Part-time Parliament a loopy idea

This week Jack Straw proposed abolition of the European Parliament. Richard Howitt MEP, Chair of the European Parliamentary Labour Party (EPLP) and speaker at this weekend's 'Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?' conference gives his response.

Oh Jack. You are and have been a great servant of the party and I have always forgiven that the European Union isn't your favourite dish. But you only needed to ask some of the politicians in your own generation to know that returning to a European Assembly of national politicians replacing the directly elected Parliament would be completely loopy.

It was tried in the 1970s and the logistics of MPs undertaking their parliamentary duties at home, travelling and trying to engage in joint work with counterparts from eight other countries proved unworkable. It was why direct elections were first agreed for 1979.

The politicians of that era I have talked to, speak with affection about the bars and nightspots of Strasbourg, but not of any political achievements in going there.

And that was before the European Parliament had full legislative powers, now incorporating 27 countries, and meeting 44 weeks a year, (far more than Westminster). Unlike the Commons division lobby, the European Parliament votes on 800 policy proposals and 10,000 amendments in each parliamentary year.

If the aim is to build trust in European institutions, a part-time Parliament is the last thing we need.

Indeed the impact of abolishing Europe's directly-elected Parliament would be to reduce scrutiny of legislation and of EU spending, lessen visibility and remove the very people the Eurosceptic press can never justifiably brand as "Eurocrats." In British public opinion, it would have the very opposite impact to the one you propose.

Parliamentary democracy is a fine and noble thing. It builds public support by bringing political debate and decision-making in to the open, and by giving citizens the chance to be the ultimate decision-makers through the electoral process. This is the case throughout the world and has to apply to Europe.

But there is a narrow Labour Party point to all this too.

Labour Euro MPs constantly strive to serve our constituents effectively and we must always be prepared to be self-critical on how we can do better.

But Labour in Government - the government in which you proudly served - too often failed to put the case for Europe, and fell in to the trap of claiming credit for European achievements for itself and blaming Europe for the things that go wrong.

But the days of the party treating its MEPs as the embarrassing aunt are long-gone.

The new generation of Labour politicians from Ed Miliband to Douglas Alexander, Emma Reynolds to our own leader Glenis Willmott, all appreciate that Labour has to do better on Europe as on other issues than limiting solutions to those from within the Westminster bubble.

Jack, it was a privilege to serve in your team as Labour's Foreign Affairs Spokesperson in Europe, when you were an outstanding Foreign Secretary.

But I recognise that perhaps one job that is beyond me is to be able to change your own views on Europe.

Richard Howitt MEP is Chair of the European Parliamentary Labour Party and Labour Member of the European Parliament for the East of England.

E-mail: richard@richardhowittmep.com Twitter: @richardhowitt

Millande? Hollaband? Why Labour must get off the sidelines on Europe

Fabian Society General Secretary Andrew Harrop writes for Next Left ahead of this weekend's Social Europe: Worth Fighting For? conference

With the European right rallying behind Nicolas Sarkozy for the upcoming French presidential election, Ed Miliband must now move Labour away from the sidelines and offer similar support for socialist candidate Francois Hollande.

As politicians on the European right, buoyed by a period of centre-right ascendancy across the EU, have been campaigning together to secure austerity Europe, the left has, in contrast, been fragmented. As a consequence the burden has fallen on the grassroots to emerge as the sole vehicle to oppose the right’s vision of enforced austerity. Instead of the centre-left political parties articulating an effective opposition across Europe, it is in the indignados of Madrid, the Occupy movements and the anti-cuts protests in Brussels, London, Rome and Athens, rather than parliaments where the real opposition has emerged.

This is no more obvious than here in the UK where the Labour party has seemingly adopted a position of pragmatic Eurosceptism. Ed Miliband seems to be content to look on as the Tory right tear chunks out of David Cameron, while judging the issue far too toxic to actually make a serious comment on.

This is simply not good enough. With the centre-right coalescing around a shared vision of austerity, Ed Miliband must put himself at the forefront of an 'alternative to austerity', allying with leaders like Hollande who are willing to espouse the same policy. To succeed this must incorporate an economic message – propounding the need for investment in jobs and growth not just budget cuts – but also champion European policies defending strong social rights and welfare.

The Fabian Society’s Social Europe conference this weekend will focus on these rights which the centre-right consensus in Europe has identified clearly as an obstacle to the small-government, fiscal discipline answer to the financial crisis. In Greece, the enforced budgetary cutbacks have targeted the minimum wage, working time regulations and the pushed for the introduction of a more ‘flexible’ job market. In France, Sarkozy has talked about the need to relax the 35-hour week and to pay for removing social charges on businesses paid for by an increase in that least-progressive of taxes, VAT. In the UK, right-wing Tories like Liam Fox talk about relaxing constraints on business, a message woven closely together with the endless Conservative diatribes about Brussels red tape.

This race to the bottom will help no-one in the long run. There is growing evidence from the UK and abroad that government spending cuts are fundamentally harming growth, producing fractional growth figures for successive quarters. Nor is there any substantive evidence showing that cutting back on employees’ rights and making it easier to hire and fire, produces genuine growth in jobs. Both Ed Miliband and Francois Hollande have spoken convincingly about the need for a more responsible capitalism, this message must be a key part of this.

These are problems that are taking place on the European scale and merit a response from a united left in Europe. It is simply not credible for Ed Miliband and Ed Balls to propose their economic alternative in the UK, while ignoring the wider European context. Sooner or later, they will have to get off the fence.

There are still a handful of tickets available for 'Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?' - to get yours please visit the Fabian Society website 

Social Europe: Worth fighting for - The Results

Ahead of our ‘Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?’ conference on 25th February the Fabian Society conducted a membership survey on the EU to find out if the views of our traditionally pro-European membership have shifted.

The results, in many ways, were as expected. Our membership remains overwhelmingly pro-European but, in tune with the country at large, our members are also starting to move further towards the Eurosceptic side of the argument. This is especially the case when questions about widening the UK’s involvement with the project and of democratic accountability are asked. This is underlined by eight out of ten Fabian members believing the EU lacks democratic integrity and only one in five being able to name all their MEPs.

First the good news for our pro-Europeans, a North Korean-esque 94 percent believes that the UK should not only remain part of the EU, but that we as a people benefit from continued membership. EU-led changes such as relaxed border controls, free trade and even the single currency were all cited as reasons for optimism about what the project has accomplished.

When asked about which policy areas should see deeper integration with our EU partners the picture becomes more mixed. There is clear support for deepening our ties when it comes to tackling climate change (78 percent), employment rights (70 percent) – surely a victory for Trade Union campaigning there - and security and defence (64 percent).

The most important issues for Europe to cooperate on

There was less enthusiasm, but still a majority, for home affairs. A signal that, while Fabians see the benefits in areas where we are already integrated, increasing numbers are wary of deepening ties. 53 percent wanted more integration on issues like social affairs such as health and 54 percent on crime and justice, a 20 point gap from our top rated issues.

The real Achilles heel for the European project continues to be what anti-EU campaigners call the ‘democratic deficit’ in its institutions. When asked if it was thought voters had enough power over the EU an astounding 78 percent said no. As if to underline this point we asked how many of our members knew who all their MEPs were and only a paltry 22 percent could name them all (56 percent said some and 22 percent said none).

Given that Fabian members are both very engaged politically and overwhelmingly pro-European these are shocking numbers and questions about Brussels democratic element have to be seriously asked.

Do you know who your MEPs are?

Our MEPs lack of cut through isn’t a new phenomenon and there are questions for all of us who work in politics. A quick straw poll of the Fabian office revealed just one staff member who could name all his MEPs (a far lower percentage, it has to be said, than Fabian members managed), and he previously worked for an MEP.

Without a recognisable public face the charge of ‘faceless Brussels bureaucrat’ becomes impossible to refute, and easy shorthand for any anti-EU campaigner looking to score cheap points in a debate. The EU can’t dissolve the electorate and elect a new one so it needs to look at itself and work out the fairest (and most engaging) ways of making decisions in future. Without it even our Fabian pro-Europeans will continue their drift towards Euroscepticism.

You can view the full survey results here

There are still a few tickets available for "Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?" on Saturday 25th February. Visit the Fabian Society website to get yours today.

Olly Parker is head of Partnerships and Events at the Fabian Society

Why we need Social Europe

Ahead of the Fabian Society's Social Europe conference on 25th February, Ivana Bartoletti, Editor of Fabiana and former policy advisor to Romano Prodi government in Italy, writes for Next Left on why a social agenda must be at the heart for Europe  

European social policy comprises a variety of interventions, which take place mainly through the so-called Open Method of Coordination. The outcome is an amalgam of legislation, financial aid, cooperation and soft law mechanisms such as guidelines, benchmarking, and best practice.

In recent years, soft law mechanisms have become the preferred route to promote innovation in social policy. They are embedded in the Lisbon Strategy, which was adopted in 2000 with the aim of turning Europe into a socially inclusive and competitive, knowledge-based economy by 2010.

However, in the past ten years the idea underpinning the Lisbon Strategy — that economic and social goals must be closely connected — has been slowly abandoned. By 2005, the focus of the Strategy had shifted from considering social policy as a key factor for growth, to simply ‘growth and jobs’, without any mention of it. This didn’t happen by chance, but has been the result of the swing to the right, which has occurred in many countries over the past ten years.

Such a shift in the political agenda has become clearly visible in the way the EU has decided to deal with the current crisis. European countries, almost all run at present by conservatives, seem to believe that austerity is the only way forward to tackle the crisis. Whether true or not, this has had the effect of making citizens feel that Europe cannot provide any social protection, thus disenfranchising them; this belief can lead easily towards nationalism and protectionism.

Political and economic wisdom, as well as analysis of the outcomes, should suggest that austerity, à la Merkel and Sarkozy, does not work. A Wall Street Journal article, published in 2009 warned of the risk of EU countries entering a vicious circle of deflationary ‘beggar-thy-neighbour’ wage strategies; something which would endanger countries and lead to a spiral of poverty and lower living standards.

I am reluctant to accept historic comparisons which do not recognise the fact we live in an unprecedented time.

The process of European integration has now gone far enough that old remedies, such as currency devaluations and trade protectionism, are not viable solutions.

At the same time, solutions based on the traditional social-democratic vision of the big State are in my view outdated too, not only because resources are tight but also because big, state-led programmes have not always achieved what was hoped for.

It is within this context that Labour needs to develop a new narrative on Europe and I think the way to achieve this is by endorsing the original spirit of the Lisbon Strategy: to re-establish the social element as a key factor of growth.

Firstly, the EU is a single market, and it is in our interest to pursue a concerted social agenda among all member states. Equalising the social conditions of workers means ensuring we avoid a race to the bottom, which would ultimately affect us all. The reality is that the trend in reducing rights has already started. 

Secondly, we need to compete in the wider world. In 2006 I became head of human rights for Labour sister party in Italy, and I have since advocated that if we, as Europe, want to compete with, for example, China — a country which does not combine growth with rights — we cannot follow the same path, and would not want to.

Having recognised the importance of the social element as a key factor of growth, we can relish the challenge of developing a new social agenda in these tough times.

My argument applies very well to women: maternity rights as well as the provision of adequate and affordable childcare (topics which have always been at the very heart of the Lisbon agenda) are social priorities which will trigger growth. History shows us that removing the obstacles to women’s full participation in the labour market is a key factor for growth and the creation of wealth for households.

This is why I believe the European social agenda can give Labour the bedrock for a new narrative on Europe, so long as we restore its original spirit and we make it work in today’s tough times.

There are still a few tickets available for "Social Europe: Worth Fighting For?" on Saturday 25th February. Visit the Fabian Society website to get yours today.

Cameron veto undermines Britain's future

This is a guest post by Kenneth Way, Media Intern at the Fabian Society. 

David Cameron’s veto of the proposed EU treaty change is a gross error of judgement and undermines Britain’s future within the union.

Back in May 2010, the Coalition agreement promised Britain would play a “strong” and “positive” role in working with our European partners. However, as Britain woke to discover Cameron used his veto, it became painfully apparent that the government has reneged on this promise and in the process worryingly sidelined Britain in Europe.

This is not the first time the government have forgotten their promise on Europe. In October, in the midst of the crisis, the Conservatives thought it helpful to hold a “symbolic” debate and subsequent vote in the Commons on EU membership. Despite defeating this vote, albeit with the largest rebellion ever on Europe from backbenchers, eurosceptics remain worryingly at large, vocal and influential within the party.

Lest Conservatives forget, in the past Europe has ripped stronger blue governments apart. This government does not have the privilege of a stable majority. Modern European history reveals that a severe lack of foresight at the insemination of the European project saw Britain say ‘No’ to Europe on multiple occasions. When the merits of Europe were finally understood, Britain started knocking on Europe’s door only to be rebutted by a dogged and insulted Charles De Gaulle adamant to block British membership. It took until 1973 to join the EEC, some sixteen years after the Treaty of Rome and some sixteen years locked outside a growing union.

We must learn from our past. While we currently remain justifiably absent from the single currency, envision a completely feasible world with a recovered booming Euro and a Pound in freefall. An economy under threat, Britain could look to the single currency as a saviour. This current short-sighted approach towards helping Europe could trigger a response akin to De Gaulle’s refusal to accept Britain into the union. Wise, farsighted decision-making will help ensure that the eurozone survies not only beyond this week, but long into the future, so that one day, if we want or need to, we can join our counterparts in a stable, secure and prosperous single currency.

Rather than fruitless attempts at holding Europe to ransom as the “awkward partner” determined to get a better deal, the government should therefore be forcing its way into discussions central to Europe’s future working side-by-side with our Franco-German counterparts. A Britain standing alongside France and German would remain powerful in these days of the emerging BRIC nations. In fact, if our beloved allies across the Atlantic continue to search for new partners in this globalising world order, the importance of Europe multiplies for Britain.

To counter this approach, British exceptionalism must end in the hearts and minds of the public. We must fight to change the wholly negative European discourse and question the idea that sovereignty is always king. Unquestionably, being pro-European is a traditional vote-loser in Britain. The notion of “Europe bad, Britain good” means the EU is seen as greedy, intrusive and unwelcome, the public are bombarded with press who inform us “Brussels controls Britain” and most of the union’s good work is buried beneath a combination of irrational jingoism and scaremongering hysteria. This attitude must change before it is too late. Failure to respond to this challenge could leave Britain in the European wilderness for generations to come.

You can follow Kenneth on Twitter @kennethway

Lessons from football Europe

Watching the European Cup final is the single largest continentai shared experience that we currently experience as Europeans. (The misnomer of the UEFA Champions League is surely all the more obvious on Cup final night and everybody in the real world knows that both United and Barca are competing to win their fourth European Cup).

I imagine most people watching in England will be supporting Manchester United, though not nearly as many as ITV will doubtless tell us. I have a lot of respect for Sir Alex and the chapter he has added to the history of Manchester United, but that doesn't mean I can support them on the pitch. So I will join the sizeable minority of English football supporters in Manchester itself, Merseyside, Yorkshire, north and west London and across the country cheer on Barcelona. Similarly, much of Madrid might perhaps be seen to be demonstrating cosmopolitan transnational sympathies in cheering on the English against their Catalan rivals.

It is in that spirit that we have got the tapas and cerveza in for the evening. I should probably squeeze back into the Barca shirt I picked up on a tour of the Nou Camp which was serendipitously added to our honeymoon trip to France and Spain a decade ago. Since I had my photo taken with a replica of the European Cup, it may be an inauspicious omen not to.

I doubt it will make the difference.

So enjoy the game. And may the best team win. Tonight, let's see if we are right about which team that (probably) means.


***
The English game, its insularity once symbolised by Alan Hardaker at the FA trying to convince both Chelsea (successfully) and Matt Busby's United (unsuccessfully, shortly before the tragedy of Munich 1958) to have nothing to do with these fancy continental schemes, has been transformed and Europeanised in our recent lifetimes.

But I suggested that there could also be political lessons from football Europe in the Fabian Society and FEPS pamphlet “Europe’s Left in the Crisis” published earlier this year.

The traditional arguments for the EU and European integration (and perhaps those against them as well) may resonate much less for a generation for whom the first cultural image thrown up by the idea of ‘Europe’ is more likely to be the Champions League than the Second World War, or even the fall of the Berlin Wall,

But we might learn something for our politics from the shared European experience of the Champions League.

Champions League Europe reflects the transformation of Europe’s football clubs by migration across the continent and around the world, yet they remain the focus of intense local pride, community and identity.

The clubs compete at national and European level, after proposals that they exit national football to create a ‘European super league’ were rejected as they lacked public legitimacy.

The matches, played simultaneously around Europe, are the single largest shared continental experience which Europeans do together. Yet, beyond a small cosmopolitan elite, the sports pages and TV coverage primarily focuses on the national clubs’ participation in the shared European space, until the final approaches.

European football offers a policy laboratory of different approaches.

FC Barcelona – a supporter-owned mutualist cooperative – plays against PLCs and private companies purchased with leveraged debt.

Different national priorities are reflected in domestic regulation – with Germany paying more attention to the interests of its national team than the English, while trading off the ability to maximise income to keep free-to-air TV broadcasting and lower ticket prices.

But there is ongoing discussion too about the Europe-wide rules needed to maintain a fair and level playing field. New European-wide ‘financial fair play’ regulations will be introduced, ending unfair competition through billionaire oligarchs and to prevent a bubble economy imploding in football.

The political lesson to pro-Europeans is to earn permission for the multilateralism we need. The British have a reputation as reluctant Europeans. New YouGov polling commissioned for this book shows why this is, yet it also shows how the British are now very moderate Eurosceptics, with majorities perfectly open to deeper integration wherever it makes practical sense.

From David to Ed: the meaning of a Milibandite memo

Part of the difficulty of being David Miliband and defining a political role during the post-leadership contest year is how one of Labour's major figures can make his own significant contributions to the debate about ideas, political strategy and policy in the Labour Party without every comma being parsed for any hint of disagreement with his brother.

Part of the answer may be to contribute primarily in a range of areas - such as international geopolitics and the politics of climate change - in which he has expertise but which are not central areas of domestic political contention, and also to focus on the politics of organisation, and the 'movement for change' politics which both Milibands see as central to Labour's future success.

Economic strategy and the budget deficit, tax, and the future of public services, may prove trickier. But it would be a shame if that understandable instinct not to be seen to rock the boat meant having to shy away from engagement in issues of the broad aims and values and political direction of the party. It would be valuable to the party's debates about values and politics if he - along with all of the other major figures, whether on the frontbenches or (like David Miliband and Jon Cruddas) from the backbenches, do open up these debates during 2011, and find ways to do so which engage party and public audiences in the content rather than personalities.

Tonight's LSE/Political Quarterly lecture demonstrates a willingness to engage in debates about Labour's future existential political challenges, as shared across Europe by social democrats. It is well worth reading in full.

There is a clear Miliband to Miliband message in the crucial passage of the speech, though this could also be read as in part offering some Milibandite convergence even as articulating what Miliband the Elder sees as a crucial future strategic choice for the party.

So if we know who we have lost, and have some idea of why we have lost them, what next?

One conclusion is that only by reversing out of the Third Way cul de sac can the centre left find avenues for advance. It is certainly true that the centre-left governments of the 1990s were good at helping the poorest benefit from economic expansion, not good enough at figuring out how to spur that expansion. They were good at preaching responsibility for those on welfare, not good enough at demanding responsibility from those at the top of society. They were good at the analysis of an enabling state, but not good enough at bringing it about; good at the rhetoric of public sector reform, not good enough at delineating how both planning and markets are necessary for an effective public sector. And they were good at building electoral machines, not good enough at building movements of social change.

But my strategic view is essentially the opposite. The revisionism that was entailed in the renewal of the left parties in the 1990s was essential for them to become viable. It is not the new doctrines of the 1990s that made these parties unviable; it is that these doctrines staved off unviability, for parties that had become practised at losing elections in the 1970s and 1980s. The good things about progressive politics in the 1990s – a radicalism when it came to doctrine, new thinking about national and international reform, a finely tuned eye and ear for social and technological change, decisive engagement with people’s needs on difficult issues like crime and security, a readiness to pursue social justice in new ways, a strong sense of international responsibility, and a record that did leave the countries they governed fairer but also better prepared for the modern world - are the basis of winning again.

In other words, only a post New Labour brand of European social democracy, building on success, not a pre New Labour stance, can address the weaknesses that were left and exist today.

For David Miliband here goes perhaps somewhat further than he did in the leadership contest in articulating where he agrees with the critique of 'third way' social democracy of the 1990s. While rejecting the idea that the centre-left should "reverse out of the third way cul de sac", David Miliband does essentially voice and agree with several aspects of a critique which he probably associates with his brother, the new leader, about the limits of an excessively technocratic political project which did too little to build movements for change.

The second part of this passage makes the case for a further round of revisionist renewal of social democracy, rather than a retreat to the status quo ante. I don't think that issue about the direction of travel is a difference between the Milibands - indeed, to some extent, Ed Miliband's approach can be seen as being about recapturing the early breadth and confidence of mid-1990s New Labour from a later narrowing.

One of David Miliband's central themes in this speech, close in its advocacy of Tawney to several interventions by Jon Cruddas, is that values and political strategy will be more important in the review than policy.

And the speech does go on to engage with several important and difficult issues - including on the electoral base for social democracy, the role and limits of the state, and the balance between taxation and other means of social progress - which will be central to the policy review, and to the political choices for the party in opposition.

Mili-D's argument here has some common features with Peter Mandelson's argument in the new introduction to the paperback edition of his Third Man memoir that he does not think the risk of a leftwards lurch is a serious one, but that he is more concerned by a large section of the party becoming prone to 'one more heave' thinking.

In other words, the danger is less the return to a Kinnockite or pre-Kinnockite party. Rather, it is the post-1992 modernisers' critique of John Smith which is again relevant. But the political etymology of the 'one more heave' phrase perhaps demonstrates that this is not an open or shut argument. Though New Labour modernisers were right about how far the party had fallen short in 1992, they were too anxious in their war on complacency in 1997 (and even more so in being afraid of defeat in 2001). Had John Smith lived to 1997 and beyond, he would have won a thumping triple figure majority over John Major, if probably a slightly smaller one, and rather more in the style of Clement Attlee than Tony Blair.

A (weaker) case could be constructed too for "one more heave" now - it would very likely be enough to secure Labour a hung Parliament, quite possibly as the larger party, though certainly not a majority.

That "one more heave" is not the answer is also a point of Milibandite convergence.

This has informed Ed Miliband's argument as to why a post-Gordon Brown return to the eternal verities of New Labour will prove insuffient. (That is why “one more heave” just won’t do", as he said in the campaign, and again in his Fabian new year conference speech in January).

That is David Miliband's argument tonight too, that the difficulties of social democratic parties can not be put down to contingent factors of luck and leadership, and that post-New Labour politics can not hope to resurrect and reconstruct as it was a post-war social democracy which is in crisis in terms of electoral demography, economics and political organisation.

Neither they - nor anybody else - has yet done more than to sketch some early contours of an alternative. That an alternative is necessary should not be in doubt.

Must Europe's left lose in grim times?

Why is the right in the ascendancy across the EU with its austerity agenda?

David Miliband speaks at the LSE tonight in the Political Quarterly annual lecture "Why is the European Left losing elections?”. The Times carries a preview commentary (£) from the former Foreign Secretary.

The Left was winning in the Nice (non-inflationary continuous expansion) decade of the 1990s. Now we are in the Grim (growth reduced with inflationary misery) decade and the Left is losing in the harsher climate.

Middle-income swing voters, often young parents, are moving to the right. In Sweden only one in five Stockholm residents voted for the social democrats in 2010; and only half of trade unionists. The primary reason is tax and spending. These voters have a good lifestyle and don’t want to trade it for more generous welfare systems. So when Ed targets the “squeezed middle”, he is on the money.

Miliband also highlights potential tensions between values of community and internationalism.

But economic determinism alone is not a sufficient explanation ... The Right has few answers on immigration, as the present British Government is showing by making promises that cannot be met except through perverse decisions on issues such as visas for foreign students. But the Left is torn between a commitment to individual human rights for all people, whatever their nationality, and a recognition that communities depend on deep roots .

R. H. Tawney wrote after Labour’s crushing 1931 defeat that the party needed “a common view of the life proper to human beings”. In other words it had to start with an ethic, not a policy, and apply it to the great questions of the day.

Today that means working out how to build a moral economy. When left-of-centre parties fight elections as private sector reformers, in the name of efficiency and not just fairness, they can win. When they make government an ally in wealth creation and a defence against the abuse of private power, they turn the Right’s antipathy to government on its head. It means reclaiming the language and substance of community. When we fight elections as public sector innovators as well as private sector reformers, we live out our origins as people wary of state power as well as market power. We shouldn’t be afraid of the Big Society; we should claim it for our own and show how we can build it better.

The Fabians will also continue this debate about the lessons for the left across Europe next week with a launch seminar for the Fabian/FEPS book 'Europe's left in the crisis'

The crisis of social democracy and the search for the next European left

Former Europe Minister Denis MacShane MP, in a guest post based on his speech to South-East London Fabians on Wednesday, says that Europe's social democratic left has never been short of obituarists but that the next social democracy will need to be more than a national project. (Offers of blogposts in response on the future for the European left are welcome at editor@nextleft.org).

***

That there is a crisis of Social Democracy in Europe is not in doubt. The question is whether it is terminal. The symptoms are worrying. In Vienna, home city a century ago to anti-semitic, brownshirt politcs, 27 per cent of voters supported the extremism of the late and unlamented Jorg Haider’s party in autumn elections. For the first time in a century the Swedish social democrats were defeated in two successive elections. The Swedish Democrats Party – a liberal title for a deeply illiberal anti-Muslim party – won 20 seats in the Riksdag, the Swedish parliament.

Nothing seems to work. The Swedish Social Democrats held their nose and entered into a triple alliance with a further left party and the Greens. The party called for higher state spending and support for public employees. The voters turned away.

In Spain and Greece, the socialist governments face strikes and protests as they desperately seek to regain control of public finances. But it is too late. The reforms needed were put off because it meant telling the truth to power in trade unions or professional corporations who traded their votes for the left in exchange for no challenge to their comfort zone agreements on pay and taxes.

Those shut out of the labour market by corporatist protectionism inherited from the Franco years for those who had full-time work have deserted the left en masse. Organised social democratic parties in the new EU member states are weak and marginalised to the point of governing irrelevance.

In the past the left debated the future. Now it debates identity. The de-alignment of class politics into a mush of a monoclass kaleidoscope interest group politics has left the left without a voice. You cannot square anti-nuclear greens and those who believe in industry and the right of citizens to press a switch and get light, heat and power. You cannot square the Muslim-hating right or those who preach “Dutch jobs for Dutch people” with any of the anti-racist liberal traditions that the European left painfully acquired in recent generations.

Wikicapitalism is endlessly morphing and changing. One British Labour MP who could not find an ordinary job after the May defeat has been trading shares on her computer and made a tidy £32,000 in the last six months. Yes, it is casino capitalism but the ways of making money are no longer traceable nor can they be easily reduced to a discreet group the left can appeal to.

There are 14.2 million holders of ISAs (Individual Savings Accounts) in Britain alone. 500,000 social housing council tenants bought their council homes after Labour took power in 1997. Many of these homes are let out to new incomers or to asylum or social cases that local authorities pay for to keep people from sleeping in parks and streets.

From council tenant to rentier landlord without even moving a generation. These are the new capitalism(s) the left has to understand. The three great glue-pots of the 20th century social democratic left – the nation, the working class and its unions, and the creation of the welfare state make less and less sense in the 21st century.

In Italy, Spain, Belgium, and Britain the unitary nation is under threat. Spanish socialists have to make pacts with Catalan socialists but they do not see the Iberian peninsula through the same eyes. Labour after 1979 became heavily influenced by Scottish and Welsh Labour. Labour had a policy for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. It had no policy for England.

The great people movement that accelerated after the end of communism’s border controls in 1990 has brought into scores of thousands of settled towns and communities, where a historical social democratic settlement has long reigned, the force-field of new people, new cultures, new religion, and new demands for rights. Asylum seekers who never went home, relatives who demanded the right to settle, and more recently hard-working, skilled, white Catholics from East Europe came in and changed townscapes. In big cities, they were absorbed but when every small town had to absorb the incomers keen to make a new full life the tensions became unbearable and opened the way to the new politics of identity.

For most of Europe's populist nationalist right, Muslims have replaced the pre-war Jews targeted by the right as the new enemy or non-indigenous presence owing external allegiances. The myth of "Eurabia" - the idea that Europe is coming under Muslim control is the new fashion. Geert Wilders, the Dutch Islamaphobe, told a rally in Berlin recently that "Germany full of mosques and veiled women is no longer the Germany of Schiller, Bach and Mendelssohn." This is drivel. Many Muslims in Germany are Turkish fashionistas or third generation Turkish-Germans. In contrast to Wilders’ wild assertions, Germany has re-created a Jewish community with subsidies for synagogues and an open door to any Russian Jew who claims some German ancestry dating back centuries. Despite Wilders’ extreme rants, the Conservatives and Liberals in the Netherlands have accepted Wilder's support to form a coalition government.

In that sense European social democracy has been too successful. The long era of welfare state capitalism with open borders has proved sensationally attractive to those in poorer counties, both among the 47 member states of the Council of Europe (Ukraine, Moldova, Armenia, Azerbaijan etc) as well to the poor in Africa and Asia and the conflict-ridden oppressions of the Middle East.

The welfare state paid for over generations by local people buckled as it had to support new citizens, and arrivals. Social housing which was social democracy’s great gift to its supporters after 1950 had dried up by 2000. As voters moved from renting to owning and saw little hope for their own children to get rented social housing they wondered if their interests were any longer represented by the left.

Many of these problems and most of these incomers could be absorbed by strongly growing job-creating economies. But social democracy in Europe has shunned the liberalism of dynamic markets because of their unfairness. Gerhard Schröder became Chancellor of Germany in 1998 with four million unemployed and left office in 2005 with four million unemployed. Purchasing power of German workers stagnated under the last social democratic government. The European left has policies for women, for gays, for children, for artists but does it have one for the working class? But what is the working class today? The IG Metall VW worker? Or the Ganz Unten described 20 years ago by Gunter Wallraff?

Unions in all European countries have long given up confronting capitalism. Instead they confront the pubic with strikes that deny the poor access to transport, to council services, or to schooling. The rich drive past the picket lines of public sector union strikes and feel no impact. It is not the fault of unions. The public sector is where recruitment is possible. Which union leader has the organising hunger to get up at three in the morning to try and recruit Lithuanian fruit pickers or greet the new female proletariat coming off the dawn cleaning shift? European social democracy is trapped between a nativist working class which feels heavily taxed and under threat from incomers and the new proletariat of non-unionised minimum wage and part-time workers essential to keep the 7/24 service economy functioning. There are now as many cleaners, nannies, old-age care workers, or Starbucks slaves as there were maids and other domestic servants before 1939. A left-wing intellectual can be easily recognised by his or her habit of outsourcing child care and denouncing American imperialism while simultaneously applying for scholarships or teaching posts in the United States.

There are no commonly read European social democratic thinkers. The German, French or British left intellectual writes for his fellow commentators in his own country.

Whereas the right can unite across borders around a few themes – smaller state, curbs on Muslims, reduction of trade union rights, the left produces long shopping lists of demands and wishes and refuses to create priorities and a running order. The left appears genetically incapable of supporting the compromises of power. In Britain, the main left-liberal papers, the Guardian, began digging Labour’s grave soon after Blair and Brown won power in 1997. By May 2010, the main paper of the left was urging a vote for Liberal Democrats on the eve of that party ditching its principles and purpose to provide a few ministerial salaries for its chieftains. In the United States, the left-liberal commentariat has patiently used its columns and blogs to undermine the tortuous efforts of Obama to get any progressive legislation through the thickets of the US political-legislative system. Now Britain has a Conservative-Liberal government and the US Congress is controlled by the right. Merci, la gauche!

Social democratic party organisation remains national. Tony Blair, Lionel Jospin, Gerhard Schröder, Wim Kok and Massimo d’Alema were all prime ministers along with a cluster of social democratic leaders a decade ago. But this dominance in office was never shaped into a common philosophy or confidence in power. The nationalisms of the indigenous left always trumped the hopes of a common European social democracy.

Pan-European social democracy operates at the lowest common denominator level. In the 2009 socialist manifesto for the European Parliament what was left out was more important than what was put in. The SPD banned any reference to nuclear power. The Swedish social democrats blocked the concept of an EU legal minimum wage. The French socialists prevented calls for a reform of agricultural protectionism. The Labour Party opposed demands for banking and labour regulation. Even the Luxembourg socialists watered down calls for an end to banking secrecy rather than face a challenge to the Luxembourg banking system. Few national parties are willing to concede to the Party of European Socialists the right to individual membership. The PES depends on subsidies from the EU and at times appears simply to be an adjunct of the declining Socialist Group in the European Parliament. At each election to the EP since 1979 the participation has got smaller and smaller. The Lisbon Treaty gives new powers to the European Parliament but MEPs have less and less democratic legitimacy as fewer and fewer voters turn out to support them.

Is it all over? There are plenty of grave-diggers of the left. But for 50 years after the war it was assumed the Christian democratic right would be in permanent power in Italy. Germany and France spent decades under rightist control before Willy Brandt and Francois Mitterrand arrived. Labour spent two decades in the wilderness after 1979.

Change can happen. It will need brave leaders willing to alter the way we see the world. The newly elected Labour leader, Ed Miliband, was right to say that Labour was always at its best when it challenged the conventional wisdom. There is too much conventional wisdom in the higher council of European social democracy. But to challenge this is to take risks. When European social democracy is ready to bury its past myths, it will again be ready to give birth to a new future.

And at the core of this new Europe must be Europe. Yet Europe is too comfortable and too self-satisfied. Great progress has been made. No more fascism, no more communism. Good roads, good schools and good hospitals are to be found everywhere in Europe. But do we now mark time, and gently decline into irrelevance even as we enjoy our present comfortable way of life? Is Europe becoming a new Ottoman empire - big, rich, and arrogant when we need a hungry, leaner Europe ready to take risks and make sacrifices to achieve greatness? Europe cannot borrow its way to a better tomorrow. The bankers have plunged Europe into a crisis as grave as any since the time of Marx. But the bankers are us. They are our savings, insurance and pension funds, and salaries. They are under our democratic control. Social democracy has no effective theory of banking or of money-power.

Finally, after politics and policies comes personalities. Where is the next generation of makers of Europe? Where are the Willy Brandts or Felipe Gonzalez’s ready to challenge the orthodoxies of their parties? Is there a new Monnet or a new Delors somewhere to be found? Can Germany and France overcome their differences and create a new Treaty of the Rhine to relaunch a core Europe based on a real merger of some decisions? Is the Europe of 27, soon maybe 30 or more, too big, becoming like the United Nations, a place of debate not of real decisions? Can Europe handle a Turkey that wants to join the EU? Or will Europe become increasingly hostile to Muslim Europeans — which is unacceptable—and fail to tackle political Islamism with its assault on democratic, media, legal, women and gay rights which have been won by Europeans and are now under threat by religious fundamentalism? What are Europe's enemies? Is not the idea of an external threat what creates unity of purpose in politics? If so, what is the real threat Europe faces?

European social democracy will always be tempted by a fall-back on national solutions. It is tempting and easy to denounce Brussels if the Commission or Council does not conform to social democratic demands. Tempting but wrong. Europe offers a world model of reconciliation between nationalisms and an open economics which allows hope for workers otherwise trapped by stupid nationalist economic models. Europe is both a child of globalisation – indeed the European Community, not EU, was a proto-globalizer avant la lettre – but the EU is also the answer to globalisation with its rules on welfare, labour rights, legally enforceable supranational laws and human rights conventions. Europe, for all its faults, is the only world region where society has (almost) the same status as economics. Money is not yet master in Europe in the way it is in the Americas and Asia.

Therefore, whatever specific national thinking and policy the next generation of European social democrats produce, support for European integration must be at the heart of any 21st century concept of progressive politics.

Denis MacShane is MP for Rotherham and a former Europe minister.

Small storm in European right's teacup

Kudos to Tory blogger Iain Dale, for offering a blow by blow account and breaking news about important political manouverings on the very margins of the European Union, as the Conservatives wonder whether they can make anything of their troubled European Conservative and Reformists parliamentary grouping.

Dale's reports have clarified the mystery of David Cameron's decision to offer a Downing Street publicity coup to the likely loser of the Polish Presidential election just ahead of the vote. It seems that one goal was to smooth the way to demote Michal Kaminski to "co-chair" of the ECR alliance. Somehow the British Prime Minister does not seem to have yet prevailed in this bid, despite the amount of political capital the British Conservatives spent defending the reputation of their controversial ECR group leader.

Downing Street has now offered this statement:

"We remain completely committed to the success of the ECR group. We are proud to have set it up and proud of its progress so far. As far as the leadership is concerned, clearly it must command the support of the group's members."

Very touching. "Proud of its progress" so far is an amusingly rose-tinted description of the group, since the strange electoral curse of David Cameron has produced a range of political setbacks which makes he future existence of the group a struggle.

It is worth a recap of the range of mighty political forces the Conservatives are allied with in their efforts to influence the decisions of the European Parliament.

The British Conservatives (with 26 MEPs) and the Czech ODS (with 9 MEPs) are proper and major mainstream political parties: both are in government, though they both fell short of their hopes and expectations at the polls this year, with the Czechs losing a third of their Parliamentary seats as they fell behind the Social Democrats.

The third signficant partner are the grizzled authoritarian populists of Poland's Law and Justice party, who have 15 MEPs. Having now lost both the Parliamentary and presidential elections, time to reflect in opposition is likely to lead to an attempt to rehabilitate the party as a more moderate political force, having run a much less angry campaign in last weekend's Polish poll. (Given that Daily Telegraph editorials celebrated the Law and Justice government's defeat noting that their "willingness to pander to xenophobia, their use of state institutions to persecute political opponents and their diplomatic ineptitude repelled many younger voters", it is rather difficult to argue against the case for a little modernisation, particularly to make the party fit for a Cameroonian alliance!)

But that's about all folks.

After that, all that remains are single MEPs from each of five tiny parties: namely, the Hungarian Democratic Forum (whose future political existence is in doubt, following their failure to win any seats in the Hungarian Parliamentary elections); the Flemish populists of the List Dedecker (whose future political existence is in doubt, having won just one seat in the Belgian Parliament); the Dutch Protestant eurosceptics of the small Christian Union (the eighth largest party in the new Dutch Parliament, or indeed the third smallest), and fringe Latvian and Lithuanian parties who have brought rather more trouble than they were worth.

A European Parliamentary Group requires members from seven member states to survive - so the brave ECR experiment may well fail during this Parliament or by the next European elections, or end up on the brink of being held ransom by any of the one-MEP parties, if the Tories can not find new alliances to join this great European adventure.

Though he took Mr Hannan's advice to break free and form the new group, David Cameron now seems to have mixed feelings about this.

He paid quite a heavy price in his dealings with the major centre-right political forces in the European Union, and is now seeking to improve governmental relations with Merkel and Sarkozy. Some in Downing Street consider that a slightly bigger diplomatic prize than continuing with so far failed attempts to lure the Italian separatists of the Lega Nord or other parties into the motley alliance.

And yet the attempt to create this new European force remains an article of faith for his Eurosceptic right, who are already disappointed at the Coalition Agreement effectively stalemating the EU agenda they expected a Tory government to pursue.

Clearly, since the ECR is the fifth largest group in the European Parliament, only just behind the Greens though with considerably less power and influence than the Liberal Democrat alliances, one would expect Downing Street to give a great deal of diplomatic priority to resolving these vital questions of European leadership.

Brussels boost for Ed Miliband

Ed Miliband has won the endorsement of Glenis Willmott, leader of Labour's MEPs.

She combined her endorsement with praise for the four (out of five) Labour leadership candidates who accepted the invitation to meet the party's MEPs in Brussels.

Following the invitation from Labour MEPs to all the candidates for the leadership, we were delighted that four of them came to Brussels to speak to Labour MEPs, MEPs’ staff, and the Brussels Labour Party.

All four proved themselves to be excellent candidates. They showed a solid grasp of the issues which Labour’s MEPs have to deal with, with strong ideas about how we can reform our party and tackle the extremes of the new coalition government. All of us were impressed by the high quality of the candidates and we would be more than happy to serve under the leadership of such individuals.

Wilmott's statement is curiously diplomatic in that it does not directly identify Diane Abbott as the candidate who snubbed the Labour MEPs' invitation, as Next Left revealed last week.

That has left Abbott trailing Ed Miliband (with five) and David Milband (with four), who have the bulk of Labour MEP supporting nominations, with Andy Burnham on one, and three MEPs yet to declare.

Beware the electoral curse of Cameron

David Cameron's intervention in the Polish Presidential election has failed.

The British prime minister took the unusual step of inviting his controversial ally, Law and Justice candidate Jaroslaw Kaczynski, to a Downing Street photocall a week before the second ballot. As Anne Applebaum wrote in the Sunday Telegraph, "for Kaczynski, this was a major coup: it allowed him to claim "support" from the Tory party for his campaign, and helped underline his "new" friendly attitude to foreigners".

Kaczynski has now conceded defeat to his liberal rival, Bronislaw Komorowski of the Civic Platform party.

***

The result will not surprise those who have noted a strange electoral curse which has befallen those who have entered into political alliances with David Cameron.

David Cameron's electoral pact with the Ulster Unionists failed to return a single MP. Only Sylvia Hermon, who refused to join the pact and ran as an independent, was elected to the Commons, defeating the Cameron candidate with an increased majority.

The Conservatives have also seen all of their European allies fail to prosper in the year since the creation of the European Conservative and Reformist group in the European Parliament, with even the continued political existence of a number of minor partners in doubt.

The Czech Civic Democrat Party saw its vote fall from 35.3% to 20.3% in this year's general election, losing 28 of its 81 seats. The party remains in government, though is no longer the largest Parliamentary group.

The Hungarian Democratic Forum, which held 11 Hungarian Parliamentary seats in 2006, was wiped out in the 2010 elections, its first as an ECR member, winning no seats. Its vote fell to 2.67%, having won over 5% at the previous election.

The populist Belgian List Dedecker party was reduced to a single seat in the recent Belgian elections, having won five seats in the Chamber of Representatives and one in the Senate in 2007. Its vote was 2.3%. It won 7.3% in the European elections just before joining Cameron's ECR group.

In last month's Dutch elections, the Christian Union fell from six to five seats, falling from 4% to 3.2% of the vote. The Lithuanian and Latvian parties, who have one MEP each, have yet to face national elections since the formation of the group.

***

The scale of this Cameron electoral curse may cause a few sleepless nights for the Liberal Democrats.

The LibDems have fallen in the first early opinion polls since the Coalition was formed even though the Coalition and even its first budget had pretty good approval ratings, with the Conservatives polling well while their partners fall back.

However, the third party are hoping to carry a referendum on electoral reform. And centrist Conservatives have argued that the Alternative Vote would enable David Cameron to formalise the relationship.

Indeed, the preferential voting system would make it possible to consider an electoral pact ...

Was Diane's Brussels snub a pitch for the Eurosceptic vote?

With their exhaustive Hustings 2010 UK tour playing to packed houses, most of the Labour leadership candidates have taken their campaigns to the continent.

Indeed, a few CLPs might cast a mildly envious eye at the Brussels branch of Labour's international section, which was running a revolving door policy among leadership contenders, with a crowded room of over 60 party members hearing from Ed Miliband and Andy Burnham on the same night last week. David Miliband spoke to the Brussels party earlier in the campaign, while Ed Balls was in Brussels to meet the party's MEPs on Tuesday.

What might explain this highly welcome outbreak of pro-European fraternalism?

It may not be entirely unrelated to the fact that each of Labour's MEPs has equal status with the party's Westiminster MPs in the Parliamentary section of the electoral college.

Labour Eurosceptics may be pleased to hear that one candidate is standing out against the trend. The Diane Abbott campaign turned down her invitation to meet the Labour MEPs, telling them that she would be too busy campaigning for the leadership.

That surprised some MEPs, as they collectively have more voting power than the remaining group of Labour MPs in the south, south-east and south-west of England.

Mention of the Electoral College did seem to spark a rethink, with the Abbott campaign then suggesting a Brussels hustings be organised among all of the candidates. But that seems unlikely given the crowded hustings schedule, given that the other four have already made the trip individually.

They have also begun to pick up supporting nominations from MEPs - the current tally is David Miliband (4), Ed Miliband (3) and Andy Burnham (1) - with five MEPs, including group leader Glenis Willmott, yet to declare their hand.

Next Left understands that the Brussels invitation to Abbott remains open, though some of his colleagues now suspect that not even deputy group leader Claude Moraes' status as a Hackney resident, may be enough to swing them an audience.

So perhaps it is a sign too that Abbott is confident that she will secure more support than anybody expects among Labour MPs at Westminster.

Labour second as election demonstrates deep Dutch divisions

The Dutch Labour Party has finished a close second after a dramatic Dutch election campaign and result which demonstrates a country sharply divided on both economic and cultural issues.

The centre-right Liberal party, who campaigned for sharp austerity cuts in public spending have a one seat advantage over the Labour Party, topping the poll for the first time in the party's history. The initial exit polls showed the two parties neck and neck, with the populist anti-Islam right gaining most strongly in third, and the governing Christian Democrats collapsing to fourth place.

As the Dutch press react to the country's complex election outcome, one newspaper, De Pers, wrote "a completely splintered political landscape: this is what the Dutch have chosen in the midst of a deep economic crisis".

Labour leader Job Cohen, the popular former Mayor of Amsterdam, fought a campaign focused on a staunch defence of Dutch tolerance in "a country of minorities" and for more gradual public spending cuts. The election campaign had been dominated by deficit reduction, with the cultural issues of immigration and Islam largely overshadowed, having dominated Dutch politics earlier in the year.

The big gainer was Gert Wilders' populist right-wing anti-Islam party, which won 24 seats (gaining 15) to become the third largest party in the Dutch Parliament. Wilders campaigning on the slogan ""Stop the Islamisation of the Netherlands". He had even last Autumn proposed what he called a "head rag tax" of 1000 euros per year to wear a Muslim headscarf, though later backed away after opposition to and mockery of the proposal.

"“More safety, less crime, less immigration and less Islam is what the Netherlands has chosen” Wilders said reacting to the result. “We would love to govern. I don’t think other parties can ignore us.”

There were heavy losses for the Christian Democrats, falling from 41 seats to just 21 seats and fourth place in the polls. Jan Peter Balkenende, Prime Minister for eight years, immediately resigned as party leader and from Parliament, taking responsibility for the result.

The result demonstrates the volatility of Dutch politics. When the when the government fell in February, the Christian Democrats had still held a narrow poll lead, with Wilders challenging for the lead, and the Liberals and Labour pushed into third and fourth.

Labour party strategists had argued for much of the last decade that the party needed to shift the focus of public debate from cultural to economic issues. However, that "reframing" proposition was founded on an assumption that the party would then win the economic argument. In this campaign, the liberal right made the running by framing the "crisis" as primarily caused by too much public spending.

Labour regained support from the left-wing Socialist Party, though the Green-Left gained seats. The result also demonstrated the relevance of tactical voting in a PR system, as Labour appealed for "strategic votes" from its left, given the importance of finishing first or second, to have a chance of government and to keep the populist right out.

***
Who will govern?

Coalition negotiations are unlikely to be concluded rapidly, and there are doubts about how stable any coalition can be.

VVD leader Mark Rutte had left open his options of working with any party, and congratulated Wilders first in his own victory speech. The three parties of the right look likely have 76 seats in the 150 seat Parliament: The Economist suggests that "more likely partners are on the right – the defeated Christian Democrats and the triumphant Mr Wilders", but this is not perhaps the most likely outcome.

The heavy Christian Democrat defeat means that senior figures are saying that the party should accept the verdict and go into opposition. Another barrier to a coalition of the right with Wilders is that the populist party lacks any seats in the upper house, which is determined by provincial elections in which the PVV party did not participate. So a broader coalition would be needed to pass legislation. Several parties - including the right-wing Christian Union, as well as the centre and left parties - had said they could not govern with Wilders.

The Christian Democrats are also unlikely to want to be junior partners in a coalition with the Liberals and Labour.

So a the "Purple" Coalition of Liberal-Labour and the D66 social Liberals, also now involving the Left-Greens (making this "Purple Plus") is perhaps the more likely outcome. That would involve significant compromises on all sides over defict reduction plans, and any swift outcome to coalition talks seems unlikely.

Finally, what does this mean for World Cup neutrals? The election outcome certainly backs up this blog's description of World Cup Group E as "the group of political uncertainty". Despite the strong showing of the populist right, the solid performance of Dutch Labour and the more likely coalition outcome means that the Next Left blog now advocates perhaps at least two cheers for Holland, alongside Japan, when the World Cup begins!

The results (with 97% of the vote counted):

VVD 31 (22) 20.06% Freedom and Democracy (economic liberal centre-right)
PvdA 30 (33) 20% Labour (social democrat centre-left)
PVV 24 (9) 16% Party for Freedom (anti-Islam populist right)
CDA 21 (41) 14% Christian Democrat (centre-right)
SP 15 (25) 10% Socialist Party (left)
GroenLinks 10 (7) 6.6% Greens (environmentalist left)
D66 10 (3) 6.6% (liberal left)
ChristenUnie 5 (6) 3.3% Christian Union (Protestant conservative Eurosceptics)
SGP 2 (2) 1.3% Reform (traditionalist conservative Eurosceptic)
PvdD 2 (2) 1.3% Party for the animals (animal rights/green)

Immigrants hailed for European Cup triumph

At least half of the city of Milan is tonight celebrating Internazionale's victory in the UEFA Champions League, Europe's premier football club competition, more properly known as the European Cup, defeating German club Bayern Munich 2-0.

Inter's jubiliant fans will be aware that the famous Italian football club's first European Cup victory for 35 years was entirely the work of immigrants.

Portugese coach Jose Mourinho selected a starting eleven with no Italian players - with five Argentinians, two Brazilians, and players from Cameroon, Holland, Macedonia and Romania. After using substitutes from Ghana and Serbia, Inter did field one Italian substitute Marco Materazzi, who took the field for the final minute of injury time in a ceremonial substitution of double goalscorer Diego Milito.

Inter last won the trophy back to back in 1964 and 1965 under their legendary manager Helenio Herrera, who was credited with perfecting the "Catenaccio" ('doorbolt') tactic of ultra-defensive football. Herrera was Argentinian by bith, though he was born to Spanish parents and took up French citizenship before defining a distinctively Italian approach to the beautiful game

Collapse of Dutch government offers Wilders opportunity

The Dutch government collapsed early on Saturday morning, with the Dutch Labour party leaving the coalition over a disagreement with Christian Democrat Prime Minister Balkenende's proposal to extend the country's military commitment in Afghanistan, beyond the coalition's earlier agreement to withdraw by the summer with all Dutch troops leaving Afghanistan by the end of the year.

The 16 hour long Cabinet meeting had led Labour leader and deputy PM Wouter Bos had pulled out of Friday's progressive governance conference in London, at which British PM Gordon Brown was joined by centre-left premiers and party leaders from around Europe.

Labour's withdrawal from the Cabinet leave the government without a majority coalition, and will lead to new elections within three months. The parties face local elections on March 3rd. Dutch public opinion backs the Labour stance on withdrawal, though is equally divided over whether the issue ought to end the government.

The Netherlands has had the most volatile politics in western Europe in the last decade.

Geert Wilders' populist anti-immigration Freedom Party (PVV) hopes to make significant gains, having won 9 seats as the fifth largest party in the last elections in 2006.

Wilder's PVV finished second in the European elections, ahead of Labour, and Reuters reports that the most recent national opinion polls now have the PVV in second place.

A Feb. 14 Maurice de Hond poll put the [Christian Democrat] CDA on 27 seats, followed by the anti-immigrant Freedom Party (PVV) on 25 seats and the centre-right Liberal Party VVD on 22 seats. A Feb. 18 Politieke Barometer poll put the CDA on 32 seats, the PVV on 24 and Labour third with 21.

There are likely to be major political developments ahead of the campaign.

It has been widely anticipated in the Netherlands that Balkenende to be replaced by the Christian Democrats as party leader before the election, with Foreign Minister Maxime Verhagen likely to take over.

That change may well prompt a change in the Labour Party leadership too, with Wouter Bos having twice led the party into elections against Balkenende.

Bos' modernising campaign achieved a significant Labour recovery in the 2003 elections, reversing much of the damage of the heavy defeat in 2002 in a campaign which saw the rise and assassination of the populist Pym Fortuyn. But Bos' Labour Party then had a disappointing result in 2006, as it lost seats and failed to emerge as the largest party. It is much less clear who the next Labour leader might be, with an open field of several potential candidates if there was to be a leadership change.

One outcome of the political crisis will be to make any future Christian Democrat-Labour alliance a very unlikely outcome.

The Christian Democrats have not ruled out forming a coalition including Gert Wilders, and nor has one other centre-right party, the economically liberal VVD, of which Wilders was a member until 2004.

However, the third party in the outgoing coalition, the moderate conservative Christian Union has done so, joining the social democratic, liberal, socialist and green parties in forming a "cordon sanitaire" in which the parties have said they have "unbridgeable differences" which mean that they could not join a government with the Freedom Party.

Social democratic futures

The journal Social Europe are running a series of contributions from around Europe on the future of social democracy, responding to the Jon Cruddas and Andrea Nahles paper on The Good Society. (PDF file).

My piece can be read here.

Social democrats are clear that this ought to be a social-democratic moment. But for this to be the case it remains necessary to convince broad public and electoral coalitions.

...

So what’s missing?

Firstly, the ability to articulate the core social-democratic mission positively, and in terms accessible to a broad public. The third-way era was about defining modern social democracy in terms of what it was not. There are many things to be said both for and against the compromises of the 1990s. Often, within the constraints which were accepted, a good deal was done. What was missing was a theory of change which sought to shift the longer-term environment within which political choices were made.

Secondly, a viable political economy ...

Thirdly, a viable politics of support for social democracy ...

So there is some work to do.

More contributions here.

The Good Society debate is being organised in association with the Friedrich Ebert Stitung, Compass and the journal Soundings.

***

FEPS, the Foundation of European Progressive Studies, have picked up the theme of 'Next Left' and published a new book which collects essays addressing the challenge of renewing social democracy from several of the European partner think-tanks involved in FEPS' work.

There may again at this stage be as many questions as answers. Former Austrian Chancellor Alfred Gusenbauer sums up the direction of travel with ten challenges for social democrats in his introduction to the book.

On not running the world

It is often alleged (by Mel Gibson among others) that the Fabian Society runs a secret global governance plot from our modest Dartmouth Street offices just next to St James Park in London. The inaugural meeting of the United Nations certainly took place barely a hundred yards away at Westminster Central Hall back in 1946. Unfortunately, I can't really help further with these intriguing speculations, since most of the conspiring must take place well above my pay grade,

But Ian Traynor of The Guardian is reporting some top level diplomatic negotiations in the green room margins as both Foreign Secretary David Miliband and Party of European Socialists Chair Poul Nyrup Rasmussen MEP, the former Danish PM, were speaking at our Global Change We Need conference held at the Amnesty International Human Rights Centre in London the weekend before last. Albeit that Traynor suggests a somewhat non-historic encounter, if he is right that they disagreed about both the Blair candidacy for EU Council President and the Miliband non-candidacy for EU High Representative: [nb: correction: Post initially attributed Ian Traynor's report to Ian Black]

David Miliband, the foreign secretary, was the frontrunner for foreign minister and fitted the bill. The French and Germans would have supported him. Ten days ago at a Fabian Society meeting in London, though, Miliband emerged seething with anger from a meeting with Poul Nyrup Rasmussen, the Danish head of the European socialists, who told him that they would never support Blair for president. Miliband told Rasmussen he did not want the job.

***
While we couldn't possibly comment about that, the answer to Henry Kissinger's famous European rolodex dilemma remains shrouded in mystery too.

It was interesting to see The Independent highlight some momentum behind The Iron Lady of the North, Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia, who was Next Left's outsider tip for the EU Presidency a fortnight ago.

Ladbrokes still keep Tony Blair at the head of the list for EU Council President, though joint favourite Jan-Peter Balkenende, also at 5/2, is widely thought a likelier winner. For those looking for betting value, Next Left's outside tip for the role is Vaira Vike-Freiberga of Latvia at 20/1.

She's now come in to 10-1, with a new A Woman to Head Europe website and the backing of Neelie Kroes and Margot Wallstrom on the Barroso Commission.

But I fear she will have damaged her candidacy with EU leaders with her hard-hitting criticism that the process was being conducted with Soviet-style lack of transparency.

The tip was simply based on the idea that the most prominent possible female candidate, and the most prominent possible candidate from behind the Iron Curtain, could offer an alternative if the EU wanted to break with the assumption that the job would go to the little-known Prime Minister of Belgium.

With all three Benelux candidates still in the frame, there is a good chance that this was to overestimate the imagination which the EU 27 will bring to the role.

Gratuitous offensive generalisations about the Belgians are to be deplored. They are no more or less likely to be famous internationally than the citizens of any similarly sized nation.

Speaking as somebody who could give you chapter and verse on the contributions made by the (Milibandesque) former PM Guy Verhoefstadt to debates about the third way, and having myself spoken at the Flemish Social Democrats conference last Autumn. (Verhoefstadt is also in the EU Presidency betting at 16-1 but faces the problem not just of another Belgian PM, but that another rival Dutch PM Jan Peter Balkenende may have the Harry Potter vote sewn up).

So I would take the fact that I could have told you nothing at all about Herman van Rompuy before this race as circumstantial evidence that, over the last year, he has remained a much lower profile Belgian prime minister than we are all used to.

Here are the latest Ladbrokes odds for the Presidency role.

Herman Van Rompuy 2/3 on
Jan-Peter Balkenende 4/1
Tony Blair 4/1
Jean-Claude Juncker 7/1
Paavo Lipponen 10/1
Vaira Vike-Freiberga 10/1
Wolfgang Schussel 12/1
Francois Fillon 16/1
Guy Verhofstadt 16/1
Martti Ahtisaari 16/1

The eternal sunshine of the sceptic mind

I think we can all agree that it has been a pretty good week for the Eurosceptic cause.

James Forsyth of The Spectator explains:

The main reason for this is that the Euro-sceptics are quietly confident. The overwhelming mood among those I have spoken to is that Cameron either has to get the powers back he said he would and show that his measure to prevent any further transfers of sovereignty are effective or there will have to be at some point after 2014 an in or out referendum.

What?

You thought a thousand years of nationhood had been signed away.

And that David Cameron bottled out and decided he rather liked his blue and yellow flag cufflinks after all.

While Ken Clarke said he was quite happy to sign up to David Cameron's Sovereignty Bill - having assurances wouldn't do what it pretended to say on the tin.

And even though elections won't mean anything now in the administrative region of Euro-Britain, fierce anti-Europeans took a 'vow of silence on Europe' after deciding that perhaps the next General Election was much more important after all.

While there was only a minor embarassment for an over-excited Frenchman to cheer everyone up. (I see The Guardian is rightly going to address concerns about the crass use of "autism" as political critique, though I think it would be a fair defence for the newspaper, rather than the minister, to say that the comments were newsworthy, and should be reported accurately).

Minor setbacks, dear friend.

All remains in hand.

Now, I can hear a small objection.

Isn't it just two months since Daniel Hannan was "increasingly confident that Britain will get its referendum. I’m not in a position to explain why at this stage". But it seemed that all was in hand as long as we took Dan's word for it. (As John Rentoul and Oliver Kamm noted too, with courteous hat tips to Next Left).

So shouldn't there be at least a small inquest this weekend into the quality of the crystal ball reception before new declarations of "quiet confidence" about what might happen if all of their friends shut up for five years?

And if this were genuinely a question of existential national suicide and the death of democracy, isn't it - if you pardon my Fabianism - all a bit bloody gradualist?

So how do we solve the great mystery as to why those who want "out" are calling for a "renegotiation" to achieve a "fundamentally different" form of EU membership for Britain? Or why they now think its a question of "in or out" in several years time, preferring to postpone the argument, rather than make the case for "in or out" now.

As they quietly and confidently gear up for that final "in or out" battle - in perhaps as few as seven years time - I can't help but feeling that our sceptic friends seem somewhat less than quietly confident, in their preference to postpone the argument rather than fight it, that they would win the return fixture after all.

Still, forty years of hurt never stopped them dreaming, if they want a campaign song which they can hold until 2015.

And I suspect it may just have been a tougher week than they are letting on.

Dan Hannan MEP resigns Tory frontbench role

"I have returned to the back benches in order to concentrate on building such a movement", writes Daniel Hannan MEP on his Telegraph blog, calling for referendums and direct democracy, on the need to get out of the EU and much else.

This Conservative is for a referendum: a proper, deep-cleansing referendum that will settle whether our country remains subordinate, or becomes self-governing. Now who will stand on either hand and keep the bridge with me?

Douglas Carswell MP is of a similar mind.

***
But David Cameron's team will be relieved at the reaction from other Eurosceptics - who believe he has sold out their cause, but do not wish to rock the boat.

Both Tim Montgomerie of ConservativeHome and Fraser Nelson of The Spectator are pretty dismissive of a policy that both think will change little or nothing substantive about Britain's relationship with the EU.

Nelson writes that "What the new Tory package amounts to is a promise to ask the EU very nicely if it will consider handing back a few powers over employment and justice".

Both Nelson and Montgomerie hint at or predict trouble in several years time, but are not taking to the hills now.

This may well make Hopi Sen's point.

Hannan is doubtless very disappointed too, having campaigned strongly for David Cameron for leader, though he did get what he considers the "revolutionary" departure from the European People's Party for that.

(People often forget that Hannan, a year ago, was rooting for Barack Obama to defeat John McCain, seeing the Republican's backing for the European People's Party as the decisive issue of who to prefer in the US Presidential election too).

And Hannan's disappointment will be greater because he was quite recently going against the conventional wisdom on Lisbon, telling his blog readers in early September that "I am increasingly confident that Britain will get its referendum. I’m not in a position to explain why at this stage, but our hand is stronger than is generally supposed. I know this won’t do for some of my readers, but I’m afraid that, for now, you’ll just have to take my word for it".