With contrived outrage howling about my ears, that can only mean one thing: someone has gone and suggested the Labour Party is in need of added democracy. Specifically, how the party selects and reselects its candidates at election time. As you have no doubt seen, the touchpaper was the election of a Corbyn-supporting majority to officer posts in Liverpool Wavetree, the constituency party of the Corbyn-critical Luciana Berger. As Luciana previously voted to bomb Syria and was seen as a participant in the attempted coup last Summer, without diplomatic niceties the new chair stated that she would be held to account for her actions. After all, that's what happens in a democracy, yes? Unfortunately, what's good for the goose isn't good for the gander. Conor Pope of the much-diminished Progress looked to his inner Leadsom and said Luciana took her baby campaigning with her, implying that being a young mum nullifies the need for basic accountability. Jess Phillips did a Jess Phillips and compared the new officers to perpetrators of domestic violence, and Labour Uncut doyen Rob Marchant was unseemly keen to suggest this was further evidence of anti-semitic behaviour.
When the Labour right go for smears and utterly inappropriate comments, you know they haven't a political leg to stand on. Unfortunately, the party has learned they were happy to tug on any old rope if it meant strangling the leader. And despite the hard facts of hard votes, an increased number of MPs and now, according to YouGov, an eight-point lead in the polls, some refuse to reconcile themselves to the new realities of politics.
I can understand why. Everything they know about politics has proven itself wrong, the policies they warned would bring calamity have furnished the party with success, Jeremy Corbyn turned out to be an asset, much to their chagrin, and the expectations they place on the membership - to deliver the leaflets, shut up and do as they're told - is not the station a huge number of recently politicised people are prepared to accept. Hence selection, reselection, deselection are touchy subjects that condense their anxieties. Building relationships with large numbers of people are difficult, especially when you've made your name rubbishing those of supposed colleagues. You have no idea of who's influential and who isn't, whether there are people organising against you or not. Also the job you have is one where you are accustomed to doing as you please with barely any comeback. Having to account for your actions is an alien concept for a number of MPs who think they're the shit when all they are is fortunate. And every now and then, there's no harm in reminding that they cannot use the office the party gifted them to carry on as they please. Everyone else has a job appraisal, and so should they.
Ah, but doesn't the trigger ballot system work perfectly well - where party units decide by simple majority whether a CLP with a sitting MP should proceed with reselection? No, they don't. Branch Labour Parties and affiliated societies and unions can be bureaucratically manipulated. What might be decided by 30 members in one branch has as equal weighting as six or seven in the other, where unions and societies aren't asked but rather the choice is nodded through by an official. Nothing better illustrates this by the persistence of self-seeking and useless MPs. Do you think, for example, the unlamented Simon Danczuk got through reselection by virtue of personal popularity?
But, goes the argument, if an open selection process takes place as a matter of course isn't that a recipe for division and civil war? Only if you regard democracy as inherently problematic. Part of the reason why the party lost its way and got hollowed out wasn't just because Blair undermined its constituency and, ironically, the traditional support for the Labour right in the party, but because MPs were insulated from the members and pressures from their constituents. A good MP would listen and pay heed anyway, but plenty do not. Open selections means they cannot do this any more. As the members under such a system are, rightly, sovereign, a lot of what they bring to the table, which is a political understanding informed by a life experience much closer to everyday life as lived by the majority of people than the reality filters around the Parliamentary estate, should be listened to and acted on. And, well, if the members don't like the cut of your jib an MP has the advantage of incumbency to organise and recruit. If a MP is doing a good job, they should have no problem convincing constituents to sign up.
No system is perfect, no system can be perfect. Yet in politics, socialists can apply a simple test. From the point of view of the political development of party members, of encouraging people to join the party, and getting the wider electorate to see Labour as theirs, to feel a real connection and ownership of what the party could become, is bureaucratic manipulation as per the existing system appropriate? Or giving members the right to determine at every election who the members should be campaigning for? It's so simple that this is even in contention shows how much work the democratic remaking of Labour has to do.
It's getting to the time of year that Constituency Labour Parties are selecting their delegates for party conference. This time both the right and left of the party are scrambling members for the monthly meeting because there's something substantial on the table for when we meet in Brighton in September: the McDonnell Amendment. For readers not au fait with party jargon, this rule change for how the party selects its leader is very important. To qualify for a place on the ballot paper for a leadership contest, a candidate must now acquire the nominations of at least 15% of the parliamentary and European parliamentary party. Under the shadow chancellor's proposals, this would be reduced to five per cent. The right have set their face against, while the left are mobilising for it. In this case, the left are right and the right are wrong. Indeed, I would go so far to say that the party as a whole - all of its wings - would benefit if the amendment passes.
In an article from last August, Caroline Flint makes the case against. She argues that Labour is a party that uses the machinery of government to meet its objectives, has the tricky task of forging an electoral coalition crisscrossing a plurality of interests, and must have a leader who commands the support of the parliamentary team. The latter point is, ultimately, the litmus test for exercising confidence in the country as a whole. The role the PLP and its European counterparts have in acting as a gatekeeper - not her phrase - is balanced by the responsibility it carries as the main public face of the party. As she notes, politics is "a team game", a "collective effort". I therefore wonder if Caroline was one of the precious few Progress-affiliated MPs who tried reigning in the moaners and the whingers straight after Jeremy Corbyn won the the first Labour leadership contest in 2015?
No matter. There are two important features of the PLP, a strength and a weakness that cannot be separated from one another. The first is their collective proximity to mainstream public opinion. Taken as a whole, their positions on the NHS (keep it free), immigration (more controls), defence (replace Trident and support Our Troops), and the economy (growth and fairness) correlates roughly with the bulk of the electorate. Every time a poll drops from YouGov or whatever listing voters' priorities and fears, MPs can feel their views are shared by millions of people "out there". This then is a key resource MPs draw upon to legitmate themselves as representatives of constituencies rather than delegates of constituency parties, and its powerful because it is true. Getting a bellyful on the doorstep or a postbag bulging with complaints about immigrants, for instance, tends to reinforce the view that controls on immigration is a sensible position to take. Being conditions consciousness and all that.
The PLP's weakness is, well, their collective proximity to public opinion. What they think the electorate thinks is framed by the polls and the focus groups, and is subject to further filters. Every window looking out into the wider world is tinted by the preconceptions and hobby horses of the press, broadcast media and Westminster watchers. Effectively, the apparatus of the media is synonymous with public opinion. It washes over them all day every day, and is confirmed when one breaks free and speaks to constituents at surgery and suchlike. Politics here becomes reduced to addressing "very real concerns" and convincing voters that Labour has the means to sort them out. Of course, that is what any party should aspire to do, but also it should try to lead public opinion. Labour is the condensation of the interests of pretty varied groups of working people, a position guaranteed ultimately by the affiliation of the country's largest trade unions. To stand up for those interests in the context of a capitalist society in which a) workers are subordinate to capital, and b) the latter of necessity ceaselessly struggles against the former requires a knowledge of what the Labour Party is, who its natural constituents are (i.e. the vast bulk of the population), and a determination to challenge public opinion. For instance, introducing markets into public services helps break up our electoral coalition. Chasing the tabloid press into the gutter instead of challenging the lies told about immigration undermines the solidarity of our coalition. Promising to get tough with people receiving social security delegitimises the very idea of collective responses to market failure, putting a question mark over what our coalition is supposed to be working toward. And so on. In the topsy turvy world of Westminster, accepting the status quo as immovable and immutable is providing an effective opposition and leadership. Even raising questions about it, let alone vociferously attacking it is lefty indulgence.
There is, however, another link MPs have to the wider public, and that is through the party membership itself. While, as a rule, more left than the electorate (in much the same way the Tories' dwindling rolls are further to the right), they have far greater familiarity and exposure to what ordinary people think and say. The woman at constituency who bangs on about the bedroom tax, she knows people who are having a very tough time because of it. She might even be one of those folks herself. The chap who is concerned about the government's stance on bombing Syria - he works in a warehouse surrounded by blokes just like him, and knows how racist and xenophobic views ramp up when war talk is in the air. The new member concerned about Theresa May's encroachment on internet privacy works three part-time jobs and is struggling to scrape together a deposit for a flat. The old member who is concerned about the party's perceived distaste for the "traditional" working class is, at the same time, fighting for a care package for his wife. And there are those nice, "just-about-managing" middle class-types as well. Too many Labour MPs have little time for the members beyond their ability to deliver leaflets, but our army of unpaid couriers are more in touch with life in 21st century Britain than they because they live it in far less comfortable circumstances. More often than not, their politics are stamped indelibly by their experience. There is that, and the small matter of the members putting MPs there in the first place. There is not one, not a single Labour MP who'd be sat in the Commons without the party label.
And so, ultimately, I support the lowering of the threshold for exactly the same reason why I've always supported mandatory reselection for sitting MPs. If the parliamentary party has to actively work to keep onside members, to build deep roots in their communities to support them and ensure the party heads in the direction they desire, the less likely we are to see Labour actively pursuing policies that harm the universal interest. i.e. That of working people, of anyone compelled to sell their time to an employer in return for a wage or salary. Lowering the threshold means we won't ever have the spectacle again of what are effectively personnel managers (with the politics to match) being serious contenders. MPs who want to lead would have to up their game and pay attention to what Labour was set up to do in the first place. For sure, it's going to take more than nice write ups from your mates in the media.
This isn't a recipe for turning the Labour Party into a pure, permanent leftist opposition. The amendment is about building the rooted politics that has weight in communities across the land, a politics unashamed of its truly representative and transformative role. Socialism is the movement of the immense majority in the interests of the immense majority, after all.
Choose your delegates wisely.
I'm breaking that rule, again. You know, the one forbidding ventures into the realm of political predictions. Perhaps the recent foray into long range forecasting has empowered me to speak about matters in the nearer term. So here it is: the redrawing of constituency boundaries isn't going to happen. Okay, let me rephrase that, it's looking increasingly unlikely that the government are going to follow through. Bold claim, but what's the basis for it?
Look at the chaos embroiling Theresa May's government. Brexit was and is a tricky proposition, and by stupidly aiming for the worst kind on offer her government is unnecessarily multiplying problems for itself. Determined to be the super-toughest on immigration, May is determined that there is no way UKIP can outflank them on the right ever again. Yes - and just when you thought Tory leaders had stopped tilting to this dysfunctional bunch of has-beens, May carries on the tradition established by her predecessor. As such, not only is she colliding with the reality-facing sections of her backbenches over guarantees for EU residents, but this foolishness is imperilling the unity of the UK, again. Nicola Sturgeon has rattled the cage of a summer 2018 independence referendum, and the ongoing deadlock over the Northern Ireland executive - plus questions marks over the border and the overdue decaying of Loyalism there - puts the possibility of a united Ireland on the feasibility list. If either of these come to pass and the government carelessly loses a part of the UK, it's curtains for the Prime Minister.
Apart from that, our old friend, alleged Conservative election fraud during 2015 is making menacing forays back into the front and centre of Westminster politics. The emergence of running the Thanet campaign full-time in a clear breach of civil service rules, and now Grant Shapps weighing in to confirm the allegations ... oh, what a lovely mess! The pressure will be on the CPS to not take matters further once police investigations are completed, but if they do and charges levied lead to successful prosecutions, May could see her majority disappear mid-way through negotiations with Brussels. Not ideal.
Oh yes, and there is also the small matter of the National Insurance nightmare. An unforced error from the point of view of politics, it has merited front page coverage for a further day as well as being a main talking point during the Sunday politics shows. If only the bedroom tax or cuts to the disabled had commanded anywhere near as much concern. This occasioned another bout of acrimony but also, interestingly, May went out her way to defend the change. What that means is she cannot be seen to retreat from her position. She has made sure Hammond's policy is her policy. Having seen down the grammar school rebellion, and opposition to cuts to disability benefit, she'll try bulldozing this one. Retreat would make her look weak, and an indecisive profile on the eve of Brexit negotiations would be politically calamitous.
Still, May is by nature cautious. With chaos exploding around her, she wouldn't welcome more distractions and "unnecessary" backbench rebellions. This, alas, is what redrawing constituency boundaries promises. With the commanding poll lead, Tories normally happy to vacate disappearing seats likely to be lost at the next election for a twilight in the Lords might now object. Even never-weres and never-will-bes entertain delusions of ascending to high office, so why abandon any chance of that? In short, a plan means another possible rebellion. The second problem is May cannot simply stuff the Lords with refugees from her benches. Given the boundary exercise is partially justified by reducing the cost of politics, it makes her vulnerable to charges of cronyist profligacy and venal self-interest, a badge her one nation image would be wise to avoid. The second problem, according to chatter at Westminster, is parliamentary time. There is a growing realisation in the Commons that the overdetermination of politics by Brexit will crowd out legislative time for everything else. The raft of legislation needed to establish a new trading relationship with the EU and the rest of the world, and the scrutiny this requires has been estimated to take up to 10 years. Yes, if this blog is still going in 2027 Brexit will be a regular feature, so there's something to look forward to. Therefore the unnecessaries are going to get squeezed, and that could very well include the boundary review recommendations - especially so if, by then, Jeremy Corbyn still leads Labour and we languish behind in the polls.
I could be wrong. I sometimes am. But a reading of the situation suggests the long grass is the most likely home for whatever the Boundary Commission eventually comes up with.
Taking a sneaky from things Stoke-related, it's time to cast an eye over last night's Commons vote giving the government permission to trigger Article 50. Annoyingly, it is not the Tories who find themselves poisoned and split over Europe, like the Lexiters promised. It's Labour. As the government won by 494 to 114, 47 Labour MPs joined the SNP and Ken Clarke in voting against.
Like John McDonnell, I have some sympathy for the rebels' position. Some MPs hail from constituencies in which majorities voted for Remain, other believe leaving the EU is a catastrophic act of self-harm. These for me are all valid reasons to oppose Brexit, but to my mind are trumped by another consideration: democracy.
Representative democracy at the best of times is inefficient and imperfect, especially so in capitalist societies where economic and political power are more or less separated. The former, formally, is subordinate to the will of the latter and has to submit to its laws, regulations, and other interventions. In practice, it's the other way round. For most of the last 30 years, as learned folks across the political spectrum told us class didn't matter any more, inequality increased, production gains accrued to the owners of capital as productivity was decoupled from wages, and ever more ingenious ways were devised by successive governments to transfer tax monies into private coffers via the marketisation of public services. And coincident with this, educational institutions and popular culture have tried churning out obedient subjects that would meekly accept all this.
It's a rare situation to find economics assuming a subordinate role in government policy, but this is one of them. Theresa May's Wrexit trajectory will be profoundly damaging to the British economy, and it's our people who will pay the price. But ultimately, politics has asserted itself. Brexit is a massive pile of shit, as a lately prominent comrade of mine put it, but it must happen. The referendum wasn't sold as a "consultative" exercise, it was clearly and unambiguously a plebiscite on Britain's continued membership of the European Union. Prat about with the turn outs, pull out pie charts proving a majority of people didn't vote to leave, it doesn't matter. A democratic vote was had and the wrong side won, but we have to take the consequences. Because if we don't, the political fall out would have been far more damaging to our people and our movement than a reversion to WTO trading rules post-Brexit.
What I would euphemistically describe as unhelpful is how the party, or rather those who rebelled last night, completely conceded this ground to the right. Democracy isn't a free floating idea, it is bound up with interests and it's in the interests of the people our party represents to extend it beyond the realm of formal politics. We have to make politics substantive, and this means economic democracy. By refusing to support the Brexit process, this ground has been ceded to the right. Our rebels have presented the Tories a crock of political gold with a gift tag that reads "unified to deliver the referendum outcome". At this crucial moment in British political history, the Tories have captured the mantle of champions of democracy without so much as a tussle. And that is profoundly damaging to our future political prospects.
"Labour MP opposed to gay adoption receives knighthood!" was the gist of a gaggle of stories that did the rounds yesterday. As the Pink News points out, the honourable member for Bolton North East, David Crausby, has consistently opposed moves to equalise and normalise gay relationships. The repeal of Section 28 found him in the no lobby, as did moves to allow gay couples to adopt, and equal marriage. Jeremy Corbyn, who has consistently opposed homophobia throughout his career, gave the nod to grant Crausby a knighthood in the New Year's honours. This has left a number of comrades scratching their heads - what the hell is going on?
As I've had to remind people time and again on this blog, politics is about interests. Ideas come second. Given the gulf between Crausby and Corbyn on LGBT matters, you can bet that, again, it was the latter that came first. But for what, and why?
Are we talking favours rendered to the leadership? It doesn't appear so. While he's never marked himself out in the same way our Mike Gapeses, Jess Phillipses, and Jamie Reeds have as prominent anti-Jeremy people, he's hardly a loyal enforcer either. In 2015, Crausby backed Andy Burnham, and in 2016 he added his support to the PLP's attempt to no confidence and depose the leader.
It also can't be put down to a long and glorious period in the parliamentary trenches with Jeremy. He was favour of deploying troops in Afghanistan, for example, but was opposed to the Iraq War. Mainly, his rebellious voting record (which could hardly be described as inveterate) is focused on gay rights and reproductive medicine as its key themes. Which is what you'd expect as Crausby is a Catholic and follows the church's lead on these matters.
Could it, instead, be something more banal? I fear this may well be the case. This May, Crausby will be marking 20 years in the Commons. Time servers typically get some sort of recognition for all their hard work, etc. etc. I don't know if he'd quietly lobbied for a knighthood (some are shameless enough to do so, some cause trouble if none are forthcoming), but such honours are dished out regularly. Someone comes up with the names and off they go to the leader's office for rubber stamping - it's just yet another responsibility that comes with the job. I suspect it wasn't given a thought as Jeremy signed it off.
That is not good enough. As the same Pink News article notes, a Tory and a LibDem also received honours despite having less-than-stellar attitudes towards LGBT rights. Unfortunately, while it shouldn't exist there is a de facto hierarchy of oppression in British culture, and that's reflected in its institutions. Racism is the massive no-no, but for a variety of reasons sexism and homophobia aren't perceived or treated with the same degree of seriousness. And this, unfortunately, is underlined by no less a figure than Jeremy Corbyn passing over the problems this particular knighthood raises.
As someone who wasn't born into political radicalism (quite the opposite), relics of attitudes and ideas long abandoned sometimes clutter up the synapses. And one of these is a notion I used to hold about politicians. At the risk of making myself red faced, until quite late in the day I believed that climbing the greasy poll, to be a councillor, a Member of Parliament, and a minister you had to have something about you. Some level of intellect, a dash of charisma, the capacity to connect with people and, most helpful of all, nous. And a part of me is disappointed every time an elected representative falls short of these not-so-lofty expectations.
The gentleman who's had my head a-shaking at the start of this week is Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi and the referendum he lost on bringing "stability" to government. As readers are aware, Italy's had almost as many different governments as there have been years since the Second World War. Renzi's ruling Democratic Party is the country's primary centre left formation, recently formed from a mishmash of the safely de-communised, social democratised former communist party, the Christian left, the greens and liberals, and a few others. These currents retain their distinct identities for the most part, with the several times diluted ex-PCI as the party's organisational backbone. Renzi for his part is described as half-way technocrat, half-way populist. He hails from a Christian democratic background and made a name for himself butting his head against the PD's leadership. He was also keen to portray himself as a moderniser in much the same vein as a certain someone, and for want of a better phrase has occupied the ground of liberal populism. Frequent targets of his rhetoric were the bankers and, in equal measure, the "privileges" secured by the trade unions (among which was protection from unjustified dismissals). How boringly petit bourgeois and, from the viewpoint of maintaining a healthy centre left, dumb.
After the 2008 crash, Italy's long-term weakness was exposed. GDP growth is anemic, and the country remains a long way off recovery. And you thought Britain's GDP recovery was tardy. Unemployment is falling again, but is dangerously high, contributing its part to the erosion of the established parties and providing the relevant combustibles to our friends in the Liga Nord and Five Star Movement.
As part of a package of measures he believed would pull Italy out of the doldrums, Renzi sought to inject stability into the notoriously fractious political system. Understandably thanks to 20 years under the fascist cosh and the unhappy experience of the Nazi occupation, the post-war constitution fashioned in 1947 balanced the powers of the Chamber of Deputies and the Senate. Presently a vote of no confidence in the upper house can dismiss a government, and herein lies the Italian party system's instability. With the lack of so-called strong government, opponents of the Senate's constitutional rights argue that parties have a very hard time thinking and acting in the long-term, as well as taking on challenging and controversial political projects. Renzi's referendum was about curbing these powers as well as introducing a new electoral system. This would retain PR but give a bonus number of seats to any party crossing the 40% threshold. After much wrangling and horse trading, including a pact with Silvio Berlusconi of all people, the measures cleared both houses but not by the margin deemed necessary by the constitution. Therefore the proposals had to be put to a referendum.
Asking people to vote for a package of reform amounting to less democracy was never going to be an easy sell. Though, constitutionally speaking, Renzi didn't have much of a choice. But then he made the fatal error, and not one you'd expect from a politician proven to have nous enough to thrive in the rough and tumble of Italian politics. He committed a catastrophic mistake that not even Dave, the most politically inept PM of recent times was daft enough to make: by threatening to resign if the vote was lost, Renzi made the referendum all about him.
There is a tendency in politics to simplify things. Policies can be complex and beyond the ken of legislators, let alone a public who cast politics the odd sideways glance outside of election time. Perhaps this was part of Renzi's reasoning. I can't imagine, for instance, that many people were fussed whether the Senate was elected on a region-by-region basis or not. But most people would certainly have had an opinion on the Prime Minister's record, which calls into question Renzi's reasoning. While not polarising or as dismal as the hapless Francois Hollande, yet, those attacks on the centre left's bedrock will have not done him any favours. While the Catholic-rooted Italian Confederation of Workers' Trade Unions backed Renzi, the Italian General Confederation of Labour (CGIL) - the main target of the earlier labour market reform package - did not and agitated for a no vote. It might not have attracted the publicity of Beppe Grillo's oh-so funny antics, but this is a union that had pulled a million people out onto the streets of Rome to protest the attacks on workers. They were an important factor, a five million strong factor and one typically overlooked by a politician unable to comprehend the political character of the parties they lead. Compounding the foolishness was allowing the populists to, well, consolidate their populism. Personalising the referendum explicitly framed the proposals as an establishment stitch-up designed to give the elites a smoother ride, and granted the awful anti-politics of Five Star permission to gain extra ground. Renzi's best bet at winning was to turn it into a snoozefest rather than a shitfest, and he completely blew it.
Rightly, Italy said no to the changes. But in so doing, another Prime Minister says ciao - though no one should rule out repeat Berlusconi-style come backs for Renzi. And Grillo's movement has grown in strength and legitimacy. A good outcome with a pretty grizzly consequence, and yet another reminder why the centre left are on the retreat.
If you were feeling nostalgic for this summer's Brexit chaos, the last couple of days should have provided you a fix. The High Court judgement that - rightly - stipulated the requirement for Article 50 to come to the Commons before its trigger threw the government into a panic. It also reminded us of the utter stupidity of senior Conservative politicians . Not having read the judgement, let alone understood it, morons like David Davies and IDS have paraded into the studios to decry this "assault" on the referendum result. This greenlit the unhinged editorial suites of the rightwing press to parade contrived outrage befitting the froth of a Nazi rag. The Mail providing a new low in their grim history as Britain's most vile newspaper. This was almost matched by The Sun who purposely chose to darken the skin of Gina Miller - the petitioner who brought the case - to emphasise their "foreign elite" headline.
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.
A quick note on the conference vote that gave extra seats on Labour's NEC to representatives from Scotland and Wales. Very quickly Scottish leader Kezia Dugdale revealed her appointed rep was ... herself. Don't be too surprised if Carwyn Jones takes up "his" seat too.
There are plenty of delegates and Labour watchers who've decried this as a stitch up by the outgoing committee. You'll remember that NEC, the one who, by banning party meetings over the summer, gave credence to the meme that Labour is a thuggish bear pit. This is also the very same NEC who altered conference eligibility criteria for CLP delegates to ensure newer members were crowded out by older, more "reliable" folks. Lo! When this package of rules came before conference a "sensible" result was arrived at. And what does this amount to in practice? It ensures the already underrepresented majority for Corbynism in the party on the NEC is now eclipsed, assuming that Carwyn and Our Kez set their faces against party reform proposals coming from this direction.
The beginning of the end for Corbynism then? No. Well, not necessarily. A check, certainly. The elections to the Conference Arrangements Committee now assume greater importance, and a win for the left here mean blocking actions from the NEC can be circumvented eventually as more Corbynist motions from CLPs get through gate-keeping. And the Welsh and Scottish leaders cannot be seen to act in overly partisan ways lest their positions be threatened. In the mean time, however, it only adds more fuel to the democracy fire. As we live in a liberal democracy in which majorities theoretically have the right to be majorities (don't get me started on the iniquities of first-past-the-post), to have the NEC conniving to fall short of its tepid standards doesn't contribute to the unity folks have been pleading in recent days.
Therefore in the spirit of peace and reconciliation, I have a proposal of my own to make. As we are all agreed democracy is a good thing, and we want to harness the collective power of our membership, it is only sensible that members' representation be increased on the party's governing body via the seats reserved for CLPs. Six seats sufficed when the party was knocking around the 200,000 member mark, but now we've almost tripled in size the composition of the NEC should reflect the new situation. Therefore, for every 50,000 above 200,000 full members, the party should add a NEC seat. That would not only ensure more proportional representation of our party's lifeblood, but increases the likelihood all shades of members' opinions are heard on the leading body. That way all groups in the party have a vested interest both in expanding the selectorate, ensuring the party connects with our constituencies and communities, and taking democratic discussion over stitching more seriously.
How about it?
No sooner had Jeremy Corbyn's leadership been confirmed by a vote decisively larger than last year, sundry MPs have taken to the airwaves and television studios calling for elections to the shadow cabinet. Longer-term members and politics watchers will recall this has been a staple of the Parliamentary Labour Party for decades, until it was abolished by Ed Miliband five years ago. The elections saw honourable members put themselves forward not for particular positions, but rather as a potential pool from which the leader appointed successful candidates. For argument's sake, suppose Angela Eagle put herself forward and was voted in by her peers, Jeremy could appoint her to any portfolio he sees fit. Though politics being politics, a wise leader with a view to party management would sift through the nominated to ensure those with the biggest following/support/standing get the juiciest roles. Competence, sadly, is not always the primary consideration.
Given these elections were abolished by a PLP vote in 2011, why do a large number of MPs want them back? As with all things, there are the good reasons, and there are the real reasons. From the PLP rebel standpoint, a great many of whom are unreconciled and irreconcilable to Jeremy, on the face of it elections to the shadow cabinet are one way of healing the rift between themselves and the leader's office. Quite how this makes it easier for them to come back isn't explained, it's not like they've found the confidence they lost in June. After all, the leader is still the same man he was before summer, except now strengthened and, dare I say it, a wee bit more polished and battle hardened. Nor have they explained why the party benefits from this process. We've had our Chukas, Tristrams, and Heidis talking about the need to face outward in unity and that these elections make this possible, but they haven't said how yet another period of internally focused campaigning and the pushing out of present shadow cabinet members creates the sorts of good party vibes we need to take on the Tories.
It's also unavoidable to view this call without a factional hat on. Whether these elections are a good in and of themselves is something the party can't decide on. Some local council Labour groups have them for shadow and incumbent administrations, some don't. It varies from locality to locality. Likewise, the old system saw us hold elections for the shadow cabinet, but these are deemed no longer necessary when the party is in power. Why? I suppose you could argue that having the party's permission to for a cabinet doesn't look good when you're trying to stamp your authority as a prime minister. But it that's true then, surely it's true for the potential PM role that comes with being the Leader of the Opposition.
The second point is far from engendering trust, shadow cabinet elections in this context could be a means of disciplining the leader. For one, as already stated, many of the incumbents are unlikely to get in. John McDonnell has had himself crossed off many MPs Christmas card lists, so he stands as much chance of getting into the shadow cabinet as I do. All of those Corbynist MPs friendly to the leader could also lose out. Jez could still appoint some, but only with attending as opposed to voting rights. That this would spark off another round of ill-feeling and hostility from an antipathetic membership isn't a calculation that appears to have been made. Second, it gives successful members a legitimacy that doesn't depend on the leader's grace and favour. Rebel MPs have grown quite attached to their (non-existent) personal mandates of late, so you can imagine some using that to misbehave, flouting collective responsibility, and otherwise stirring up trouble because they have an independent base of power. On top of that, with a rebel shadcab majority Jez would be hard pressed to get his policy positions through: we talk about a wide unanimity on domestic policy, for instance, but there are still MPs even now wedded to market fundamentalism, which is a politics fundamentally at odds to our party and movement. And lastly, there's NEC shenanigans to consider. The occupation of the seats reserved for shadow cabinet by MPs opposed to democratising the party rubs out the majority the party majority presently has. This would permanently put the reform agenda into stasis until the logjam in the rest of the party works itself out.
In short, the call for shadow cabinet elections now means, in practice, a perpetuation of the open warfare and an undermining of the leader's power. It's about asserting the primacy of the minority over the majority, just as that has been emphatically defeated in the needless, unnecessary leadership contest just gone. If Jeremy wants to carry on unimpeded, then this suggestion should be rejected.
Cast your mind back to just over a year ago. You will remember that awful general election result won by Tory scaremongering and lies. You may also recall the short interregnum in which Harriet Harman took on the mantle of acting leader, and stumbled into the most decisive, disastrous misstep the Labour Party establishment - from its point of view - has made since the foundation of our party. In the July 2015 budget, Harriet took to the dispatch box and attacked the former chancellor for planning to cut social security and tax credit payments to millions of our people. Then, days later, she said there would be no "blanket opposition" to such cuts because the public had rejected Labour as we were, apparently, "soft on benefits". And so, the next thing anyone knew Harriet whipped the PLP into abstaining on the second reading of this cuts programme when it came before the House. In the context of the Labour leadership election, she might as well have strapped rocket boosters to Jeremy Corbyn's campaign.
Harriet's going along with demonstrably unjust policies that were later dumped by the Tories, didn't find much criticism in political comment land beyond the usual suspects. Yet after the government was forced to kill off these welfare cuts, in part thanks to the implacable opposition of Labour, we suddenly start hearing a phrase bandied about that's rather new to British political discourse: 'effective opposition'. And this, apparently, is something the party falls short of under Jeremy's leadership. Given the job of the opposition is to oppose, which is something Labour has done to greater or lesser degrees of success, I'm somewhat puzzled by how this efficacy should be defined.
Let's assume a key test of political opposition is a capacity to make the political weather. Labour under Jeremy Corbyn has little problem attracting media coverage, but has a major issue getting the right kind of attention. Jez prefers to talk about policy, the press and the broadcasters are more interested in personality and division. Given that's not going to change, all the more reason why his leadership needs a media strategy. Nevertheless, to a degree some of these ideas combined with principled opposition has cut through. There are plenty of commentators who argue Ed Miliband opened the door to Corbynism by choosing to (incoherently, haphazardly) address inequality. This imbued his leadership with the halo of Saint Crosland, but it had an effect on politics: it shifted politics a touch to the left. This was deepened when, last summer, extensive coverage of the first Labour leader contest led to a mainstreaming of the standard positions of the Labour left, winning it a a new mass audience. It would be fair to say that many of the policies articulated by Jez have a popularity that extend beyond himself, too. In the short term, it has meant the callous and cruel programme of overt welfare cuts have been abandoned, that the perceived necessity of cuts have receded somewhat since the general election. Antipathy to egregious abuses of working people by parasites like Mike Ashley and Philip Green has grown, and last but perhaps most significantly, May has pitched herself way to the left of Dave's reflex two-nation Toryism. On economic issues at least, with Labour tanking in the polls, it has nevertheless shifted this crucial ground to the left. Overt neoliberalism is losing friends.
How about the mechanics of opposition? Despite being openly and distressingly divided, as a collective Labour in the Commons and the Lords have delayed and forced abandonment of key planks of the Conservatives' legislative programme. Let's reel them off like pig iron production figures. The lowest paid have been spared a £1,000 tax credit cut, thanks to Labour opposition. Cuts to disability support to subsidise tax relief for the middle class, again, abandoned. Labour's call to renationalise the steel industry forced the government to intervene and do something, when previously they were happy to see it go to the wall. We should also remember the government's defeat in the Lords over Sunday trading, forcing a significant delay on mooted cuts to housing benefit, stopped the Tories from furnishing British aid to the Saudi prison system, and now it is likely that united Labour opposition to May's grammar school wheeze will water the proposals down so much that its application amounts to an exercise in political homeopathy.
Does it come down to performance at Prime Minister's Questions? It has to be said that Jeremy's style takes some getting used to for the PMQ aficionado, but it was one Dave got the measure of soon enough and a few short sessions passed before he evaded questions with his customary sliminess. It also looked like Theresa May was going to have a rather easy time of it until, last week, Jez departed from his signature moves and showed off some new steps. It was more conventional vis the point scoring and theatre indulged by ministers and shadow ministers, but the single-minded attack line - on the aforementioned grammar schools - left the PM looking wooden and enfeebled. Not a good place for her to be on just her third outing against a man widely derided as useless. So if effective opposition is to be boiled down to half hour Wednesday lunch time, Jeremy has shown he does have what it takes when he shifts the gear out of neutral, though as a measure the leader now has to be consistently light footed and focused.
What about polling? As this exercise in the myth of the ineffective opposition in The Economist argues, Labour is hopelessly behind in the polls. As readers of this blog know, I'm a firm believer in taking reality on the chin. There's no disguising that the polls are not great reading. Yes, the party is divided and voters don't like divided parties, and yes, it would be nice if the PLP majority stopped acting like children and started responding to the instruction given them by the membership. Still, them's the punches so it might be an idea to roll with them. Therefore, The Economist suggests, that with such low resonance for Jez's leadership among the electorate, the gap between us and the Tories mean they can get away with anything - including the sacrifice of every first born child - and still win a general election. As the above demonstrates, the ins and outs of Westminster and the shift affected in political values completely undermines that argument. And political history demonstrates it's a hypocritical position too. A week may be a long time in politics, but some of us do have memories a touch more reliable than the average goldfish. During the 1997-2003 period, in which the Tories lagged miles behind Labour in the polls (and in popular standing), none of these concerns about "effective opposition" were then raised. Few, if any in mainstream commentland showed such a touching concern with the opposition's constitutional role.
Lastly, how about scrutiny? Admittedly, with 171 MPs boycotting the shadow front bench, there is a problem in holding the government to account. It is beyond even the ken of the most able politician to juggle several briefs simultaneously. Yet the complaints about effective opposition predate this summer of nonsense, with its resignations and shenanigans. There are the well circulated reports about Jeremy's competence, or lack, by former shadow ministers - and they will get a post of their own this coming week. But making up for this were talented and effective MPs that were doing a good job of holding the government to account and contributing as a collective to the reverses inflicted on the Tories. Doing that as their more experienced colleagues, former A-listers, and previously favoured sons and daughters of the ancien regime indulged playground politics from the backbenches was no mean feat.
You've got to ask then what constitutes an effective opposition when, all told, Labour has acquitted itself quite well as such this last year. Is it because internal difficulties mean the party is landing blows with one hand tied behind its back? Is it because the polished media darlings of old don't get the air time they had grown accustomed to? Or is it because Labour has a leader with politics at odds to so many consensus positions held across the House that claiming his opposition isn't credible is a device for delegitimising those views, and by extension the positions around cuts, inequality, and a different, radical vision of what British society should look like? I'll leave it to the reader to judge.
And just like that my constituency disappears. Wrapping like a skeewiff cummerbund around the svelte middle of the Potteries, Stoke-on-Trent Central stretches from a hint of countryside up Stockton Brook way, and snugly grips Baddeley Green, Abbey Hulton, and Bentilee. It takes in Hanley which, confusingly for outsiders, is Stoke's city centre (not Stoke town itself), and scoops downwards to embrace Eaton Park, Etruria, Shelton, before bending towards Newcastle-under-Lyme and making room for Hartshill, Penkhull, Boothen, Oakhill, and Trent Vale. These suburbs, estates, districts aren't going anywhere, but in a Boundary Commission land grab the North will advance South and the South will advance North with a new border settled more or less outside my front door. Stoke-on-Trent Central is set to become a memory that, from 2018, will be recalled only by election geeks and Wikipedia. Life is set to continue, but the Potteries are losing an MP. It won't be pretty either. Making three into two means at least one loses out, and who is that going to be? It might all of the incumbents - others could be waiting in the wings for a chance to acquire a seat for themselves. With high stakes such as these, Labour Party politics for the next couple of years threatens to be interesting, and that's without factoring in Jeremy Corbyn, the hundreds of new local members, and the ongoing battle for the party's soul.
This isn't entirely unprecedented. We have been here before. In 2011 and 2012, under Dave's instruction, the Boundary Commission redrew the political map of Britain. Their brief was to equalise the number of electors per constituency and chop down the number of MPs by 50 to, as the government then put it, cut the cost of politics. In reality, it was a feeble attempt to link the "national emergency" posed by the deficit to the gerrymandering of constituency boundaries for Conservative electoral advantage. The LibDems killed it off while they were in Coalition but, unfortunately, with last year's Tory majority the fix was always coming back. And so we have today's first draft, drawn up again on the same principles which, if implemented, will make it much more difficult for Labour to ever win a general election. With fewer marginal seats to fight over it makes them even more important, apparently demanding a Blair-ish triangulation strategy to win over the timid, conservative-leaning voter in the timid, conservative-leaning swing seat. It's almost as if the whole thing is designed that way.
This, however, is but the first draft. There's to be a repeat of the consultations and public gnashing of teeth. And, to be fair to the Boundary Commission last time, they did make some pretty big changes after listening to thousands of submissions. I recall previous proposals feeding Stoke Central anabolic steroids and swelling to a silly size, biting chunks out of the North and South constituencies now poised to share its unloved carcass. This followed the first draft in which Central reached out and nicked a bit of Staffordshire Moorlands around Werrington. As a large, relatively well-to-do village, I was privy to one or two snobby letters dead set against to the proposal, claiming this leafy dormitory for folk who mainly work and shop in the city "had nothing to do with Stoke-on-Trent". I digress. Once representations are made, I expect there will be more changes. But ultimately, the outcome is the same" the Potteries loses an MP, and Labour gets stiffed.
There are many more problems with the boundary review as presently constituted. Chief among which is constituencies are getting redrawn according to the registered electorate, not population, and those electorate figures are from December 2015. This was after hundreds of thousands dropped off the register thanks to changes to the registration process, and before two million extra people re-registered to take part in the EU referendum. It is hopelessly out-of-date and is set to recompose British politics off inaccurate data.
For Theresa May, this attempt to cook the next election's books is a test of her alleged One Nation Toryism. As someone who's always been sceptical about a snap general election (even putting down an amendment to the Fixed Term Parliaments Act requires Parliamentary time, which comes with plenty of warning), and as May has ruled one out, I believe she has a clear incentive to keep the boundary review going. Uncharacteristically, this is one set of findings she won't be kicking into the long grass. And yet, if it does go through, it could store up very serious problems for British politics.
As noted recently, the reason why revolutionary movements have a tendency to either become domesticated or disappear in liberal democracies is because constitutionalism opens up political paths for the achievement of objectives without the constant mobilisation and pressure of extra-parliamentary activity, be it demonstrations, strikes, occupations, or other forms of direct action. If the constitutional path is choked off, then it is reasonable to assume that more radical, confrontational politics strike down thicker and wider roots. This is what May's Tories are playing with. I'm not suggesting a huge revolutionary movement will rise up, but if something as simple as the everyday interests of the labour movement are locked out of official politics because of boundary fixes, they will find expression in other ways. Some of which might be sharp, militant, and violent.
And so the ball is very much in May's court. How much does she want to see the Tories win? Is she as entirely short-sighted as per her late and unlamented predecessor, or will she stop and think for a moment? Dave, as a man afflicted with a disastrous gambling habit was happy to risk the legitimacy of the British political system for the small reward of a few dozen extra seats. Is May?
What with all that's going on, thoughts about this and that have been popping up all over the place, thoughts that do not belong to a coherent blog post. So instead, here there are in all their variegated incoherence.
1. It's that hoary old chestnut again: "Labour MPs have a greater mandate than Corbyn." They don't. Likewise Tory MPs don't have a greater mandate than Dave or whoever their new leader is going to be. In our delightful electoral system, each individual constituency elects a member to represent them in Parliament. On paper, the electorate are sovereign. But substantively, they're not: parties are. As has been the case ever since political parties emerged, the majority of members returned are successful candidates of a particular party. If a seat happens to be 'safe', which just so happens to comprise the majority of seats at Westminster, then the only way of removing an incumbent MP against their will is not by standing a candidate in election but removing them through an internal selection process. The majority of MPs might pretend they represent the constituency, but it's the organisation in that patch which is really sovereign, and this can be confirmed in two simple ways. First, how many MPs now sitting in the Commons would be there were it not for the party label. All of them? Half? A handful? And that applies pretty much across political divides. Second, if the party isn't really sovereign then why the abject horror whenever mandatory selection becomes a topic of debate? Yes, it might be a recipe for chaos and internal warfare as incumbents and challengers constantly scrap it out for the Westminster spoils, but that itself underlines the real repository of power in our electoral system. Woe betide any MP who really believes the waffle about personal mandates and so on.
2. What's going to happen with the trade unions? On Sunday I shared my concerns about this, that the leadership contest could end up destroying the Labour Party. It could, but it all depends on how the contest plays out. If there is skullduggery and Jeremy is kept off the ballot - remember, party rules are unclear on whether the incumbent leader automatically appears and the party has received conflicting legal advice - then there will be a split. Absolutely no question. But if there is a conventional contest without dirty tricks, then the destruction of the party might be avoided regardless of who wins. Of course, the relentless dissolution of Labour's foundations carries on and will carry on until MPs and constituency parties take the problem seriously (talking about points-based immigration systems and English flags ain't going to resolve it), but the immediate danger is over. There would be bloodletting if Jeremy loses as fair weather supporters decamp, and should he win who knows what may happen, but the party abides.
3. Unison Labour Link conference next week! If memory serves, they voted by a big margin last year to support Jeremy's candidacy. Now, anecdotally, there are some former Corbyn supporters coping with buyer's remorse. Will we see that reflected in who conference decides to support?
4. More broadly, there is a huge disconnection between MPs and the constituencies they represent. Naturally, as a Labour supporter how this poses a problem for our party is my chief concern. But the Tories have a very similar problem with their core support too. At a nearby constituency held by a Tory MP, residents barely see this member from one month to the next as they play Westminster footsie and spend practically all their time in the Big Smoke. This MP was re-elected in 2015 with an increased majority, as per most places in Staffordshire. Though a good proportion returned last year on the back of a Tory campaign scaremongering about immigration, among other things, the disconnect remains. The Tories are a party in decline, but what will happen to those voters? Project Fear-type tactics lose their efficacy over time, as we have seen.
5. Who watches Big Brother any more? I was glued to it for the first six seasons and now cannot bear to watch an episode. But the show's format strikes me as the perfect analogy for a sub-section of anti-politics voters who did turn out for the referendum. Like BB, or perhaps more appropriately, I'm a Celebrity, there is no connection whatsoever between voting public and the contestants, and depending on the public mood the audience votes in forfeits, punishments, or annoying housemates to make life hellish for the "stars". The EU referendum result is the ultimate soup of pig's bollocks, and some are getting vicarious pleasure from seeing the parties turn in on themselves and MPs dash about in panic. And yes, it would be such larks if it wasn't people at the sharp end set to pay the price for this bullshit.
After months of tedious Labour infighting, the moment for its long hoped-for eclipse by Tory party divisions has finally arrived. So-called blue-on-blue action is doing a good job of exposing Tory idiocy on all sides of the referendum debate. Ministers - particularly those on the leave side - are wonderfully showing up their stupidity. And last but not least the bumbling, amiable mask Boris Johnson has hidden behind for too long has slipped and the face of an unprincipled chancer is daily in the press and politics programmes.
Unfortunately, I don't believe this will be enough to rip the Tory party apart, even if matters get pretty fierce and it falls to playground name-calling. Thankfully, there are other shenanigans afoot that might put the long-term health of the party Conservatives in jeopardy.
Last week, the Telegraph commented on "secret plans" by Dave to reorganise the party. Under these measures, he was hoping to wind up nine out of ten local Tory associations and centralise the membership in sub-regional blocks. Association chairs will have less local clout, giving up powers to CCHQ, and campaigning was to be concentrated in a staff of full-timers appointed by and beholden to the centre. The reasons why are pretty obvious. For one, Dave knows some of the parliamentary party are going along with Leave because of pressure from the "mad, swivel-eyed loons" in the constituency associations. And, as we know, that's where real political sovereignty lies in the Westminster system. Secondly, mindful of what happened to the Labour Party, it's plausible to them for the party elite to try and prevent the same thing from occurring - not that it will ever see a Corbyn-style surge. Specifically, and more immediately, there is the thwarting of Johnson's ambitions and shoring up the fort for Osborne.
Alas, there's been a partial row back on the plans. Associations under 200 members will be merged with their neighbour(s) and it will go ahead where there is a desire for it to happen. In reality, a large number of associations operate in this way already, particularly in urban areas where some are down to single digits. It's also worth noting here a chunk of the membership is entirely fictitious. If you're a member of your local association boozer, and there are a surprising few knocking about, you're classified as a party member too. Yet despite the step back it still represents a power grab by central office. Marginalising them and directing activism from the centre has the added benefit - from their point of view - of making the full-time apparatus more influential and important to those wanting to make their way up the greasy pole.
I welcome these reforms and hope the Tory party board don't water them down further. The problem with the Tories is they are locked in a death spiral. The membership keeps falling and precious few activists are coming through. This can be offset by money, by gerrymanders, by friendly media, and by engineering situations more favourable to their politics. But they cannot fight shy of this forever. Dave must hope that a more disciplined outfit will prove attractive to Blair-esque small business, middle class, and professional people who'd find the unreconstructed rightwingery of the associations a massive turn off. Sadly for him, it's groundless.
As we know from the experience of the Labour Party under Blair and Brown, one driver of the diminishing membership was the ever more remote relationship between leading MPs and the members. Unless you were doggedly Labour, and/or had the political understanding that participating in the party and working for its electoral victory is always preferable to the alternative, there was very little to incentivise paying over the subs, attending the meetings, and doing party work. Whatever you might think of Jeremy Corbyn, his election has reversed that trend and all the crude insults and calls for deselection for truculent MPs are expressions of a support reasserting itself after feeling neglected. Dave's proposals promise to send his party in the other direction. With the influence of associations curbed, and with it the patronage senior lay committees can dole out, unless one is either a careerist or a super hardcore Tory why would you join a party that takes your money and gives precious little back? To head Johnson off at the pass, the Tories' famous short-termism and decadence sees Dave forward a plan that can hasten their decline. Good.
There is, however, a cloud to this silver lining. The Tory party isn't some free floating signifier without a referent. It is the collective expression of a section of British business and their allies and exists to pursue their interests while pretending to govern for everyone. It also has a wider constituency of millions who will always passively support them come election time. The problem is if the Tories die, those interests and those votes will find expression in some way. It could be through a Blair mk II Labour Party (stranger things have happened), a rejuvenated but rightward-facing Liberal Democrats, or via a recomposition of the right into something even less pleasant than the Tories and its ugly UKIP offspring. Whatever happens, when defeat eventually comes for the Conservatives we need to have a movement and a Labour Party strong and astute enough to ensure that however long their current period of government goes on for, it will be their last.
As Dave has fired the starting pistol for what is set to be a very long EU referendum campaign, his dear friend and alleged Tory intellectual Michael Gove has gone into print to explain why he's not backing the boss in the crucial crunch vote. And it's pretty much the usual stuff: the EU is a monster whose bureaucratic tentacles choke off innovation, research, opportunity, initiative, and sovereignty. Nevertheless, unless a politician gives a reason to think otherwise, Gove's piece should be taken at face value. His principles may be ashes in the mouths of the education workers he insulted, micro-managed, and drove out of teaching, but within the envelope of Toryism he makes a principled argument.
There is so much that can be said about his little fetishes for Britain's foreign policy role, the quality of British democracy, and the obsequious deference accorded the things the Tories are in the process of dismantling: the NHS, schools, and the very liberty that he name checks as Britain's lasting gift to the world. There's also some economic illiteracy about the Euro as the cause of economic stagnation on the continent, and bad taste gloating about mass unemployment in the EU's other advanced economies.
As it's a Saturday night and there are better things to do, this is not a line-by-line rebuttal. But there are some annoying bits of his argument that cannot be allowed to lie, as the 57 varieties of vote leave campaigns throw them around like silver bullets.
Even though we are outside the euro we are still subject to an unelected EU commission which is generating new laws every day and an unaccountable European Court in Luxembourg which is extending its reach every week, increasingly using the Charter of Fundamental Rights which in many ways gives the EU more power and reach than ever before. This growing EU bureaucracy holds us back in every area. EU rules dictate everything from the maximum size of containers in which olive oil may be sold (five litres) to the distance houses have to be from heathland to prevent cats chasing birds (five kilometres).
We all hate unnecessary bureaucracy because it gets in the way of things. The problem Michael has that in the event of removing ourselves from the EU, a lot of that red tape will remain. There's a chance it could get worse. Assuming a post-Dave, post-EU Britain is able to negotiate a settlement similar to a Swiss or a Norwegian arrangement, to continue trading in that market those pinnikity missives about straight bananas will have to be implemented. Contrary to what the right think, markets generate bureaucracy because they need for regulatory mechanisms and authorities that can adjudicate. As the "Court in Luxembourg" has jurisdiction on these matters, a "sovereign" Britain shall have to submit to its dictates and expend sums lobbying governments to get the sorts of rule changes favourable to its needs.
On the small matter of movements of goods and people. While Gove doesn't touch on this in his piece, Farage and friends have been mind-bogglingly complacent about a post-exit Britain getting favourable trading terms on the grounds that, as a large economy, the EU is also dependent on the UK. This is magical thinking. Removing Britain from the EU is a business opportunity for others, and there will be sections in all the EU's most important countries minded to punish us. Look at what's going on in Greece - it's not rational to impose crippling austerity from a business standpoint, yet it happens all the same. If favourable terms aren't secured, then a resurgence of bureaucracy around visas, transport permits and the like are more than possible. A vote out isn't a vote against unaccountable rule making. By depriving Britain a seat at the EU's top table, Gove and co would exacerbate it.
Then there is the money. What of the money?
But by leaving the EU we can take control ... We can take back the billions we give to the EU, the money which is squandered on grand parliamentary buildings and bureaucratic follies, and invest it in science and technology, schools and apprenticeships. We can get rid of the regulations which big business uses to crush competition and instead support new start-up businesses and creative talent ...
Given the Tories' poor record of investing in industry whenever they've received a windfall, from North Sea Oil to better-than-expected returns to the Treasury, it's reasonable to conclude any savings would be frittered away on further tax cuts for the rich. I digress. The point is, as Sion Simon noted in his visit to last night's meeting of Stoke Central CLP, costs and benefits go far beyond the subs the government pays the Commission, and the trade deficit between ourselves and the EU (which stood at £3.6bn for December 2015). The UK is the favoured destination within the EU for capital coming from the rest of the world. Some of it is speculative and socially useless (hello, Russian oligarchs), but some of it is productive and stimulates economic activity in the real economy. In his talk, Sion discussed Tata Steel, but it can equally apply to car manufacturers, drugs companies, and anything whose operation sets up chains of supply that in turn sustain hundreds of businesses and tens of thousands of jobs. The reason why Britain attracts a disproportionate share of foreign direct investment isn't because we're Jolly Nice Chaps: it's that we're the country with the global language, an unparalleled level of economic openness, and because we're in the EU. We're the ideal springboard for companies from the Commonwealth because we have the world's biggest, most affluent market on our doorstep, and free and easy access to it.
In the event of us leaving, I can't see large companies immediately pulling their investment. But because of the uncertainty surrounding the exit negotiations, investment plans would be put on hold and you could see a running down of operations over a period of time. Why wouldn't firms like Toyota start thinking about alternative sites in the EU proper if access to the market is jeopardised? They'd be foolish not to. And haven't the Tories spent the last 30-odd years telling us that business would bugger off if we can't provide them what they want?
I will give Gove some credit though. His piece does articulate a little bit of a vision and offers something new: an Arcadian future of a free-born nation facing the world on its own terms. It's a nice fairy story, and one that would warm hearts grown wretched on beggar-thy-neighbour politics, xenophobia, and acute social anxiety. But in the real world millions of jobs and the long-term viability of British industry is at stake.
