of the Conservative government when it comes to elderly people e.g. the fact that two million pensioners live in poverty. Labour created the winter fuel allowance and the state pension. We must repeat this over and over again.
UKIP have been massively hit in the polls and it’s Labour responsibility to win back those who formerly voted Labour but voted UKIP in 2015. In key marginals, it was the UKIP vote which split Labour support, allowing the Tories to win in marginal like Morley and Outwood. We must appeal to these voters not by out-UKIPing UKIP, but offering a coherent vision for the country. Corbyn’s policies can do that. UKIP may embrace Thatcherism when it comes to domestic policy, but those who voted for them in 2015 certainly do not. According to consistent polling: 73% of these voters back public ownership of our railways; 78% back public ownership of energy; 52% back a living wage and; 66% back rent controls. These voters are economically sympathetic to Corbyn’s policy platform – we failed to offer these policies in 2015, so offering these policies to show that we are the party of working people can win back support in 2020. It should, however, be noted that the key issue for these voters in immigration. The left should not be scared to discuss immigration, but we need to change the language used. We should not pander to UKIP, but address the real concerns people have about immigration when it comes to employment, housing, healthcare, education etc. Our aim is to say that it is not migrants to blame for the aforementioned but the Tories failing to invest in working people. Changing public perception is always going to be a challenge, but public opinion can’t change if an alternative case isn’t made.
How did you get involved in politics?
The coalition government implementing terrible policies, and I only really found out about these injustices by starting to pay attention to what was going on. I did not care about politics for a very long time but in late 2013 I decided to join the Labour Party to help tackle the injustices brought around by the coalition, and to fight for a Labour government to implement policies to help everybody up and down the country.
And why did you decide to run for Parliament?
Young people are very rarely heard in politics. Time and time again, young people were hit by policies by the coalition government – tuition fees are the prime example of this. I wanted to stand because in reality young people could be kingmakers in a general election – their votes could be the difference between a Tory government and a Labour government, but young people aren’t voting as much compared to other age groups. One reason I believe this is because there are hardly any young people involved in politics. Young people aren’t being represented, therefore it is understandable why some young people may think that politics is not the answer. In reality we need to get young people voting – one way we can do that is by getting more youth representation – and the way we do that is that we need more young people running for parliament. I would encourage any young person reading this to get involved. I’ve said this on public record before, but I would encourage young people reading this to register to vote, look up policies, join a political party, get involved locally and, if you want to take the leap into directly representing the youth in politics, put your name forward for public office and stand for election’.
Are you reading anything at the moment?
As a university student I certainty am. My lecturers wouldn’t be happy if I didn’t!
Do you have a favourite novel?
Although I didn’t appreciate it at the time, thinking back An Inspector Calls was excellent. I also used to be a big fan of Darren Shan when I was younger!
Who are your biggest intellectual influences?
I have a massive love for science, it has always fascinated me from a young age. In that area I would certainly say Jane Goodall, Stephen Hawking, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson have done some excellent research that has only sparked my love for science more. At the end of the day science will help make civilisation better and better. We need to be spending much more into research and development and encouraging more and more young people to get involved in science. Britain can become the world leader in scientific research, it just needs to funds to get it there.
Do you have any political heroes?
Two people stick out for me:
Clement Attlee – for the obvious reasons really, his government founded the NHS and founded the welfare state.
Jeremy Corbyn – I believe his vision is right for the country, and Corbyn as PM would make the country a significantly better place.
A worthy mention should also go to Ed Miliband. He’s like your first doctor in Doctor Who, you will always have admiration for them – same goes to Christopher Ecclestone!
If you could affect a major policy change, what would it be?
There are two policies I have in mind:
Electoral reform – I feel Labour need to embrace electoral reform, which is why I am on the executive of the ‘Labour Campaign For Electoral Reform’. I feel the current voting system could be more democratic. First Past the Post/Single Member Plurality is an outdated voting system. If it was a successful voting system, then why do new democracies not even consider it? I feel that seats in parliament should broadly be proportional to how the people have voted. The current voting system fails to do this – the Conservatives won 36.9% of the vote, but won 51% of seats, meaning (in theory) they have 100% control of all of the laws that we all have to live by. We need electoral reform on the agenda because, quite frankly, it seems all the other major alternatives are significantly better than the current system. I also believe a constituency link is important, which I why I personally think STV is the best alternative system – but any other would probably be better. STV is proportional, it keeps the constituency link and it gives the electorate numerous figures in which to approach with local issues – instead of one who may never listen to you (if you are a Labour voter in Jacob Rees-Mogg’s seat, you are very unlikely to receive a satisfactory response in terms of changing of opinions). My ideal preference: STV – PR – AMS – AV+ - AV – FPTP/SMP.
Basic Income – I think Labour should adopt the Basic Income, which is why I am heavily involved with ‘Labour For Basic Income’. I wrote this a while back on why I think Labour should adopt it:
‘Many would agree the welfare state in it's current form is not perfect - the bureaucracy is substantial and those costs could be used to help more people.
The alternative is a Basic Income, where all citizens receive a guaranteed income, enough to cover essential costs, from the government - restructuring our current welfare system.
The Basic Income would:
- Eliminate poverty in Britain
The Basic Income should be set at a rate which covers the fundamentals in life - for example food, water, and energy. Some aspects of the welfare state should be kept, for example housing benefit to ensure that costs are fully covered (because in expensive areas the Basic Income by itself could not cover these costs) and disability benefit to ensure that the most vulnerable in society have more than enough to live off.
- Incentivise work by helping people start businesses
Many who want to establish their own businesses can not afford to take the risk of doing so, because they are at risk of not being able to afford the essentials - but if the Basic Income were implemented then those essential costs would be covered, meaning people would not have to worry about going hungry at the end of the month - minimising risk for those who want to set up their own business. Trials of the Basic Income has shown that the number of business start ups increase when the income was implemented.
- Top up wages, rewarding hard work
'Those wanting anything more than a frugal and very basic standard of living (stuff like foreign holidays, expensive furniture, new cars, fashionable clothes...) would have a strong incentive to work in order to pay for their luxuries' - Another Angry Voice
- Significantly reduce bureaucracy
The only requirements to receive the income would be that you were a citizen of the state, whether you were an adult, whether you have children (top up income to replace child benefit) or whether you have reached retirement age - this is significantly less bureaucratic, saving BILLIONS.
The idea is backed all across the political spectrum. It is not an idea which is 'left' or 'right' - it is forward.
John McDonnell has stated that Labour will consider the policy, so let's have that debate.
Let's consider the idea of a Basic Income, a system which could help create a more productive, fairer, aspirational and wealthier society’.
What is your favourite song?
It changes a lot – so I can’t give an answer on this one. But I love Eurovision.
Do you have a favourite video game?
Easy question: FIFA!
And what was the last film you saw?
I rewatched Alan Partridge and Hot Fuzz with my flatmates a few days ago. Nothing exciting.
What do you consider the most important personal quality in others?
Honesty
What fault in others do you most dislike?
Dishonesty (Shock)
What piece of advice would you give to your much younger self?
That the future is much brighter than I thought it would be. You’ll change a lot in the next few years. You may be a mess now, you may be failing in so many ways, be directionless and don’t care about your actions – but in late 2013 everything will change, you’ll find a direction and sense of purpose: helping people and getting involved in politics. Genuinely, politics will change your life for the better and you’ll be a better person.
What do you like doing in your spare time?
I love spending time with friends at university – getting involved with clubs/societies where I’ve met many interesting people, not to mention helping out Labour where I can. Out of university – spending time with the family.
Do you have any guilty pleasures?
Eurovision. Not much more to say!
What talent would you most like to have?
To dance well. I think I’m George Sampson but in reality I’m more like Ed Balls.
If you could have one (more or less realistic) wish come true, what would you wish for?
All friends and family to live a safe, secure life.
If you could go for a drink with three people, past or present, who would they be?
Clement Attlee – which Labourite wouldn’t? Discussing politics and life with the greatest Prime Minister in British Political History!
John Maynard Keynes – I think it would be very interesting to ask him how he would feel about the current economic situation in 2016 and how he would create an economic plan in 2016 after Thatcherism.
Jeremy Corbyn – even the majority of those who disagree with his politics admit he is a decent human being. Having a lemonade with El Gato and Corbyn in his garden would be interesting indeed!
And lastly, why are you Labour?
I believe the Labour Party has been the greatest force for social change that has ever existed in the United Kingdom. I’ll just list a few achievements which happened under Labour governments: the NHS, the welfare state, the liberal reforms, the Open University, the abolition of the death penalty, investment into the economy, Sure Start, maternity pay, paternity leave, devolution, peace in Northern Ireland, the minimum wage, the banning of cluster bombs, the human rights act, the abolition of section 28, the winter fuel allowance, the first ever climate change act, to name a few. Not only has it been the greatest force for social change in the past, it is the greatest force for social change in the present and the future – a broad church of the left, standing up for everybody across the country. It is only with Labour governments where people’s living standards improve and radical change can happen for the better. That’s why I’m Labour, because people in Britain are better off with them.
Friday, 28 October 2016
Local Council By-Elections October 2016
Party
|
Number of Candidates
|
Total Vote
|
%
|
+/-
Sept |
Average/
contest |
+/-
Sept |
+/-
Seats |
Conservative
|
32
|
12,657
|
24.8%
|
-4.9%
|
396
|
-50
|
-2
|
Labour
|
31
|
14,055
|
27.5%
|
+0.6%
|
453
|
+36
|
-5
|
LibDem
|
28
|
9,306
|
18.2%
|
-3.6%
|
332
|
-74
|
+3
|
UKIP
|
20
|
3,160
|
6.2%
|
-5.1%
|
158
|
-53
|
0
|
Green
|
18
|
2,435
|
4.8%
|
+2.1%
|
135
|
+46
|
0
|
SNP*
|
2
|
2,888
|
5.7%
|
+3.0%
|
1,444
|
+183
|
+1
|
PC**
|
3
|
495
|
1.0%
|
+0.2%
|
165
|
-24
|
+1
|
TUSC
|
0
|
0
| |||||
Ind***
|
17
|
3,941
|
7.7%
|
+4.2%
|
232
|
-36
|
+1
|
Other****
|
8
|
2,102
|
4.1%
|
+3.4%
|
263
|
+181
|
+1
|
* There were two by-elections in Scotland
** There were five by-elections in Wales
*** There were three Independent clashes
**** Others this month consisted of Putting Hartlepool First (155), Patients Not Profit in our NHS (36), East Devon Alliance (324), Oxted and Limpsfield Residents Group (713), Women's Equality Party (173), Lewisham People Before Profit (314), Beverley Party (364), and English Democrats (23)
Overall, 51,039 votes were cast over 34 local authority (tier one and tier two) contests. All percentages are rounded to the nearest single decimal place. The Conservatives won 10 contests, Labour 10, LibDems six, UKIP one, SNP one, PC one, Ind four, and Oth one. Labour held three seats with a 500+ safe margin, and the LibDems took one with a resulting majority greater than 500. In all, some 12 seats changed hands. For comparison with September's results, see here.
For me, this set of by-elections have to be filed under frustrating. Despite winning a plurality (which, given the variegated nature of by-elections month-to-month, is virtually meaningless), Labour dropped five seats. And they were lost all over the place - to the Tories, LibDems, SNP, UKIP, and PC. It might be due to the local factors at work. Indeed, this is probably most likely. Labour had a net loss of one in September, and broke even in August, but if we were capitalising from Brexit we should be doing much better than this. The only small crumb of comfort going is the fact the Tories are down to, those they haven't hurt as much this month as Labour.
The LibDems, however, trundle on. Up three councillors, the trend is so pronounced now that we can starting talking with confidence about a return of a chunk of their former support. Some of it looks soft Tory, some soft Labour, and a big slice of UKIP's none-of-the-above vote. Unless they screw up spectacularly which, now few but the most geeky care about them, no one will care about surely this trend can look forward to carrying on. Meanwhile, despite predictions about Labour swallowing up the Greens' support, they're proving quite resilient and occasionally threaten to post better results than UKIP. It might happen soon.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)