Friday 31 July 2015

Politicians are all the same - except the ones that aren't

We've all heard, whether on the doorstep, on tv, or online, that politicians are all the same. It's not a bad shorthand, to be honest - general elections became about winning over a few thousand swing voters in a small number of constituencies, and naturally the two main parties began to adopt similar styles to try to attract them.

But that isn't the whole story. Remember Clegg-mania? Before the coalition, the Liberal Democrats had the freedom to be different. No-one, not even they, believed they were going to be in government any time soon (a hung parliament was considered a remote possibility) and so they didn't have to chase that few thousand voters - they could just be themselves instead, and it won them seats.

And then there's UKIP. They have traded extensively, and effectively, on not being like the rest. They're the authentic voice of the people, the only ones not in the Westminster bubble, not a part of the establishment, and so on. Most of these claims are absolute rubbish, but they are perceived as true, which is just as important.

Labour and the Tories, however, are seen as being pretty much the same. It's an understandable position - when one party announces they will follow the same spending plans as the other (as Labour did before 1997, and the Conservatives did in 2007), it's clear there is at least some similarity there. When you add the more recent capitulation in the argument about the causes of the government deficit and debt by Labour, leaving both sides apparently agreeing on the cause, and the solution, only differing on the details (pace, timing, marginal differences in scale of the cuts) it looks like they are more alike than not.

Don't get me wrong, I think an Ed Miliband led government would have been better for the country than this David Cameron led one, but it is easy to see how the vast majority of the electorate, who have only a passing interest in politics at election time (or no interest at all, given the number of non-voters) could think there isn't much difference.

The thing is, this is a product of the tactic of chasing the few thousand swing voters, and I no longer think that tactic is valid, certainly not for Labour. Targeting a few thousand swing voters in England is not going to win back the hundreds of thousands of voters we need in Scotland. Sounding like the Tories is not going to win back the disaffected "none of the above" voters in the north of England, many of whom voted UKIP. And if we can't keep hold of, or win back, those voters, the votes of a few thousand swing voters in the Midlands and South of England are irrelevant.

The thousands of swing voters tactic only works when the two parties are close in terms of seats. The brutal truth is that, having tried that tactic again last time, we are now over one hundred seats behind the conservatives. That doesn't call for a tactic designed to shift ten or twenty seats - it calls for a step change. It calls, in fact, for an attempt to fundamentally shift the parameters of the debate, much as the SNP managed in Scotland, much as UKIP are starting to do across England.

We're in a time of flux, and we need to win votes across the entire UK - in Scotland, to regain what we have lost, in northern England and Wales, to keep what we have, and in the Midlands and the South of England, to get back to power. The way to win those votes? By showing that we're different from the Tories. By showing that we don't think people should be criminalised for being poor, punished for being on benefits, or sanctioned for being sick. By showing that we do believe in investing in our young people, in our infrastructure, and in our country. By showing that when it comes down to choosing between the rich or them, we're on their side.

In short, by being Labour, by emphasising our differences rather than diminishing them, and, yes, by making the case for our positions, even when the electorate (currently) disagrees.

Wednesday 29 July 2015

Not so funny after all...

Remember #ToriesForCorbyn? A little bit of schadenfreude, we were told, the Tories enjoying the spectacle of a Labour Party leading themselves into the wilderness, disappearing off into the desolate lands of socialism. Apparently Tory entryists were going to sign up as Labour supporters, just so they could lumber us with a dead-weight as a leader.

It doesn't look like it is working out that way.

A new group of Tories have arrived, the unoriginally named #ToriesAgainstCorbyn - because they think a Labour Party led by Corbyn could be a threat to them.

Oh, they still argue there is almost no chance of Corbyn becoming Prime Minister, only to then go on and so how terrible it would be for the UK if any of a strange variety of circumstances meant he was (though, of course, every set of circumstances includes Corbyn winning a general election, which we are told is impossible...). And even if he doesn't become Prime Minister, they still argue it would be bad for the Tories. The guy who started it, Oliver Cooper, writes in The Telegraph:

In short, Labour being Labour, they’ll still have the same platform, no matter how bizarre their leader’s views. The only difference is Corbyn’s views will be more left-wing, so will shift the entire political debate to the left. Long-term, so long as Labour and the Conservatives remain the two major parties in the UK, the only way to make progress is to persuade Labour to accept our position. Our ideas don’t win just when our party does, but when the other party advocates our ideas, too.

The amazing thing about this is it directly attacks the implicit argument of the Anyone But Corbyn campaign, namely that Labour can only win from the centre ground, and that the centre ground is fixed. The Tories know it isn't - after all, they have been dragging the centre ground to the right for years, and, some would argue, so has New Labour. After all, the triangulation used by Labour over the past twenty years has sought to move the party to the existing centre ground, and force the Tories right. It's almost as if it worked too well...

Corbyn has already caused the two other main candidates to shift leftwards, even if it only amounts to a change of rhetoric. Burnham has started advocating noisily for increased taxes for his National Care Service, for graduate taxes, and for not being scared of the Tory press.

Political positions are relative. On the one hand, this can be depressing - the Labour Party, as the main leftwing party in the country, choosing to abstain on welfare cuts, for example. But on the other hand, it is inspiring - we can move the centre of debate leftwards.

Don't get me wrong, it won't be easy. But by presenting clear policies which people support, and explaining them in terms which challenge the current (for want of a better word) neo-liberal consensus, the Labour Party can begin to move the centre ground leftwards again.

Corbyn is already doing this - for example, a focus on investment in education, on the grounds of not only productivity and individual economic success, but because a well educated population is a common good, something we all benefit from. You can include public ownership of railways, Royal Mail, utilities - on the grounds that we all already subsidise them massively through our taxes, so why don't we get the benefits as well?

The arguments are there to be made. The centre ground is always mobile. We need to remember this - and realise that the Tories are worried about these ideas getting a wider airing than they have been.

Tuesday 28 July 2015

Investment too low, says cranky lefty

You may recall that in my last post I briefly mentioned the low productivity in the UK, and how it is thought to be at least partly due to low investment. Just to prove it's not just me saying this, here's the Bank of England's chief economist saying something similar - business investment has been too low for many years, and it is bad for the UK economy.

From the article:

[Andy Haldane] welcomed the Government's productivity plan to boost UK growth, but noted that increasing investment was a major part of that policy and argued that an examination of UK company law may be needed.

While the UK and US systems give a prime position to shareholders in the governance of companies, other models are available. Mr Haldane noted that other systems of corporate law give greater weight to other stakeholders - such as employees and customers - than the UK system.

In the short term, and throughout the financial crisis, it has simply been cheaper for businesses to hire more low paid staff than it has been to invest in machinery to improve the productivity of existing staff. On the one hand, yay! employment! On the other hand, boo! low wages!

The UK can't continue to compete on the basis of low wages - not only is it simply not going to work in a global economy, with millions of Chinese workers, or, closer to home, Eastern European competitors, but it is also, well, not a good thing. It will increase inequality as more and more low paid jobs are created, often the only replacement for middle income jobs which are being cannibalised. We need to invest to bring back middle income, skilled work - but the short termism in UK business is a problem.

How you tackle it is up for debate, of course, but it seems inevitable that to do so successfully you have to intervene into businesses in some way, whether through increased taxation to pay for training and investment via the state, increased regulation to compel some investment by business, or a more wholesale change in the legal structure of business. None of these is likely to be popular with those who are currently making money out of this system, even if it will ultimately make business more profitable in the long run.

Friday 24 July 2015

Jeremy Corbyn? My heart's not in it

"A vote for Corbyn is a retreat to our comfort zone." "Electing Jeremy as leader would be suicidal." "The problem is that members are voting with their heart, not their head."

None of that is true. I'm voting for Corbyn, and it isn't because of an outbreak of sentimentality. It isn't because of the strong moral case he is putting forward. It isn't misplaced nostalgia for an age I wasn't even alive in.

No, I'm voting for Corbyn with my head, not my heart. I'm voting for Corbyn because the economics is with him. That's not what you'll hear from, well, pretty much anyone. The story goes that he's an unreconstructed throwback, demanding horny-handed sons of toil take over ownership of non-existent shipyards, or some such. In fact, his main message is one that is simple, and that pretty much all of us can agree with: austerity isn't working.

This is self-evidently true. Just look around you. But let's look at some of the figures:

The surprising thing is that none of this should be a surprise. In fact, these effects of austerity could have been, and in fact were, predicted. Why? Because it is standard, textbook economics.

The economist J M Keynes realised back in the 1930s that to get economies out of recessions quickly it was necessary for someone to step in to boost demand. The only body capable of doing this was, and is, the state - the government can borrow money to invest, and by doing so help stimulate the economy, shortening the recession, and making it less deep. Following that, you get a strong, growing economy - fewer people end up needing the support of the state, so the benefits bill goes down, and businesses make more profits, so tax revenues increase. You can use this influx of money to pay back the debts you incurred getting the economy going again.

The idea of needing greater demand isn't disputed - even the austerity advocates believe this. But their argument was that a business wasn't going to invest now because of fear of taxes in five years time. They proposed cutting spending, to shrink the deficit and, ultimately, pay down government debt, and that this virtuous behaviour would somehow convince businesses to spend, spend, spend now, content that taxes would be low in the future.

The Nobel prize winning economist Paul Krugman called this belief in the "confidence fairy" who would make everything better.

The truth is that Keynesianism has been a staggering success for the majority of the last seventy years. It isn't perfect, but for getting economies out of difficulties, it is unmatched. The astounding shame of the Labour Party is that they have been unwilling to argue for the most successful economic theory, on the grounds of wanting to appear economically credible.

To re-use an old phrase - I'm not interested in ideology, I'm interested in what works. Keynesianism works. Investment by government in a weak economy works.

That's why I am supporting the only candidate offering a strong economic position, one based on investment to generate growth, one based on fostering strong and sustainable growth through tried and tested methods, one based on economic experience, not wishful thinking.

That's why I'm supporting the economically credible candidate, Jeremy Corbyn - with my head, not my heart.

Thursday 23 July 2015

Democratic Socialism

There has been a (to me) surprising and disappointing aspect of the rather frothing reaction of the Anyone But Corbyn campaign to the YouGov poll on Tuesday night. John McTernan, in a Newsnight snap reaction, said that the MPs who had made sure Jeremy Corbyn got on the ballot were "morons". Mary Creagh, in her New Statesman article, decries the idea of having a left-winger in the contest in the interests of a debate.

There are other examples, and the link is that they share one idea: that MPs should have made sure that the 43% of the party who are supporting Corbyn didn't have the option. In other words, they think democracy is fine, so long as the choices offered are limited.

This is astounding - Labour describes itself as a "democratic socialist" party. There are no doubt arguments about how far "socialist" can stretch if it covers both Dennis Skinner and Chuka Umunna, but surely there can be no argument that not allowing members to have a choice would have been profoundly undemocratic?

Clearly I have a dog in this fight - I support Corbyn, and want him to win. But that doesn't mean I think Liz Kendall shouldn't have been allowed on the ballot because I think she's too far to the right, and her policies will lose us significant amounts of votes and seats. She, and her supporters, have a right to put their arguments forwards, and try to convince other members.

The truth is this: we're all Labour. We all want the Tories out of government, and us in. We all want to make the lives of ordinary men, women, and children in this country better. After the election, regardless of the result, we'll all need to work together. We need to start remembering that, and try to bring a bit more civility to the contest.

English Fairness

Originally written 22nd September 2014.

We have heard a lot about fairness from the Conservatives over the last few days. They say it is unfair that Scots MPs get to vote on English matters. They say it is unfair that some MPs get to have a say on things which won't affect their constituents, but will affect others. They say that change has to come, and the change that is needed is English votes for English laws. They say this is the only way to make sure the English are treated fairly.

I want us to be treated fairly. I want us to have the same powers and rights as the Scots, as the Welsh, as the Northern Irish.

The Scottish Parliament was set up after a referendum in 1997 when the Scottish people were asked if they wanted this. The Welsh Assembly was set up after a referendum in 1997 when the Welsh people were asked if they wanted this. The Northern Ireland Assembly was set up after a referendum in 1998 when the people of Northern Ireland were asked to approve the Good Friday Agreement that set it up.

In each case, the people under it were asked if they wanted it. It was an expression (rare and contradictory in a constitutional monarchy) that power was derived from the consent of the people. It was an admission that how those people are ruled is their choice to make.

But somehow the English aren't even being asked if they want a referendum. They aren't being asked if they want an English Parliament. The government is simply telling us how we will be ruled, and telling us this is fair.

In Scotland: the people decided. In Wales: the people decided. In Northern Ireland: the people decided. In England: David Cameron and William Hague decide? Is that fair? Is that right? Is that making sure the English aren't treated worse than the other nations?

Demand fairness. Demand the choice. Deciding how we are governed is our right, not theirs.

Mind the dust

Don't mind me, just clearing up a bit, airing the place out. It's been six long years since I posted anything here, but I'm going to put a couple of things up here - something I wrote about the Scottish referendum, just for historical interest to myself, and some musings about the current Labour leadership election.

I don't think it will all be staying here - I'll probably move it to a new host, and probably get a new name, as I see an earnest young chap has taken the leftwardho.co.uk domain name - it's not as if he could have expected this thing to rise like a zombie... Anyway, I'm probably talking to myself anyway, so enjoy a few bits and bobs over the next couple of months.