Tuesday 25 August 2015

Holier than thou: can the far Left ever reflect and acknowledge?

General Election defeats are a time for introspection. After the hurt and pain of polling day, the losers need to look at themselves and think why they lost, and what they need to do to rectify the problem. 2015 should have been the election to make Labour realise that they weren’t trusted enough on economic credibility, and that they should adjust and adapt accordingly. Instead, we’re back to the post-1979 view that Labour lost because they weren’t left wing enough, and that’s a very serious misunderstanding.

Franklin D. Roosevelt once said that it’s common sense to take a method and try it, and “if it fails, admit it frankly and try another”. The problem with the far left is that they don’t admit to failure, but rather they cling to a kind of unattainable purity that’s never ‘truly’ been given a fair shot. The ‘logic’ goes that Ed Miliband was too right wing, and that a Corbyn approach would have carried Labour to victory in May. As I have argued in recent blog posts, it’s a very insular thought process as it clings to outdated methods from tribal loyalties, rather than putting the country first. This was tested in the 1980s and it failed miserably, yet I’ve been told that his views should be “given a go” to see what happens in 2020. However, when the inevitable election hammering takes place, I cannot see the far left and the militants holding their hands up to say “fair enough, the country didn’t want our manifesto. We need to listen and change”. The media would be blamed (rightly so, in some quarters), but Corbyn would also be portrayed as a sell-out; only a truly left wing candidate would get it right in 2025, someone to nationalise all of industry, and so on.

A failure to heed lessons from the electorate is a recipe for disaster, and it’s not an exclusive trait of the left. William Hague failed in 2001, along with Michael Howard in 2005, and it took David Cameron’s pitch of moving to the centre ground to get back in to government (whether you think he’s a centrist is another matter). However, the Right appear to have been more efficient in adapting to election defeats. Winston Churchill’s Conservatives lost in the 1945 Labour landslide, but they were back in power by 1951, and Labour didn’t get back in to office until 1964. A Thatcherite approach in 1951 from the Tories would have been a refusal to adapt and to listen to the electorate, so they stuck to the post-war consensus script. The Tories may not be liked, but they know how to win elections, and are ruthless in doing so. 2020 poses a serious concern, as a Corbyn-led Labour Party could make the Tories look like a moderate, decent, sensible outfit, even if they continue to revel in harsh welfare changes and Euroscepticism.

I made reference to 1945, and Clement Attlee can help to illustrate my point clearly. He is heralded as a great Prime Minister (with justification; he’s in my personal top three), but also as a shining example to the Left. Attlee did indeed initiate a radical programme for government, but he was also very pragmatic. The social structures of society did not change, there was no egalitarian approach to education and much of industry was left in private hands. Should we label Attlee a ‘sell-out’ for introducing prescription charges to the NHS (something which Nye Bevan resigned over)? It would be treasonous to label Attlee in that way to someone on the far left, but by their own purist standards he would technically merit the tag. Perhaps Nye Bevan should be lumped in to the same sell-out category for coercing private doctors by “stuffing their mouths with gold”? Attlee and Bevan clearly weren’t sell-outs, but even they can’t win when judged against the unattainable standards of many on the far left.

There’s nothing wrong with idealism, but you can’t enact your ideals without listening and adapting. You don’t have to be left wing to care about poverty, inequality and justice, nor are you a raging Thatcherite for having concerns about the budget deficit. David Steel sums up my views on this: “I’m not interested in power without principles, but I am only faintly attracted by principles without power”.

Thursday 13 August 2015

David Cameron: Tempted to stay on?



David Cameron’s “shredded wheat” talk with James Landale before Election Day has been well documented. When asked about seeking a third term, Cameron told Landale “terms are like shredded wheat-two are wonderful but three might just be too many”. He was slated at the time in certain quarters for saying this, but I thought it was a nice example of a politician giving a straight answer to a straight question, for a change. The family impact on Cameron is obvious; Cameron’s former speechwriter Ian Birrell noted that Samantha Cameron was in the room when the question was put to the Prime Minister, with Cameron giving a more ambiguous answer to a similar question when she was not present. Despite all of this, might the Prime Minister be tempted to stick around?

David Cameron may well have gone down in history as a pretty unremarkable Prime Minister, serving only one term with the help of the Liberal Democrats. That he defied the odds and gained an overall majority in May is impressive enough, but given the paucity of the Opposition he could extend his legacy. As John Rentoul pointed out, a Cameron ministry up until 2025 would numerically surpass not just Blair (10 years) and Thatcher (11 years), but also Gladstone (12 years) amongst others. Cameron has been plagued with difficulties ever since his leadership election in 2005 when trying to “detoxify” the Tory brand, but it’ll be far easier to present the Conservatives as a party of moderates if Jeremy Corbyn is his opponent. After a vote to stay in the EU, an optimist would like to believe that Cameron would be given an easier ride by his rebellious backbenchers. The party which appeared ready to draw out the knives for Cameron may well be tempted to persuade the Prime Minister to stick around, for fear of the alternatives putting off the electorate (George Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson, Owen Paterson, Michael Gove). As I pointed out in my last post, speculation will be rife over his departure date, but if the economy keeps growing and the deficit keeps going down, why not stay?

There are obvious downsides, however. Whilst Cameron may well want to surpass the reign of Mrs Thatcher, the Iron Lady is also a lesson for knowing when not to cling on. A Prime Minister leaving on his own terms after a successful EU referendum is a far more harmonious epitaph than the fractured nature of Mrs Thatcher’s departure. Harold Wilson was the last Prime Minister to enjoy the luxury of departing on chosen terms, something which Cameron would do well to emulate. There’s also the risk of a Blair/Brown Granita repeat; imagine the awkward conversation between Cameron and Osborne if the former decides to stick around. The Chancellor will have hoped that his July Budget would be a springboard towards the Tory leadership, and it would make for an uncomfortable atmosphere if Cameron decides to renege on his “shredded wheat” promise. Furthermore, if the 2020 election is seen as significantly winnable, Cameron won’t need to view himself as indispensable to the Tories, and would be prepared to bequeath the role with minimal risk.

The phrase ‘Prime Ministerial’ can appear vacuous, but it is important. Cameron looked ‘Prime Ministerial’ where Ed Miliband did not, and this perception carried through to the electorate. It is a key skill to have, and one which has often made Cameron more popular with the country than with his own party. Trying to look at this as objectively as possible, I think Cameron’s best bet is to wait until after the EU referendum (ideally in 2016), and then to judge the public and party mood. If Britain votes to stay in by a small margin but the Conservative backbenchers continue to kick up a fuss, then it may be better for Cameron to depart gracefully rather than face more internal battles (Europe is the main weak spot for the Tories at the moment). However, in the unlikely event that the Eurosceptics respect the results of the referendum, then you can’t really blame Cameron for wanting to stay. If Cameron can lance the UKIP boil, keep his party united and sweep aside a bitterly divided Labour Party, he may well follow the lead of the Spitting Image puppet of Mrs Thatcher and “go on and on…”

Wednesday 12 August 2015

How to beat the Tories in 2020?


The title does not have a typo. The question mark is there because, as things stand, it looks very likely that the Conservatives will win the 2020 UK General Election. Having successfully defied Mervyn King’s prediction (to be out of power for a generation), things are looking rosy for the Tories. As I speculated in my previous blog post, the Labour Party looks to be drifting leftwards away from electability. Labour needs to win 100 more seats in 2020 just to get a very thin overall majority. I’ll try and speculate below as to how the odds can be defied.

1) The economy

This battleground won’t be easy. The phrase “cutting too far, too fast” didn’t work in May, and although George Osborne missed his ambitious target of eliminating the deficit by 2015, the public still trust the Conservatives more with the nation’s finances. If we are to assume that the budget will be eliminated over the course of this Parliament, the Opposition needs to switch their argument on to how a budget surplus can be used progressively and fairly. Crucially, the Labour Party needs to convince voters that it isn’t going to go on a lavish spending spree. The economy is safe territory for the Tories, but by the end of this Parliament they’ll have had nearly the same amount of time in office as New Labour did, so the tactic of blaming “the mess left by the last Labour government” won’t endure; this presents a potential opportunity. Also, if the “northern powerhouse” doesn’t come off, then the Opposition needs to present strong proposals for devolution that benefit more than just the south of England.

2) The NHS 

A far more subtle tact is needed here. Scare stories of privatising the NHS didn’t work in 2015, so why would they work in 2020? No major party is seriously proposing to privatise the NHS, and the Tories have pledged to meet NHS Chief Executive Simon Stevens’s £8bn extra a year funding target. Optimistically, I’ve no reason to doubt that this target won’t be met in theory, but the argument needs to focus on how this money is spent. Big questions need to be asked and addressed: How should a 21st century NHS operate? How will the NHS cope with a growing population and life expectancy? How do we cope with stigmas and mental health concerns? These aren’t new questions, but they need to be a primary focus, rather than unhelpful “3 days to save the NHS” soundbites.

3) Europe 

As things stand, this is a key weak spot to exploit. The Conservative Party has never been harmonious on this topic, and it could tear itself apart over the upcoming EU referendum. Conservatives (rightly) tell Scottish nationalists that the result of the 2014 Scottish Independence referendum should be respected, but should the “In” campaign win (and I believe it will, but not by a huge margin) I seriously doubt that Eurosceptics will “put up, or shut up” (to quote John Major). Not only can infighting be capitalised on, but the argument can switch back round to key areas like the economy and the NHS; imagine the following attack on the government at PMQs: “whilst many Brits still aren’t feeling the effects of the recovery, and whilst our NHS is stretched, the Prime Minister is allowing his party to ‘bang on about Europe’ and lecture the British people instead of respecting how they voted in the EU referendum. As the Prime Minister prepares his retirement plans, it’s nice to know what the priorities of his party are…” and so on. A speechwriter could do a much better job of that rant, but it presents a potent image. If the public see an incumbent government disregarding the results of a democratic referendum, they may look elsewhere for casting a vote.

4) Who will be the Prime Minister after David Cameron? 

In a candid interview with James Landale during the 2015 election campaign, Cameron admitted that he wouldn’t seek a third term as Prime Minister. It is presumed that he’ll stand down some time after the EU referendum in 2016 or 2017. Cameron may well be tempted to cling on for a little while, a tactic which unsettled the Labour Party when Tony Blair was preparing to quit. If the EU referendum takes place in 2017, when will Cameron go? 2018? 2019? Perhaps right up until March 2020? The Opposition will need to be on their guard to prepare against Cameron’s successor (thought to be George Osborne at the moment). The longer Cameron clings on, the more uncomfortable it could get for the electorate, who will want a decisive leadership result as soon as possible. Now’s the time to do the homework on what an Osborne/May/Johnson/Gove premiership would look like, and how to respond. Oh, and the awkward question of whether to clap Cameron at his last PMQs (see Tony Blair in 2007).

5) Prepare as if you are the government

 Bear with me on this one. I’m not a fan of Tony Blair, but he was right to note in his autobiography that an Opposition should prepare to the extent that it could be seen as a credible government at any given time. This means viewing Labour as a credible government in 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018 and 2019, not just in 2020. Opposition for opposition’s sake is a bad approach (it didn’t work for Ed Miliband), and it’s far easier to say what you’re against than what you are for. I quite like the idea (provided it’s feasible and realistic) of an Opposition presenting an alternative Budget each year, perhaps not necessarily straight after the Chancellor’s speech, but within the Budget week. If the government proposes unpopular/ineffectual reforms, say what reforms you would propose. This gives more confidence to the electorate in 2020 about how an alternative government would work. This approach takes time and consideration, but what’s wrong with forward planning? Labour did propose alternative measures in the last Parliament, but they were too often reactionary and populist (think energy price freezes). Furthermore, the hymn sheet seemed to change from month to month (remember predistribution Labour, anyone? One Nation Labour?). By nature, some Opposition tendencies have to be short term responses, but you should have a broad goal for the next five years, as opposed to simply saying how horrible everything is.

6) A broad coalition of voters 

Although the Labour Party denied it, the “35% strategy” pursued in the last Parliament was designed to pick up disaffected Lib Dem votes whilst retaining the core Labour vote, in the hope that it’d be enough to clinch an overall majority. This is a narrow approach, and an insular strategy of sweeping up the Left vote (Greens, SNP etc.) in 2020 will not win the election. Local government is being squeezed, and Labour must absolutely speak up for public sector workers who are feeling the pain of wage restraint and cutbacks. It’s absolutely right to stick up for the underdog, for those not benefitting in the recovery. However, Labour must also speak for those who are self-employed, who run a business, who want to buy their first house and so on. The country should always come first, and that means fighting for everyone, not just one demographic. To a large extent, moderates voted for the Tories in 2015 out of fear of the alternative.

These approaches are by no means easy solutions, nor are they guarantees of success. As noted above, I believe that the Opposition should play on the notion of not trusting the Tories to progressively use a budget surplus. However, if unemployment continues to fall (and I of course hope it will continue to drop) then the public may well trust the Tories for another five years. Many more issues need to be tackled. Losing the 2020 election is not a price worth paying for indulgence and heavy idealism.

Tuesday 4 August 2015

Corbynmania: Be careful what you wish for



It would seem strange to be chirpy about being a Liberal Democrat this summer, given the nature of the party’s defeat in May. However, not only has a charismatic and talented leader been elected (Tim Farron), but the leadership contest took place without melodrama. The only other contender (Norman Lamb) would have also been an excellent choice, and there was a lack of unpleasantness during the campaign; questions over voting records and specific policy opinions was about as contentious as it got. Tim and Norman have differing approaches and backgrounds, but there is a broad acceptance between them and the party over where we went wrong, where we got things right and where to go next.

Contrast this with the Labour Party. Whilst the Lib Dem leadership campaign was wrapped up in mid-July, Labour’s contest will drag on until September; that’ll be a third of the year gone since the election in May. Harriet Harman, a politician who encapsulates the Labour tribalist “you’re in bed with the Tories” stance, decided to be “a new kind of Opposition” and ordered the party to abstain on the Conservative Party’s welfare changes (‘Labstain’, anyone?). This resulted in rebellions and bitter infighting, along with various subgroups trying to pull the party in different directions. The choices on offer are pretty uninspiring. The phrase ‘principled’ is trotted out too often, and is mainly used to describe politicians who’ve never had to deal with the realities and constraints of power; in that respect, Jeremy Corbyn is indeed principled. However, so is Liz Kendall. She has been as frank about her beliefs and what she feels is wrong with the party as Corbyn has, but obviously with drastically different viewpoints. You can be guaranteed a cheer at Labour Party hustings if you trot out the same old lines. It takes guts to say what people don’t want to hear, but need to hear.

Whilst I’m not a Labour Party member, I fail to see the appeal of Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper. Both feel too much like ‘continuity Miliband’, and the former in particular is a source of confusion. Burnham spoke about “weeping” when he saw the proposed NHS reforms during the Coalition, yet as Health Secretary in the previous government he oversaw the privatisation of Hinchinbrook Hospital. Burnham was also a keen advocate of the “x days to save the NHS” phrase, even saying “we mean it this time!” on Twitter, yet he also acknowledged on Newsnight earlier this year that “there is a role for the private sector” in the NHS. Cooper would face unfair comparisons to her husband Ed Balls if she becomes leader, but nothing during her time as shadow Home Secretary struck me as impressive or remarkable.

Labour could have taken the pragmatic approach after their defeat in May. We’ve had One Nation/Blue/Pre-distribution Labour proposed to the electorate, along with scare stories over the NHS and “these cuts aren’t necessary…oh wait they actually are, but we’ll be nicer with them”, and it didn’t work. It could have carefully examined why the electorate rejected them, and tried to engage with public opinion. Instead, the party is in danger of retreating to a familiar comfort zone. Anyone whose reasons for Labour’s defeat are the contradictory maxims of “the voters are stupid” and “it was an undemocratic result” clearly don’t want to win elections. This approach is out of touch with reality, and it means never acknowledging where you’ve gone wrong. Yes, our voting system is very unfair, but which party has helped to collude with the Tories over the years to block reform? I certainly disagree with the reflection of seats to vote share, but one party clearly got the largest share of the vote.

The lessons from history should be obvious. The Labour Party convinced itself after the 1979 defeat to Margaret Thatcher that the Jim Callaghan government had been too right wing, and as a result allowed the militant tendency and radical left to take over. The result was 18 years in Opposition. Similarly, Corbynism will tell you that Ed Miliband was too right wing, and will point to the SNP as evidence. The reality is that Labour can only win in 2020 if it convinces Tory voters from 2010 and 2015 to switch allegiances. Yes, sweeping up the Green Party vote would help a bit, but gambling on a strategy of having hegemony of ‘the left’ will not carry the party back to power. Even if Labour were to miraculously gain 50 seats off the SNP in Scotland (good luck with that), they would still need (roughly) another 50 seats in England, and where will those seats come from? The SNP surge was the result of a generational shift, but also of Labour having taken the seats there for granted. They cannot afford for the same thing to happen in England and Wales.

Jeremy Corbyn may well make Labour members feel good about themselves with talk of the spirit of Clause 4, but it will not lead the party back to power. In the UK, elections are won from the centre ground. This doesn’t mean that New Labour should be heralded as perfection (I’ve been very critical of Tony Blair in this blog), but it does mean that veering too far one way or another will consign you to Opposition, just as the Tories realised between 1997 and 2010. The Corbyn approach is actually a very insular one; he may argue that he’s standing up for Labour values, but what about the values and opinions of others? Shouldn’t the country “come first” (as Liz Kendall said)? There are moderates out there who hold strong convictions and are uncomfortable with having a Tory majority, but who don’t want a return to the politics of the 1980s. Does their opinion matter? To win an election you have to build up a broad coalition and show that you are not just appealing to special interest groups (this applies to the Conservatives as well as to Labour). I’m not making the argument that the Conservatives didn’t appeal to special interest groups, but when Labour continued to be confused about its economic record and didn’t explicitly rule out any deal with the SNP, why would moderates have voted for Labour?

There are opportunities. The Conservative Party is a well-oiled machine at the moment, but it could tear itself apart over the upcoming EU Referendum. The Conservatives never stop “banging on about Europe” (to take a David Cameron quote out of context), and that’s where a united and credible movement needs to capitalise. The country is entitled to a strong and effective Opposition However, if Corbyn becomes the new leader of the Labour Party, we will have to face up to a Tory majority in 2020.