Archbishop on the ball.

Here are three quotes  from the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, when addressing the Trades Union Congress last week.

On Universal Credit (a "rolled up" payment to struggling families):

It was supposed to make it simpler and more efficient.  It has not done that.  It has left too many people worse off, putting them at risk of hunger, debt, rent arrears and food banks.  When universal credit comes into an area the [number] going to food banks  goes up.   What is clear is, if [the government] cannot get it right they need to stop rolling it out. 

On individual and corporate responsibility:

Not paying taxes speaks of the absence of commitment to our shared humanity,, to solidarity and justice.  If you earn money from a community you should pay your share of tax to that community.

And best of all he singled out the vast international companies, even naming Amazon:

. . . when vast companies like Amazon and other on-line traders . . .can get away with paying almost nothing in tax, there is something wrong with the tax system.  They don't pay a real living wage, so the taxpayer must support their workers with benefits; and having leeched off the taxpayer once, they don't pay for our defence, for security,  for stability,  for justice,  for health, for equality, for education.


So while one of our major parties struggles to take the country down the road to Brexit, which the vast majority of its MPs know to be wrong, another allows itself to be distracted by arcane attempts to define antisemitism, and the third (if still major) pre-occupies itself by tweaking its party rules, the Eton-educated Archbishop hits the nail on the head - indeed three nails on three heads.

Of course the poor man was rather undermined by the revelation that the Church Commissioners invest heavily in Amazon.  Lets hope those financial wizzards will now sit up, take notice, and disinvest.

And I suspect the Commissioners are not the only sinners.  Amazon only stays in business if people buy from it.  How about a boycott?  If you need a spur to action read the first chapters of  James Bloodworth's book "Hired" https://www.waterstones.com/book/hired/james-bloodworth/9781786490148" which reveals the squalid and inhuman conditions of work in an Amazon warehouse.

For more details see here:

http://keynesianliberal.blogspot.com/2018/03/britains-deregulated-labour-market.html

That was written in March but things haven't changed.  Neither will they, until our MPs have the guts to look behind the causes of the Brexit vote, take a leaf out of the Archbishop's book, and tackle the real problems facing our society.

No cheers for Chequers

Poor Mrs May: trying to do the "right thing," yet 50 of her MPs plotting openly to remove her.  But it wasn't a real plot: the leaders (Johnson, Rees Mogg, Davis) weren't there. Maybe just "flying a kite."

We Liberals are obviously disposed towards compromise becasue our devotion to proportional representation makes political compromises almost inevitable.  Yet the Chequers proposal is a good example of how compromise can lead, not to the best, but the worst of both worlds.

There is a logic to Mrs May's position.   She voted Remain, even campaigned for it, though not very wholeheartedly, and knows full well that Britain's cultural, social, economic and political interests are best served by being inside the EU.  Yet in order to hold her party together she finds it necessary to "honour" the so-called "will of the British people" as expressed in the referendum, and leave it.  "Brexit means Brexit."

So her  rational position is to leave the EU but "align" ourselves as closely as possible with its rules so as to continue to reap as many as possible  of the advantages of membership.  That is what, in essence, the Chequers proposal amounts to.

Sadly, this leaves the UK with the worst, rather than the best, of both worlds.  We continue to observe the EU's rules but no longer have any say in making them.  Nor are we any longer formally able to participate in contributing to the international political influence of this massively powerful body. At the same time we shall become economically weaker as firms with international clout move their headquarters and operations to remain within the EU rather than in what will become a political and economic outpost.

Even with the parliamentary Whips operating there are probably enough MPs  to reject Chequers, or any similar deal.  Ideal this would be followed by a free vote of al MPs as to whether  to leave with no deal, which I suspect fewer than 100 MPs really support, or withdraw Article 50, apologise to the EU for wasting so much time, and Remain.

If MPs haven't the guts to do what they know to be the right thing, at the very least they could pass the buck to the people.

Confessions of an immoderate Liberal

I have a great respect for Sir Vince Cable.  He is a competent leader and one of the very few current British politicians with what used to be called "bottom"  -  serious and successful experience in the wider world as well as in politics. So it pains me to criticise him, but his latest and much heralded  pronouncement is wrong on two counts.

First, at a time when overwhelmingly the most serious issue in our politics is Brexit, this is not the time to distract attention with musings about arcane features of the party's rules (should non-MPs be eligible to become leader; should we create a second tier of non-paying "supporters" along with present members?).

At a time when the Labour Party has allowed itself to be obsessed with fine definitions of what is and what isn't antisemitism, and the Tories are immersed in the malfunctions of Boris Johnson's private life it is daft for the one proudly pro-European party to divert serious  discussion even further with  details of party organisation which, though important, are of little relevance to the biggest crisis in British politics since Lord North's mis-handling of the American Colonies.

Even more seriously Sir Vince has declared his aim to build a "movement of moderates."

We Liberals are not moderates: we are a party with a distinct position of the libertarian left (as opposed to Labour's position on the statist or authoritarian left).  I hate to use the word "passionate" because it  hints of the  faux-enthusiasms which candidates for "The Apprentice" try to impress Alan Sugar. 

But there is nothing "moderate" about Liberals' commitment to:

•  Liberty, which we define as the maximum amount of individual freedom commensurate with the freedom of others:
• a much greater measure of equality, with a generous social security system to protect the weakest in our society  and fair and effective progressive systems  to tax wealth and income,  both to finance a society which values every individual and  to prevent some from becoming so powerful that they exert excessive influence over its operation:
• a reformed democracy with an elected second chamber, and proportional representation by single transferable  vote in multi-member constituencies for the main chamber:
• genuine democratic "stake holder" participation in the  organisation and of commerce and industry, and the distribution of the profits:
• substantial devolution of powers, safeguarded by a written constitution, to the constituent nations of the UK and regional and local governments:
• continued and enthusiastic  membership of the European Union:
• dedication to the rule of law both nationally and internationally:
• wholehearted support to international organisations, romr the United nations downwards, no ifs, no buts - that's the way the future should go:
• a reformed world economic order, enabling the citizens of poorer countries to reach acceptable standards both physical and cultural:
• serious concern for the health and conservation of the planet:
•  our defence tailored to current threats and our current status.

That's the best I can do off the cuff, but I'm sure there is more.

What I, and most Liberal activists, want  to build is a party that proclaims this vision loudly and boldly, not one in the uninspiring centre which promises  simply to avoid the worse excesses of the others.

Sir Vince is fully capable of leading the fight for such a society.  He should

Antisemitism and the Labour Party: an outsider's view

I am not now and never have been a member or supporter of Britain's Labour Party , but I can't help thinking that the accusations of antisemitism in the Party are a well- orchestrated smear to distract them from their true purpose for most of the last six months.  And a very successful one too.

Back in March this year, conveniently before the May Councils Elections, it was brought to the media's notice that Jeremy Corbyn had, six years earlier in 2012, praised a street mural which, among others, disrespectfully portrayed some bankers who may have been meant to be Jewish..  Mr Corbyn apologised, claiming that he hadn't looked at the cartoon sufficiently carefully.

Then,  just before a crucial vote  on Brexit in Parliament, it was drawn to our attention that Mr Corbyn had, four years ago in 2014,  been present at a wreath-laying ceremony in honour of some Palestinian Martyrs. Then last week Lord Sacks, a former Chief Rabbi, reminded us all  that in 2013, five years ago, Mr Corbyn has said that some Jewish persons had not understood English irony, a remark which, Sacks claims, was antisemitic.

It seems to me that some conservative, and possibly Conservative, forces, unable to  damage Labour on Mr Corbyn's policies which are largely popular, (taking the trains back into public ownership, not replacing Trident, ending ideological government austerity etc.  see here for 21 other examples) have trawled though Corbyn's long political history and concluded that his Achilles heels is his persistent support for the Palestinian cause and his consequent criticisms of the government of Israel, and so have chosen to attack him on that.

 I suspect they may even have a list of superficially ambiguous statements and situations which they can drip, drip drip into their sympathetic media at opportune times, and whatever Corbyn and Labour do we shall not here the last of  it for a long time. 



It is called playing the man rather than the ball, or, if you want to be posh, ad hominem.

It has certainly been very successful, and Labour has been distracted throughout the summer  from placing the emphasis on  their policies to heal Britain's fractured economy and society.  Those are what we should be constructively  discussing.

And in the meantime our equally fractured and even more destructive Conservative Party ploughs on virtually unscathed.

I have several friends who are members of the Labour Party, and none are aware of any overt antisemitism, thought there may well be, as there are in the Liberal Democrats, fierce critics of the actions of the government of Israel.

 The irony is that, historically, Jews in Britain have been largely Labour rather than Conservative supporters.

And the organisations which exhibited the most overt antisemitism, golf cubs and gentlemen's cubs in Pall Mall, which for years blackballed Jews, had a largely Conservative-supporting membership.

Hats off to the effectiveness of Tory black propaganda

Austerity, prisons and long -term damage

Towards the end of this week's Monday Guardian column on economic affairs Larry Elliott wrote:

It is no real defence for those who so avidly embraced austerity to point to the return of growth as evidence that they were right all along.  All economies recover eventually: the question is whether a less damaging approach could have been adopted,  to which the answer is yes . . . As it is, extensive and permanent damage has been done. First there is the social cost of a decade of failed austerity: the closed libraries, the mothballed care centres, the increase in the number of food  banks.

Elliott doesn't mention  the shocking deterioration of conditions in our prisons because when he was writing the bombshell of the report on Birmingham prison (blood, vomit and faeces not cleaned up, infestment with cockroaches and  rats, staff hiding in fear of violent prisoners, other prisoner cowering behind their cell doors as urine and faeces were squirted at them, staff asleep)  had hit the headlines

The running of Birmingham prison has now been taken out of the hands of the private company, G4S, and my first reaction was indignation that this company, of known and proven incompetence (under their original name of Group 4 they "lost" some prisoners on the very first day of their contract to transport them, and they are the ones who failed to supply security for the London Olympics so the public sector in the form of the army had to be called in to do the job) was till being given government contacts.

I still stand by that.  Whatever the pros and cons of the relative efficiencies of the public and private sectors (and the evidence is there's not much to choose between them) there is no case for deeply personal services to be outsourced for private profit. The deprivation of liberty is surely a function which should be reserved to the state alone.

However, it has been pointed out by many (one example here) that the crisis in our prisons (and Birmingham is apparently one of many), is just one, and perhaps the most hidden and least susceptible to public indignation, result of the misguided austerity programme operated by our governments since 2010.  The Ministry of Justice, responsible for the prisons,  has suffered the deepest cuts of any government department - scheduled to be an astonishing 40% before 2020.  The number of prison officers had already been reduced by 7 000 by February last year. Today's figure is surely higher.

The mantra "doing more with less" is just a silly slogan snatched from a facile business studies textbook.  There is waste in all organisation, public and private, and there always will be.  But  there is a  limit to the extent that such "waste" can be squeezed out without serious damage to the effectiveness of the organisation, and that limit is reached well before the 40% mark.

Cuts to library services, neglected parks, closed Sure Start centres for parents and children, may be shrugged off by the comfortable as just the froth on the essentials of society.  After all, the comfortable can afford to buy their own books,  have their own gardens to relax in, and the very comfortable can afford nannies to bring up their kids in the paths of health and  virtue.  But the poorer amongst us  need those facilities.  Theri absence is a blot on our society.

 And the inhumane treatment of those society has decided to imprison, a huge proportion of whom are mentally ill, is a blot on our claim to be civilised.

Winston Churchill, that hero of the Tories, is on record as saying:     "The mood and temper  of the public in regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilisation of any country," (though he was probably still a Liberal when he said that.)


Today's Tories could begin to make amends by dropping Brexit and  transferring  the 9 000 extra bodies  apparently now needed to organise it to the prison service instead.  That would be a start.



   

   

   


   


   
   
   

George Cunningham showed the way

The  former labour MP. George Cunningham, who died last month,  is the one who who moved an amendment to the first Scottish Devolution Bill in 1979 to say that a referendum in favour would only be valid if at least 40% of those entitled to vote (my emphasis) were in favour.

In the event the referendum on Scottish devolution was "won"  by 51.6% to 48.4% (very familiar figures) but that 51.6% was only 32.9% of the registered Scottish electorate.  So the referendum result was "inoperative."

Had Cunningham's logic been applied to the EU Referendum  it would have suffered the same fate. In round figures, 52% voted in favour of leaving the EU and 48% voted against. Since the turnout was 73% that 52% for "Leave" represents only 37% of the registered electorate.  So the option to leave  would have failed the Scottish test.

And not only that, but the registered electorate excluded three groups most affected by the result:  citizens of other EU  countries working in the UK;  British citizens working in other parts of the EU; and the UK's 16 and 17 year-olds.

So the desperate trumpeting of the leading Leavers that "The British people have decided."" We must implement the will of the people," "We cannot ignore this democratic decision," etc. is simply ill-considered hot air.

The truth is that just over a third of the restricted franchise voted to leave, another slightly less more than a third voted to remain, and well over a quarter didn't express their opinion.

According to the Guardian's obituary: "[Cunningam's] lifelong  belief was that MPs should act according to their consistence and use their judgment in the interest of constituents."

QED

We should follow Cunningham, take off the Whips,  give MPs a free vote in parliament, then we can get on with tackling the real problems facing the country - and the world.

People's vote on Brexit is second best solution

Opinion polls tell us that the voting public have now moved very marginally in favour of remaining in the EU, and, according to this recent report in the Guardian, significant sections of the Labour party are now calling on their leaders to support a second referendum. I find this encouraging but also worrying.

Encouraging becasue, as the article makes clear, for trade union members (and working people in general?) "Brexit was a bad idea in 2016 and things have only got worse. The final agreement must go back to the people."  This from former union leader Billy Hayes.

A current leader, Manuuel Cortes, spells out: "Tory Brexit is an idealogical project  that will attack the rights of workers, deregulate the economy  and blame immigrants for the failure of the elite. . . there is nothing in this for working people.  That's why the trade union movement  is increasingly moving towards  supporting a popular vote on the deal."

It is just possible that such blunt speaking from this source, coupled with the increasingly shambolic  failures of the government in the negotiations, might just convince those "left behind" who chose voting Leave as a protest against a complacent ruling elite who  have neglected their needs for far too long, might just be persuaded to change their minds.

But:there is no guarantee, or even likelihood, that a second referendum would be any more fairly fought than the first.  Even if the rules are tightened:

• Leave lied in the first and will lie again in the second, largely though unrealistic claims unsupported by evidence.
• By overspending Leave broke the law in the first and will probably do so again.  Petty fines are no deterrent.
• Their message will be simple - "We have already decided - how dare 'they' try to overturn democracy?
• The pro-leave press, largely owned by foreign-resident tax evaders, will howl "Foul.."
• From staffing our "Leeds for Europe" street stall a couple of Saturdays ago I get the distinct impression that the the public is now indifferent and that the "Just get on with it" view will either vote to leave even if they were originally remainers, or, more likely simply not bother to vote.
• All  the worthy arguments by the trade unionists, quoted above, were made in the first referendum, and were ineffective.
• How will the question (s) put on a second referendum be agreed?  Will it be "Accept the deal or crash out?" " Accept the deal or remain in?" "Accept the deal or re-negotiate?"  Or will there be more than two options - "Accept the deal, crash out or stay in?"  And if more than two options, will second preferences be permitted in the voting system?. For a more detailed analysis of the possibilities see.here.

Frankly, it is evident that a second referendum poses more problems than it solves. It is not the best  "way out."

We should remain true to our constitution, hammered out over the years.  It is not perfect, but it's the best we have at the moment.

We are a representative  parliamentary  democracy.

The easy promises of the leave campaign are now exposed as unsubstantiated hot air, all informed opinion points to the fact that the deal with the EU we already have is far better than anything else that could be agreed with us outside the EU,  and the vast majority of MPs recognise this.

 They should do their duty, grasp the nettle and put a stop to the whole nonsense.  If parliament were in session this could be done tomorrow, without wasting further time.  It can be done in the autumn once parliament resumes.  If some MPs with strong Leave voting constituencies lose their  seats surely that is a small price to pay for saving the nation.from folly?