June 15, 2010
David Cameron’s Splendid Isolation
Although I’m half French by birth and citizenship, I’ve only every used my British passport and I (with a certain amount of resigned despair and disgust) am currently supporting England at the World Cup.* But visiting France is always a useful experience to gauge our neighbours’ reaction to British politics and politicians.
Given that foreign interest is almost inevitably superficial, it’s hardly surprising that the French for a time were generally well disposed to Tony Blair – albeit for little more than he spoke decent French. Of course, that changed after the ill-conceived Mesopotamia Adventure of 2003. And indeed for much of the past 7 years Britain’s reputation has not stood particularly high on the continent.
Yet this summer it seemed Britain was finally enjoying something of a rapprochement with our French cousins. Again, the distance of foreign political issues means that most French don’t care for the particulars of UK domestic politics. Hence the worst failures of Dumbo Gordon were generally lost in translation, and he was instead seen as a firm and stable economic heavyweight, rightly credited with taking a decisive post-crisis recovery.
As for the Lib-Con coalition, the French have a certain difficulty appreciating just how rare a situation in Britain this is. For them, politics is generally built around particular personalities who conjure parties into existence for the transient purpose of putting whichever Chief into power. Coalitions of varying degrees are the French norm, and until Jacques Chirac introduced a bunch of reforms it was not unusual for the French President to be on the opposite political side to the Prime Minister (so-called co-habitation).
But one thing some of the French I spoke with did find disconcerting is Mr Cameron’s decision to pull the Tories out of the European People’s Party to sit with far-right crazies that D-Cam’s new best mate Nick Clegg recently called “nutters, anti-semites and homophobes“. In France the Front National polls up to 20%, and fascist leader Jean Marie Le Pen made it to the final head-to-head round of the 2002 Presidential election. Playing with the far right at the international level, for personal domestic gains, is no trivial matter. Not least because President Nicolas Sarkozy is himself a well-worn practitioner, but one struggling to remain popular.
Nonetheless, Britain seemed to be enjoying something of a renewed period of good-will.
I’m not sure how long it will last.
Mr Cameron has, after all, decided that the most important – and strategically wise – thing to do regarding the Gulf of Mexico oil disaster is speak out about the importance of BP as a British company, and defend it from American criticism.
Just to recap: we’re looking at one of the absolute worst oil spills in history, which some experts are saying could go on until Christmas, and which is getting media coverage around the globe. The offending corporate party has chosen to show as little contrition as possible, and to blow repeated raspberries in the face of the American people. What does D-Cam do? He accuses Obama of picking on Britain.
The mind boggles, because Cameron’s reaction just seems so pointless. Why do this, when he could just say nothing at all? Why irritate the beleaguered Democratic administration – especially after Obama has already previously described Cameron as a “lightweight”? One suspects that Cameron is not tuned-in to the fact that half-Kenyan Obama with an acute awareness of British Imperial legacies (who conspicuously refused to talk of a US-UK “special relationship”) is cut from a different cloth to previous WASP presidents.
This does not bode well. If Cameron’s judgement of international matters is so poor (or his capture by interest lobby groups so extreme) that he wrongly calls one of the most blatantly obvious early diplomatic relations tests he could face, we can forget about the legacy of a 100 year entente cordial. Instead, prepare for a return to splendid isolation. But this time imposed instead of chosen, delivered by the cold shoulder of needlessly alienated nations.
-
*I have never, ever supported France and indeed the only thing making England’s perenial awfulness bareable this time around is the fact that France are shaping up to be even worse – albeit sans extreme goalkeeping incompetence.
May 12, 2010
Post Election Meta-Assessment
Blogging light due to combination of examinations and post-examination puking into sink.
Labour has done the right thing for it’s own strategic interests in scuppering a Lib-Lab coalition. As Hopi points out, this might not be in the best interests of the country, as Lab-Lib arguably would deliver better policy than Con-Dem. However, Labour needs time out. Firstly, because in democracy sometimes the other side just needs to be allowed to have a go; after 13 years and some horrible mistakes, opposition is basically deserved by Labour. Plus hanging around would only piss off the electorate. Secondly, it will be good for Labour, allowing it to purge some bad NewLab blood and re-orientate itself as a party of the left. It should be easily incentivized to do this, as that’s where the electoral space is going to open up. And the LibDems are going to find it very hard to play the “we’re the true progressives” card after putting Dave and Gideon into power (though Sunny is right that it needs to be centre-left, not retreating-into-the-hinterlands-of-unelectability left – but then again this is not 1983, so that’s spectacularly unlikely anyway).
As regards the Con-Dem coalition itself, I think upon reflection there’s much here to be pleased about for the British left. Although at first glance I thought the Lib Dems had gotten very little in exchange for putting D-Cam into power, that’s actually not true – at least in the short-term. An end to the lifting of the inheritance tax threshold is very welcome indeed, as is the move to raise the threshold for basic income tax (though see the extremely important counter-concerns due to not increasing top-end tax to adjust for regressive effects that will likely increase inequality and not help the very poorest) . Although the idiotic and incoherent marriage tax break will likely go through, the mansion tax is gone and so is scrapping higher-rate pension tax relief, on the flip-side the NI cut will be smaller than it was going to be, thus meaning less spending to be slashed elsewhere (at least, one hopes). Although Trident will be kept, that’s more symbolic than anything else because the costs are so sunk, and on the other side of the fence we’ve got a cancellation of the third runway at Heathrow, and ID cards are out. Which let’s face it, were two areas of policy that Labour had gotten badly, badly wrong.
As regards seats at cabinet, I’m a tad surprised that all the big chairs went blue (Chancellor, Foreign and Home Sec). Although Theresa May perhaps made it to the Home Office because of a last-minute “oh god there’s no women in this portfolio” reaction, I don’t particularly mind as imbecile Grayling is out, and one woman is better than none. Gove for Education instead of David Laws is no biggie, as the latter is in many ways basically a Tory anyway. However, having Laws as Chief Secretary to the Treasury, combined with Vince Cable as Business Secretary, is intriguing. George Osborne is basically an economic lightweight, and depending on how much of Mandelson’s fiefdom Cable retains, the Lib Dems could be pulling a lot of levers in economic policy. And let’s face it, that is far, far preferable to having the Tories wielding the axe alone. Over in domestic affairs, Chris Huhne at Environment is far preferable to anyone on the Tory benches except Tim Yeo (who never really had a shot at Cabinet), and Ken Clarke is a good bet for Justice Secretary because he’s about as socially liberal and laid-back as a senior Tory gets.
So as regards short-term policy commitments and cabinet appointments, this is a remarkably good outcome for leftists: the Tories are reigned-in, and some actually good policies are in and some bad ones out. Hurrah for that.
Looking to the long-term, the Lib Dems will, eventually, suffer from this in my guess. On the one hand they’ve blown their “we’re more left than Labour” meme, and that’s going to hurt them in marginals (especially in Scotland) for a long time. Also, if they do lock themselves in to a 5 year fixed term Parliament, they will bear the brunt of the pain caused by economic cuts. Not a particularly nice albatross to acquire in your first ever period of government. The Tories, having a bigger Parliamentary presence and power, will start to squeeze the Lib Dems as soon as possible – and forget about PR. All that’s on the table is a referendum for AV, which the Tories (and let’s be honest, Labour) will poor money into stopping. And even if it does go through, it’s pretty much as un-proportional as First Past the Post anyway. The Lib Dems are extremely unlikely to carve out a permanent place in the electoral system, and Andrew Adonis is right that the Con-Dem love-in cannot last for long. And that is further opportunity for Labour to re-orientate as a proper social democratic centre left party.
However, there is something intriguing about the Con-Dem arrangement. It looks like David Cameron is using it as a way of actually pushing-out his frothing right-wing loons, shifting the centre of gravity towards the moderate wing of the party. I genuinely believe Cameron is far more liberal and tolerant than much of his party old guard and grass-roots. If the Lib Dem coalition allows him to turn the Conservatives away from Thatcher and back towards something like a One Nation Tory tradition, well that’s a damn good thing for everybody concerned. Except the hard-right loons, who frankly can go jump in the sea. Alternatively, if the coalition breaks down quickly and the loons come into ascendency, that’s fine because that will doom the Tories back into unelectability.
Again, the amazing thing about this election is that despite ending up with a Tory-led Government, it has been anything but a disaster for the left generally, and the Labour Party more specifically. The future is very uncertain, and there’s going to be some real pain ahead. But compared to the situation threatened 18 months ago by a 20+ Tory point lead, these are outcomes the British left should be thankful for.
May 10, 2010
On Not Hating D-Cam
I’ve tried really, really hard. But I just can’t do it. I can’t bring myself to hate David Cameron.
I loathe the Tory Party. This loathing to some degree exists at a purely a tribalistic, subrational level. But partly it’s also because I find Conservative policies offensive. Be it bigoted xenophobic attitudes towards immigration. Or giving tax breaks to millionaires whilst planning to slash public spending and abolish the Child Trust Fund. Or backwards attitudes to marriage and the need to “recognise” marriage in the tax system with an incoherent policy of telling wimmin* to stay at home for £3 extra a week. Or restricting women’s reproductive rights. Or allying with far-right loons in Europe. Or planning an assault on social housing.
I also really hate the barely-hidden true nature of much of the Conservative party. In various degrees misogynistic, heavily xenophobic, ungratefully privileged, callously disregarding of the less fortunate, whackjob Christian fundamentalist, homophobic, willfully ignorant of the complexities of real-world life for many ordinary people, and so on.
It’s therefore most inconvenient that I just can’t bring myself to hate the leader of the Party. At least with That Woman, or sly and suspicious IDS, or Count “Prison Works” Howard, it was easy. These people are so obviously loathsome it all fits neatly together.
And I can easily stir up distaste for the few Tory frontbenchers allowed out in public without their muzzles on. Chris Grayling: blithering imbecile, completely out of his depth with no grip on reality. Michael Gove: a jelly-faced eel for whom the word “slime” was invented. Gideon Osborne: reminiscent of an 18th Century French aristocrat leaning out of his carriage window, pressing a ‘kerchief to his nose, and crying “oh, the stench, the stench of these filthy peasants!”
I can also definitely work-up some vitriol for London’s part-time mayor Boris Johnson. Oh, everyone loves BoJo, don’t they? With his oh-so-funny gaffes, and his loveable rough and tumble posh buffoonery. Except me. Because all I see is a carefully crafted external veneer masking a cynical and calculated privileged elitism that desires only power, and will pursue it at any cost. Which is not even to mention policy. This is the man who campaigned on a promise to protect London’s Rape Crisis Centres, and instead is withholding enough funds to keep even the last remaining centre open, amongst other crimes.
But D-Cam? No, I just can’t hate him. Because I honestly believe – despite his PR background, and the fact his job has been to pseudo-detoxify a very toxic brand – that he’s genuine.
I don’t think David Cameron is a homophobe; I think that Gay Times interview showed how hard it is to walk a tightrope between tolerant principle and a party of bigots.
I don’t think he’s a xenophobe; I think he’s probably dimly patriotic in the way most people raised by Tory parents in the Home Counties are, but that itself is not particularly objectionable or unusual.
I don’t think he’s a raving unreflective Euro-hater; I think he pulled out of the EPP with a heavy heart in a short-term tactical bid to keep his party under control.
I don’t think he’s really a vicious Thatcherite; I think he’s probably pro-free market in a relatively broad and naive sense, but in the way that many tolerable Conservatives are and the way that most people born into money and the capitalist class usually turn out to be for obvious reasons.
I don’t think he secretly wants to kill the NHS; I think he probably thinks it’s a pretty good thing, and is finding the tightrope between that and his backbench loons very hard to walk.
The hole I tend to pigeon D-Cam in is the one marked “bright and well-meaning, but pretty fundamentally deluded in a way that’s not particularly surprising given his personal background”. And right now I sort of feel sorry for him too. After all he’s done for those bigoted loons they still turn on him with such vicious ingratitude. And indeed, the fact they are turning on him so viciously indicates to me that I’m right to suspect that Dave is pretty much what he seems.
Of course, I don’t want him as PM. Heavens no. He may not be a bad man, but he’s clearly misguided and my god look at what lurks behind him (which I seriously doubt he has the skill or strength to control). But this all leads to a rather bizarre conclusion: I think I feel the same way about David Cameron that a lot of Tories probably once felt about Tony Blair.
The ironies, and cognitive dissonance complexities, contained in that should keep you all busy for the rest of the day.
–
* Because normally women make less than men, hence will be the ones “incentivised” to stay at home.
May 9, 2010
On Tory Civil War
“Of all crimes that human creatures are capable of committing, the most horrid and unnatural is ingratitude, especially when it is committed against parents, and appears in the more flagrant instances of wounds and death. This is acknowledg’d by all mankind, philosophers as well as the people”
- David Hume, A Treatise of Human Nature, Book III – On Morals.
The only surprising thing about the descent of the Tory party into post-election civil war is the rapidity with which it is occurring. Cameron hasn’t even failed or succeeded in securing a coalition to put his party into power, and already they are turning on him.
Lord Tebbit – who last year was telling Tories to vote UKIP in the EU elections – has declared that he’d rather see the Conservatives in opposition than power-sharing with the Lib Dems, something which has been echoed by backbenchers like Daniel Kawczynski MP, chairman of a Tory group opposing electoral reform.
But if Cameron does fail to negotiate a deal with the Lib Dems and ends up in opposition, he will be seen as a complete failure by his party. After all The Observer already reports today that the knives are out for him. Not-Lord Ashcroft of Belize, of all people, is blaming Cameron for supporting the TV debates, claiming they cost the Tories their lead. “Senior” front benchers have criticised the way that Cameron runs the party, and called the Big Society narrative pushed by the Tories during the election “crap”.
The irony is that these criticism have a great deal of truth in them. But what Cameron’s critics in his own party fail to see is that they are far more culpable than he.
I agree with Chris that the TV debates gave Nick Clegg a moment to shine, and made it clear to many voters that if they want a Blair-clone, it makes more sense to favour Clegg than Cameron. Because the Lib Dem leader genuinely is a sort of Blair, whereas Cameron’s entire purpose has been to pretend that’s what he is, so as to distract attention from his party. Although Cleggstacy did not translate into seats for the Lib Dems, what the TV debates did do was remind the electorate that Cameron the PR man is not truly representative of the Nasty Party. Which further reinforced a growing image of duplicity and insincerity.
Cameron has run the party via a tiny clique, and he has ignored backbenchers. And the Big Society idea was a load of “crap”, and no doubt it was completely unsellable on the doorsteps. But what’s amazing about these Tory discontents is their sheer myopia. They cannot see that Cameron had to run the party like that so as to distract attention away from the unreconstructed Thatcherite, homophobic, xenophobic, intensely Euro-sceptic, callous, Christian-fundamentalist loon contingents that make up huge chunks of the Tory grass-roots and Parliamentary party.
Although it’s true that Cameron is a failure relative to his poll-highs of 20+ points 18 months ago, from another angle he’s also a remarkable success. Like he keeps saying, he’s overseen the biggest transfer of seats in 80 years, and made the Tories the biggest party in Parliament with the biggest share of the vote. The irony of all these Tory back-stabbers is that they cannot see that it wasn’t Dave wot lost it, it was them. For despite Cameron’s best efforts he simply could not conceal from the electorate the true nature of his party. Whether it was Chris Grayling and Co’s homophobia, George Osborne’s stench of sneering privilege, Not-Lord Aschroft’s unapologetic non-domism, or simply being unable to offer any meaningful big-picture policy for fear of setting off an internal revolt, Cameron lost it because of his party and he’s actually done well in spite of them.
Cameron is cool in a crisis, is an impressive public speaker, and has approval ratings way above the Conservative Party itself. That, we might recall, is largely why the Tories ditched David Davis and backed D-Cam in 2005; he was seen as the best possibility for decontaminating the brand. Yet rather than seeing that the contamination problem remains at their end, knife-wielding Tories are exhibiting classic ressentiment and blaming it all on Dave. The sheer self-deluded ingratitude of their behaviour, combined with the arrogant sense of entitlement that it was their turn to govern therefore Dave must be to blame if they’re not in power, is astounding.
And, frankly, hilarious. Get me some popcorn.
–
* At least, that’s what he said to the BBC on election night, if I remember correctly.
May 4, 2010
The Essence of Politics
“There is the authority of the extraordinary and personal gift of grace (charisma), the absolute personal devotion and personal confidence in revelation, heroism, or other qualities of individual leadership. This is ‘charismatic’ domination, as exercised by the prophet or – in the field of politics – by the elected war lord, the plebiscitarian ruler, the great demagogue, or the political party leader.”
So wrote Max Weber, the first great analyst of modern mass democratic politics. For Weber, the ability to hold followers in awe – to command their almost unconditional respect, admiration and support – was the crucial requirement of political leadership. It was the essential difference between the leader with a calling for politics, and the second-rate party hacks and apparatchiks. Only the charismatic demagogue – a word of praise for Weber – could truly lead.
Until yesterday, few would have deemed Gordon Brown to be such a charismatic leader. If anything, Brown has long seemed a lumbering, spent, hopeless, flailing oaf. But at yesterday’s meeting of Citizens UK, Gordon Brown put his foot on the gas and delivered a political performance the likes of which I have never witnessed.
This clip, and the start of last night’s news, gives you some indication. But these out-takes [and Update: even the full video in absence of the atmosphere of the moment] cannot do justice to a man performing, for once, like a born leader. This matters; it’s what lies at the heart of successful leadership in a mass democracy. Weber, again, understood:
“Devotion to the charisma of the prophet, or the leader in war, or to the great demagogue in the ecclesia or in parliament, means that the leader is personally recognised as the innerly ‘called’ leader of men. Men do not obey him by virtue of tradition or statute, but because they believe in him. If he is more than a narrow and vain upstart of the moment, the leader lives for his cause and ‘strives for his work’. The devotion of his disciples, his followers, his personal party friends is oriented to his person and to its qualities.”
I’ve read those words many times, but not until yesterday did I understand them. As Brown delivered the performance of a lifetime, the most bizarre thing happened. I forgot about Iraq. About the 10p tax. About the increase in inequality. About the assault on civil liberties. About all of it the terrible failings of this Labour government.
As Brown thundered about fairness, equality, respect, and marching towards justice – absurd clichés in the cold light of reason, intoxicating incantations in the passion of the rally – I suddenly felt part of something. Proud to be on the left. Proud to be implacably opposed to the Conservative Party (for the tribalism surely matters). And despite the fact that Labour has failed on so many of the things about which Brown righteously proclaimed, it simply did not matter to me because at that moment all that mattered was being part of that moment.
Recovering the ability to reflect, I did briefly tweet that Brown’s words on ending child detention for asylum seekers were inadequate. But as the standing ovation was given and people began to surge out of the hall, with Brown triumphantly marching past me, reason once more gave way to base political intoxication. I now understand the force underlying Obamamania, even if I experienced it only for a few minutes. Politics, when it reaches its nadir, operates at a deeply and purely emotional level, and has essentially nothing to do with reason at all. Political leaders command our support most absolutely, most unconditionally, when they hit that nadir. That is the essence of politics, in its purest form.
And so how different it all could have been for Brown. Why has he only found his charismatic ability three days before an election? Who knows. It is too late now: he will lose. But if a performance like yesterday’s could have been the norm then the future of Britain would be very different. Not least because Brown would have had his party undoubtedly behind him these past 2 years. As Weber again knew, the officials and apparatchiks that make a party run will do anything for a charismatic leader who can deliver them power and therefore patronage.
I now also understand the fundamental dynamic of the leaders’ debates. Of course the vast majority of people switching to Clegg have not bothered to read the Lib Dem manifesto. But then, why should they? It was the triumph of personality over policy. Why expect or demand anything different when those are the fundamental building blocs of politics? We are drawn to political leaders who command our emotive assent, who are able to gain our support because we believe in them – and often this is almost regardless of what they are actually saying or doing. No wonder Brown remained unpopular in the final debate, despite offering up far better answers than Cameron. Without political charisma Brown’s words could only ever fall dead.
What gives the successful political leader his or her appeal, and thereby power, is precisely what Weber identified: the ability to inspire unquestioning belief. That neither Cameron, Clegg nor Brown presently possesses an outright lead is a testament to how little belief they inspire, and hence what poor political leaders they really are – even if Brown showed yesterday that he could have been something more.
April 27, 2010
LibCon? Be my guest.
I’ve no doubt that Nick Clegg probably does want to kill Labour. He’s certainly to the right of his party, and his brand of “Orange Book” liberalism sits closer to the Tories than the Government. Accordingly, I’m fairly sure that in the event of a hung Parliament Clegg will be inclined to take his party into a coalition with the Conservatives. For whilst Clegg’s weekend rumblings indicated only that he wouldn’t sit in a government with Gordon Brown (leaving the door open, even only slightly, to a de-Gordoned Labour party), he seems serious in his mutterings that if Labour comes third in the popular vote, he will go and sit in the blue corner.
Like Dan Paskins, I think that’s something Labour supporters should just accept:
“It doesn’t matter if the weirdnesses of the voting system mean that Labour end up with the most seats – people would have made it quite unambiguously clear that they don’t want Labour in government. I absolutely shudder to think what would happen if they tried to do a deal with the Lib Dems and stagger on while presiding over the massive cuts to public spending of the kind that Clegg and Cable have repeatedly said that they want.”
Indeed. But what of the excited voices claiming that a Labour defeat will translate into oblivion for the party? I beg to differ.
First of all, even if Labour comes third in the popular vote thanks to our idiotic electoral system Labour will probably retain the largest share of seats. What really matters to a party’s long-term sustainability is not whether they crumple in one popular vote, but whether they can retain a national presence. And with the most seats as the main opposition, Labour will retain just that. Thanks to the unfairness of FPTP, Labour can and will survive even a humiliating third-place finish next week.
What of Lib Dem fortunes should they find themselves at the big table? Clegg claimed at the weekend that he’d want to be PM if a deal was done. Manifestly this would not happen, but Clegg knows this and is bargaining well by opening with a high price. More likely is a Cameron premiership with Vince Cable as Chancellor and Ken Clarke as Treasury Secretary. Which let’s be honest, doesn’t look all that bad. Big cuts are coming, whoever is in power. I’d rather they were made by two serious politicians with economic expertise and experience – it’s certainly preferable to giving Boy George the axe.
But given what the next party/parties in power is/are going to have to do to public services – and the likely jump in unemployment that will follow – one has to look doubtful about Mr Clegg’s long-term popularity. He bounced 10 points in the polls after the first leaders’ debate. Now, perhaps all those new Lib Dem voters have all gone and read the party’s manifesto and thought “hey, yeah, this is the party for me!” More likely, Clegg is popular because he is new, and he is neither Cameron nor Brown – and most voters know next to nothing about his party’s policies. But there’ll be nothing like slashed services and rising unemployment to take the sheen off the Lib Dem’s popularity. Especially as economic hardship will be the first association voters make between that party and power.
And somewhat unfairly this will open the door for Labour to re-appear, sans-Gordon. A coalition government is unlikely to last more than 18-36 months, and if a general election is called within the midst of economic strife Labour will be able to claim – however disingenuously, however opportunistically – that when they were in charge unemployment stayed manageable and the economy did better. With a new leader, that will look strong.
Of course, the Tories may concede something on the electoral reform front. Clegg is hardly likely to budge on this. But then neither is Cameron. So most likely is the promise of a referendum at the next general election. Yet either way the subsequent election will have given Labour enough time to recover – with the added advantage of being the biggest party in Westminster.
The end of Labour nigh? Maybe not, because life just isn’t fair. Lib Dems should be careful what they wish for next week.
April 9, 2010
It’s the electorate, stupid.
I am baffled, or rather deeply troubled, by the argument over Labour’s planned National Insurance rise.
The Tories are saying that Labour’s plans will not only be a “tax on jobs” but an unnecessary one. Apparently Dave Snooty and Pals can find a staggering £27billion in “efficiency savings” that negate the need for the rise. Yep, that’s right: £15billion more than Labour are claiming they can find.
What’s particularly striking is that yesterday’s Guardian reported that
“Senior Labour figures privately acknowledge that they are being severely damaged by the NICs issue, although they will draw some encouragement from a Times Populus poll that shows a Tory lead of seven points, short of the lead needed to give the Conservatives a majority.”
Presumably this is partly because of a bunch of totally-impartial not-at-all-pro-Tory business leaders slammed the NI rise as, er, a tax on jobs. How convenient of them to be on-message for Mr Cameron. No matter that NI hikes are in fact not likely to reduce employment at all, but will instead by passed on to workers in the form of lower wages. Evidence isn’t important, distortion and spin are everything (it’s only an election campaign after all, no need to stop business as usual).
Yet I’m finding the subsequent debacle somewhat bewildering.
Let’s start with the basics. The economy is well and truly and utterly and completely fucked. Big spending cuts are coming. I don’t want to talk about the numbers. Partly because I’ll get them wrong and Tim Worstall will shout at me, but partly because they make me feel sick (“20% cuts for higher education” is as far as I get before the queasiness).
It’s common knowledge that whoever wins this election the axe will eventually fall. But correspondingly in order to fill the black hole some taxes are going to have to rise. Surely this is just obvious. The only sensible thing to do is accept that both are required to then to think carefully about how best to implement the necessary pain.
But instead the Tories claim to be able to magically save £27billion and avoid putting up National Insurance altogether. And if the papers are to be believed Labour are terrified that this is going to work as an electoral strategy.
Yet if Labour are right then the electorate is quite frankly very, very dumb. Firstly voters have to be so naive that they don’t wonder why we’ve been happily pissing £27billion down the drain for no good reason, but that this can now be stopped without hardship. Secondly, they have to not suspect that talk of “efficiency savings” is opportunistic dishonesty from politicians of both sides – but especially from the Tories who claim (without full access to Government figures!) to be able to save twice as much as the other parties. Thirdly, they have to believe that tax rises can be merrily avoided with no bad or significant consequences.* Fourthly, they have to be either so naive or so blinded by a desire to believe in Cameron’s magic bullets of painless austerity not to bother taking a look at the whole package and thinking “pull the other one, posh boy”.
The alternative? That the electorate isn’t dumb and will see through the Conservative promises of righting the economy by waving the magic wand of efficiency savings. But if that’s the case, then those senior Labour sources said to be so worried about Tory strategy are seriously under-estimating the electorate they are supposed to be campaigning to. Which doesn’t bode well for the next 30 days of what passes for Labour’s election strategy.
Either way, it’s not a pretty picture. Both scenarios would seem to tend towards a victory for the blue corner. Democracy eh? Bring back the Philosopher Kings.
–
* Yes I know that the Conservative defence-maneouvre is to say that they’ll put up (regressive) VAT instead. But the point is that 1) they are spinning themselves as the party opposed to tax rises and 2) VAT rises will impact voters too, so are voters really all for a rise in this whilst being implacably opposed to higher NI?
March 31, 2010
Conservative Change?
There’s something paradoxical about the Conservative Party’s election message of “change” – one that is perhaps having visible consequences as the Tory poll lead collapses.
As a political outlook conservatism is hard to define. This is largely because it isn’t an ideology, but something more akin to a disposition. Political theorist, historian and political conservative Michael Oakeshott offered a still influential understanding, especially in his essay “Rationalism in Politics”. Oakeshott decried the rise of (what he took to be) overly-intellectualised attempts to abstract the political, attempts to conceptualise politics in terms of rational reflection and abstract theory dangerously divorced from the wisdom of experience. The notion of “rationalism in politics” for Oakeshott referred largely to the rise of modern “ideologies” based in philosophical reasoning; systematisations of thought that claimed to be able – from the philosopher’s armchair – to deduce the world’s problems via reason, and to construct idealised solutions accordingly.
Oakeshott rejected such schemes as misguided and dangerous. Instead, politics must progress tentatively, gradually and cautiously. Experience of what works and fosters safety and stability were paramount; intellectualisations could only caricature and simplify the complexities of the real world, pushing political agents towards disaster. The conservative – for Oakeshott – was the anti-rationalist; the man who shuns intellectual constructs and defers to gradualism based in experience. Politics accordingly becomes “organic”, developing and changing only very slowly, and not according to the fancy notions of abstract theorists. In his later work Oakeshott developed the metaphor of the boat on a boundless, unending ocean: the captain of the boat must not undertake madcap schemes to sail the boat into new uncharted waters, but concentrate on the safety of his crew by relying on the tested and trusted. Such should be the conservative politician.
Other understandings of conservatism have subsequently been offered, in particular by Oxford political theorist Michael Freeden. Freeden argues that conservatism is a bizarrely negative concept; whilst its adherents favour the status quo and gradual change as their baseline commitments, any specific policies or actions they advocate tend to be formulated in reaction to the dominant opposition of the day. Thus, conservatism becomes a sort of political “swivel-mirror”: if the dominant threat to the status quo is a call for greater economic equality, then conservatives will reflect back at that threat a privileging of hierarchy and social inequality so as to protect the status quo. Over time, however, conservatives will come to embrace policies or positions they previously rejected – for example, the existence of a basic welfare state – insofar as that becomes the status quo and some new force for change threatens it. (Think Cameron’s claim that the Tories are “the party of NHS” when the Tories originally opposed its creation under the Atlee government).
Against both these frameworks, however, stands the uncomfortable legacy of Thatcher. Her truly radical programme of economic monetarism and social conservatism changed Britain drastically. Thatcher broke dramatically with the so-called (and somewhat mythical) “Keynesian Consensus”. The post-Thatcher world of economic deregulation, greater economic and social inequality, and the ascendency of capitalist corporate interests over organised labour (which was crushed with extreme prejudice by the power of the state) looks radically different to the Britain of pre-1979. As a result, it is hard to fit the (broadly) ideologically-Hayekian Thatcher project into models of conservatism emphasising anti-ideologism, gradualism, antipathy to change and preservation of the status quo. Accordingly, some theorists refuse to class Thatcher as a conservative at all, seeing her instead as a right wing radical.
Yet Thatcherism is very much a part of the Conservative Party’s ideological inheritance, in large measure still defining its collective self-identification and outlook. Just visit ConservativeHome for confirmation that the Thatcherite wing is alive and well.
The cumulative effect, however, is to add to the deep intellectual tension in Cameron’s and Osborne’s campaign message for “change” – a message they have presumably chosen for its appeal to disaffected New Labour voters who abandoned the Tories in 1997 and still have not returned. The sorts of voters who are fed-up with New Labour and Gordon Brown especially, but do not necessarily or straightforwardly identify themselves as conservative or Conservatives.
At one level, the tension of campaigning for “change” operates at the basic level that – pace Thatcher’s legacy – many conservatives are instinctively hostile to change for the reasons Oakeshott and Freedan identify; that conservatism is broadly and anti-ideological disposition favouring the status quo. Yet this can itself cause problems when the status quo is on the move. To pick a topical example, social attitudes towards homosexuality are undergoing radical shifts in Britain with homophobia becoming increasingly illegitimate and unacceptable. However this change has occurred relatively quickly, and many with conservative dispositions have refused or been unable to keep pace with this, or are confused about how to adapt to a change social and political environment.
This puts Cameron in a terrible predicament. On the one hand, public opinion increasingly demands that he endorse gay rights and gay equality. On the other, much of his instinctively (socially) conservative party remains hostile to the rapid shift in social attitudes towards homosexuality. Cameron is forced to walk a tightrope between pleasing public opinion and not alienating his core membership – a tightrope he spectacularly fell off of last week. The result is proving mildly disastrous: panned in the press for his gay rights gaffe, Cameron is also coming under attack from his own party – witness Lord Tebbit’s complaint that Cameron is spending too much time worrying about irrelevant “African homosexuals”. The Tories may campaign for “change”, but dealing with the reality of change and what it means for the Conservative Party vis-à-vis wider society is a tall order for Cameron. And he looks increasingly unsuited to the task.
More generally, the Tory message of “change” is embraced by the Thatcherite wing of the Party – so long as it means changing back to hard-right radicalism. Although Blair and Brown have broadly accepted the market-orientated, pro-business, anti-organised Labour framework that Thatcher bequeathed, true Thatcherites loath the social-democratic state interventions that New Labour has nonetheless managed to secure (despite its myriad and notable failings elsewhere). The hated Sure Start centres, vast sums poured into education and the NHS (both of which have undergone significant improvements post-1997), reducing the pace of growth in inequality via considerable redistributive achievements, and recent moves towards an increasingly progressive tax system irk the Thatcherite faithful tremendously. The “change” they demand from Cameron is to go forwards into the past; a return to the 1980s.
Yet this is not the change that the electorate broadly demands. Whereas in the 1980s many stomached vast social unrest and repeated recession as the painful medicine required to put Britain on a new economic footing away from the power of organised labour (and whilst the Labour Party rendered itself spectacularly unelectable), things have surely changed. Few outside of the hard right would wish for a repeat of the social and economic strife of the 1980s purely to further an ideological anti-state rightist agenda.
Accordingly, the “change” Cameron promises to the electorate is left conspicuously un-explained. Presumably, he hopes to placate both sides – electorate and party – by not explaining exactly what his “change” consists in, hoping that the base-line idea of “a change away from Gordon Brown, whatever that means” is enough to get him through. But a collapsed poll lead indicates otherwise. And the growing unrest and confusion within the Tory party perhaps attests to the danger and instability of playing so loosely with the notion of conservative change when such a thing appears to be, if not completely chimerical, then at best a can of practical-cum-theoretic worms.
–
March 7, 2010
Blue, red or green? What will the Tories do to our economy?
Presumption is the father of all f-ups.
This piece down for a short while. Will return, elsewhere.
Sorry!
UPDATE: Over here.
March 2, 2010
A Poisoned Chalice?
Given the Tories’ continuous slide in the polls, there was an almost tangible feeling of opportunity at last night’s “Osbornomics” event.
Hosted by the New Political Economy network and Compass, debate was mainly focused on what can be expected from a Tory chancellor. But rather than being grimly resigned to defeat – as would almost certainly have been the case 6 months ago – the audience and panel focused enthusiastically on how Labour can stop the Conservatives, and even what it can do differently if it wins. There was talk of a hung parliament with Vince Cable as Chancellor, even of a small Labour majority.
One of the key factors identified in the Conservatives’ popularity slide was the fact – as Polly Toynbee put it – of the “phantom recession”. At present, unless you are unemployed or one of your immediate family members is, the chances are the recession hasn’t hit you. Your mortgage repayments have probably fallen, prices in the shops are still affordable, and public services are the same as in 2007.
For over a year politicians have been solemnly intoning that “cuts will have to come” and that there are “hard times ahead”. But for many the fear-factor has worn off. So it could be that Tory promises of cutting harder, faster and deeper are turning people away. Many voters are now asking themselves: why do we need to cut at all?
But the truth is that cuts will have to come. Not as soon as the slash-and-burn Tories desire, but eventually. Labour’s pledge to halve the deficit in 4 years is necessary. Protecting the tentative recovery in the short-to-medium term is essential – but eventually the debt has to be dealt with. And when the cuts come, it’s going to hurt.
Which brings us to the question of the next election. As members of the audience and panel became enthusiastic about a Labour resurgence, the understated but excellent Andrew Gamble had a small and important point to make: be careful what you wish for.
For if Labour wins in 2010, the consequences could very well be worse than defeat. Labour would need a clear plan about how to tackle the deficit and stimulate economic growth – hardly an enviable task. The party would be under immense pressure from financial markets to outline and stick to such a plan. Tough – even savage – cuts might be necessitated, and the impact would be felt by ordinary voters who returned Labour out of fear of the Tory axe.
Furthermore, Labour would find itself in a position of having to justify its actions to an increasingly angry electorate, now feeling real economic pain. It would somehow have to find new ideas to revitalise the party from within and without – despite the fact it already looks exhausted and drained of initiative after 13 long years in power.
In short, the danger is that a 2010 win for Labour would be the equivalent of a 1992 win for the Tories. It could spell 5 years of disaster – disaster which might put the party out of power for a generation, or possibly even destroy it. As Jon Cruddas with appropriate under-emphasis put it: “with this one, the stakes are really high”.
–
Seriously, when even the obnoxious Obnoxio is telling you to vote Labour, it’s definitely worth thinking about why.
