Cracks in the Constitution

 As I write (7am on Thursday 7th July) the morning news says that Mr Johnson is still in 10, Downing Street clinging to the premiership in spite of the fact that that key figures in his cabinet have told him that he should resign " for the good of the party and nation" and 46 (and counting ) ministers have resigned from his government.  (That still leaves around 100 in it.)

Johnson claims, with some justification, that he led the party at the last general election, won a stonikng majority of over 80, and therefore is entitled to  remain in office for five years, or until he deicides to call another election.

In other words, Johnson is claiming that the UK has a presidential system, he is "in charge" come what may, "The British People" (he loves claiming to speak for  "the British people, and does so at nearly every Question Time) have chosen him to "get things done" and the Tory MPs who clambered into their seats on his coat tails should jolly well back him.

And it is true that, in the 60+ years I have been studying British politics, our system has become more and more presidential, in spite of bleats of protest from constitutional purists.

However, the truth is that Mr Johnson was not elected by "the British people," but by      25 351 voters in his constituency of Uxbridge and South Ruislip.  To his "credit" he is one of the minority of MPs who actually received more than 50% of the vote: 53% in fact.  But 22 816 voted for other candidates, and over 22 000 who could have didn't bother to vote for him or anyone else.

Hardly enough to make him Emperor of England, still less World King.

I expect that, very soon, maybe not today and maybe not even this month, the normal convention of the constitution kick in.

 The prime minister is not elected by "the people" but appointed by the monarch, who doesn't have much choice.  She or he must appoint whoever commands a majority in the House of Commons.  Clearly Mr Johnson no longer does.  It will be interesting to see which former sycophant  the Tory MPs and then the  party members choose for her/him (should that be Her/Him?) to appoint.

 We "progressive alternatives" are torn in two ways.  Do we want a less-incompetent government to be appointed as quickly and efficiently as possible, or do we prefer to sit back and enjoy watching  the  Tories tear themselves even further apart?

Is hard--line Labour seeing the light?

 A "progressive alliance" of the centre-left parties (Labour, Liberal Democrats, Greens, maybe some Nationalists) to defeat the Tories is flavour of the month amongst many political columnists, (see, for example, here) though less so among the  loyalists of all these parties.  One of the major obstacles to a formal alliance is a clause in the constitution of the Labour Party which insists that their party must (must) field a candidate in every parliamentary constituency in every  election.

The reasoning behind that is perfectly logical.  Labour purists believe that they are fighting a class "war"  for  the workers against the capitalists.  This belief may be backed up by adherence to the teachings of Karl Marx and the inevitability of the success of the proletariat, or, les pedantically, the Fabians, or Social Democrats such as Anthony Crossland in  "The Future of Socialism."  Theirs is  a "cause" which must be fought for in every corner of the land. 

  With equal fervour the Greens believe, quite rightly, that life on the planet is endangered if we carry on behaving as we are, so their cause must be prosecuted in every corner of the world.  We Liberals believe that Liberal Democracy itself, the battle to achieve the greatest possible measure of individual freedom compatible with the freedom of others, is on the back foot (as in the US, UK, Hungary, Russia and China, to name but some) and needs vigorous protection where it exists and proselytation where it doesn't.

 Although neither the Greens nor the Liberal Democrats have clauses in their constitutions demanding that they fight every seat, where groups of dedicated loyalists exist they are reluctant to stand aside. So the Tories, lacking any fundamental beliefs other than that they are the best rulers (and some believing that they are actually born to rule) grab, under our primitive electoral system, the reins of power more often than not in spite of their minority status.

 Fortunately, although a formal progressive alliance is for the moment not on the table, there are increasing signs, highly visible in the recent by-elections, that the parties least able to challenge the Tories, are wiling to to run low key campaigns and give the main challenger an almost free hand (as in  Wakefield, for Labour, and Tiverton and Honiton for the Liberal Democrats) 

 However these are by-elections: they may shake the government but will not change it. So habitual Tories are more likely to "lend " their votes to the challenging party, or deliberately stay at home.

 The big question is, will this "flexibility" extend to a General Eection, when there is the possibility of changing the party in power.

 Fortunately, there are signs that it might.

 An article by Paul Mason in this week's "The New European" appears under the headline "Only a progressive alliance can rid us of these morally bankrupt liars" and concludes:

"Even an informal electoral pact  could wipe the Tories out for a generation.  A short parliament, delivering PR and re-entry into the single market without any recourse to referendums, could be followed  by the first general election in which everybody's vote counts."

This is important becasue Mr Mason is not just a journalist  nor an academic philosopher in an ivory tower such as A C Grayling, but a left-wing Labour candidate.

 An article in last Friday's Guardian (1st July) which discusses accusations that  Sir Keir  Starmer is operating a purge against left-wing candidates, claims  that his defenders point to: 

 ". . .the  longlisting of avowedly left wing commentator Paul  Mason for Stretford and Urmston  in Greater Manchester, as proof candidates from that wing of the party  are not all being vetoed."

 Assuming it's the same Paul Mason, bring it on.

 

Modified By-election Rapture

 

On page 382 of his "Modernity Britain: a shake of the dice,1959-62" historian  David Kynaston, picks out "Orpington" as "perhaps the most famous by-election of the century . . .where. . .Eric Lubbock . . . overturned a Conservative majority  of almost 15 000 into a stunning Liberal victory of almost 8 000."

Well, although we are still only in the first quarter of it, the 21st Century can beat that.

In Tiverton and Honiton we Liberal Democrats have overturned a majority of over 24 000 with a stunning victory  of  over 6 000.    Rapture indeed, and many congratulations to those involved in achieving it, along with relief that Labour has reversed its misfortunes in Wakefield by regaining the seat it lost in 2019.

The Orpington result led to the then Conservative Prime Minister, Harold Macmillan's "night of the long knives," in which he sacked a third of the cabinet in the hope of restoring Tory fortunes.

And, here's where the rapture is modified.  He, and his successor Sir Alec Douglas Home, very nearly did.  In spite of the low ebb to which Tory fortunes appeared to have fallen after 13 years of power and a dash of sexual scandal,  Labour under Harold Wilson won the subsequent general election by only four seats.  

The Tories are good at recovering and doubtless have not lost the knack.

In addition, a  numerate friend has pointed out to me that the combined  votes cast for the major parties in the two by-elections last Thursday were as follows:

Conservatives:          24 634

Liberal Democrat:     23 045

Labour:                     14 728

Green:                       1 651

It beggars belief that, even after 12 years in continuous power, and with the lies, sleaze incompetence and failures of the present administration under Johnson's amoral leadership, the Tory party can still muster more votes than anyone else, even in the hot- house atmosphere of by-elections, when party loyalists  are more  willing to stay at home, or "lend" their votes  to other parties just to make a protest and give the incumbents a kick in the backside.

The combined non-Tory vote is massively greater than the Tory vote but, unless we can replicate the informal non- aggression pacts  which operated in these two by-elections at a general election, the Tories are destined to yet another victory..

The "progressive parties" are not yet ready, or have decided that the electors is not yet ready, for formal pacts to avoid avoid fighting each other at all, so informal low key campaigning seems to be the best alternative we  can manage. 

However informal, the Tory PR machine will be quick to dub such understandings as wicked conspiracies.  To counter this we need to be ready and point out that their current 80 seat majority was achieved by their  persuading UKIP not to stand against them in 2019.  Maybe we should refer to the present government as the Tory-UKIP coalition, or even the Tory-UKIP Front.

 Be that as it may, it is possible that in fact the electorate is ahead of the party stalwarts in this, and that the common sense which has clearly operated in the by-elections will transfer to a general elections.  I sincerely hope so

Railway Strike: confrontation, not co-operation

The railway strike which begins today invites comparison with the 1970s. This is not, however, everyone's view, for reasons this constructive article by Will Hutton makes clear.

Whether or not these comparisons with the 70s are valid, what is clear is that we have learned so little in the last half century.  Britain's basic problem, than and still now, is that both our political and our economic institutions are organised to promote  confrontation rather than co-operation.

In our politics, our "winner takes all" electoral system  narrows our choice to two major sides, which sit opposite each other in parliament, jeer at each other and try to impress their sporters by acting tough.  Confrontation rather  than co-operation results.  This was damaging enough when the  winners' arrogance was tempered by deference to the largely unwritten rules of the "good chap theory of government."  Now that these conventions are routinely ignored by the present government, or, if they are written, torn up and re-written to suit the present incumbents, we are staggering further and further away from the  true democracy of which we are pioneers, and which, among other things, assumes the rule of law and respect for the views of minorities.

The same confrontational structure dominates our economy.  Put at its simplest, private company boards represent solely the shareholders, and have  the legal duty to maximise their profits.  Excluded from formal representation, workers band together in trade unions and unite to try to achieve better wages and conditions.

When I first campaigned as a Liberal way back in the 1960s we proposed new structures in both politics and economics in order to replace competition with co-operation.  In politics we proposed that our parliaments  should be chosen using an electoral system based on proportional representation achieved by single transferable votes in multimember constituencies..

 To promote co-operation in industry (and there still was lots of it) we  argued that company boards should, broadly speaking, represent not just the shareholders, but also the employees and some form of community representation. Each should have one third of the seats so that, crudely, neither owners nor employees  could have it "all their own way" but would need to gain the support of some of another group,  or maybe both of them, for their ideas to be implemented.

 This, of course, made little progress, though some companies, such as the John lewis Partnership, have adopted the allied idea of profit sharing with great success, and similar structures exist in the Scandinavian countries, Germany and France, all of which now have higher levels of productivity and standards of living than the UK.  

The present rail confrontation illustrates the weakness of the government's position.  It is a nonsense to claim that the issues are for the management and unions to sort out for themselves.  Of course the government has a stake and should exercise it.  After all, railways are a public service and are heavily subsidised from the public purse. 

The managements have the genuine case that railway usage now, party as a result of the increase in home working, has reached only 80% of its pre-pandemic level, and adjustments need to be made.  The unions argue that their members  have kept the service running in the dangerous times of the pandemic, their wages have remained static and need to reflect the present levels of inflation, and that adjustments should not involve compulsory redundancies reduce safety levels

The government, representing society, should be involved so that a suitable compromise is reached.

Instead of acting constructively in this way, one suspects that Prime Minister Johnson is delighted  to have a "national emergency" which takes attention away from Partygate and the shambolic performance  of his government, and the official opposition is terrified of any move which might enable the right wing press to identify it as on the side of the workers.

Both our political and economic structures need urgent reform.  Instead we are still trapped in the confrontational grooves which existed fifty years ago.  We have learned nothing and, sadly, there is little sign that serious ideas about reform are anywhere near the surface of current political discussion.

UK/EU:60 years of standing still

 I am somewhat belatedly* reading Volume 2 of David Kynaston's  "Modernity Britain" which covers the years 1959 to 62.  Regarding attitudes to the then EEC, on page 252 he quotes the Liberal luminary, Lady Violet Bonham Carter (Asquith's daughter, no less) in  a letter to her son (presumably Mark.), as follows:

"Both the major parties are split down the middle. . . Many Tories still don't realise that we have already lost "national sovereignty" - through NATO, UN,Gatt, IMF, etc.etc. . .The Labour party are Jingo Little Englanders, economic nationalists & xenophobes who dread the "foreigner". . ."

As in so much the Liberal Party was (and the Liberal Democrats now are) well ahead of the game.  

To be fair most of the Conservative Party moved on and it was Macmillan's government that tried and Heath's that eventually succeeded in joining the the EU, and eventually most of the Labour party came to accept membership, some with enthusiasm after their eyes were opened by Jacques Delors.

Unfortunately the anti-EU fantasists, whom David Cameron dubbed "the Bastards," have now taken control of the Tory Party and manipulate their former vote winner, PM Johnson, like a puppet on a string. The Labour Party lurk in the shadows for fear upsetting their former supporters in the "red wall" areas, whom they suspect of fitting Lady Vi's description.

Both major parties share the blame for the debacle of the Brexit vote.  Neither has espoused full-throated enthusiasm for the European ideal, both have been quick to blame any measure which seemed to be unpopular on "Brussels" even though for most of the period of our membership unanimity was required, so their governments must have agreed to them.

Public opinion has been so poisoned by the press that no political leader now has the confidence to lead the obviously urgently required fight to rejoin, even though the damage to our economy and international influence which result from our far from splendid isolation become daily more evident.

Surely this is a "call to arms" for the Liberal Democrats.  Political parties should be prepared to lead public opinion,  not cravenly follow grudging prejudices, or simply hide in the shadows until the "sunlit uplands" re-emerge by some mysterious process of their own.

 

* I read "Modernity Britain,"  which covered the years 1957-59,when it was first published in 2013, and assumed that was it. I've only just realised that a second volume had appeared a year later. Given that I was in my early 20s in that period Kynaston's meticulous research awakens many happy memories, and a few painful ones.

The NIP: how it came to be.

 I am indebted to my friend and fellow Liberal, John Cole of Bradford, for this succinct analysis of how the UK government, apparently in good faith, signed the International Treaty containing the Northern Ireland Protocol.

1. In 2017 Mr Johnson, then a member of Theresa May's government, spoke vehemently against any customs sea border between Great Britain and Northern Ireland.

2. In an effort to avoid a sea border Mrs May negotiated a complex “Northern Ireland Backstop”. The Backstop became almost universally hated on the Conservative benches and in consequence:

3..When he became prime minister Johnson re-negotiated with the EU to get rid of the Backstop, but only by replacing it with a customs sea border between Great Britain and Ireland. (see 1 above)

4. The Northern Ireland Protocol (including sea border) was part of the agreement reached with the EU and signed off by both parties.

5. Johnson presented this “oven ready” agreement to the Commons where the Conservatives voted for it - and them went out to win the 2019 general election off the back of it - having “got Brexit done”.

6. Today Unionists in Northern Ireland plus our Conservative government rail against the Protocol and insist that the EU must now sit down and either amend it or scrap it.

7 . I [John Cole] acknowledge that the NIP is causing considerable damage to trade and making life difficult for exporters. But this was known in early 2016 when Sir John Major and Tony Blair jointly issued warnings.

8. These sage warnings were dismissed by Brexiters as part of “Project Fear”. Now their arrogance, wrong-headedness and unwillingness to engage with reality is reaping its comeuppance.

 So there we are: no ifs, no buts, no arguments about the EU being "inflexible" or "over-implementing."  They were told, they knew,  they signed it -  there is no point in their trying to blame someone else.

Security and the Queen's Speech

We British people, along with  those in  most  countries, face three serious threats to our security.  Two are immediate: the possible escalation of the Russia/Ukraine war into a Europe-wide and potentially nuclear conflagration, and a "cost of living" crisis.  The third,  global heating, is more long term but requires immediate action.

The Prime Minister likes to pretend that he is playing a leading role in averting war and is today visiting both Finland and Sweden, presumably to acquaint them of the joys of being members of NATO.  In fact his interventions, along with the bellicose utterances of our Foreign Secretary, are more likely to inflame matters further than lead towards compromises which will at least stop the killing.

 Fortunately, in this context,  Britain's international standing is now so diminished that I doubt if what either of them says or does is likely to make much difference.

There is, however,  a great deal the government can do to help the most vulnerable to avoid the worst effects of the cost of living crisis arising from the explosion in energy prices and the prediction that inflation could reach 10%.  The effects of these are serious and immediate.  Already three quarters of a million of our fellow citizens are experiencing destitution (insufficient means to secure adequate food, warmth and shelter) and a further quarter of a million are expected to join them as the year progresses if there is no meaningful intervention. Their social security is at risk, which is totally unnecessary and complexly avoidable in a country as rich and highly developed as the UK.

In the government's programme announced yesterday (and rather grandly called the Queen's Speech)  the government claims that there are no short term fixes and that the problem must be dealt with by long term growth.  This is half true.  

There is  considerable need (and has been for decades) for us to improve our productivity in order for us to be competitive with other economies.  But we need to define "growth " more carefully.  That which uses non-renewable resources or further pollutes the planet is not the answer (but likely to be on the cards).  Only sustainable growth, if it can be achieved other than by the exploitation of other people's resources, is the long term acceptable solution.

Sustainable or otherwise , the million destitute people need help now, not is in some distant fairyland future.

Here's how that  could be given :

1.  State subsides to all low-to-medium-income households so that they can afford their fuel bills and keep warm.

2.  Increase all social security benefits by at least the anticipated rate of inflation and preferably more.  Re-introducing the £20 per week Universal Credit boost would be a start and could be done immediately)

3.  Abandon the proposed and deflationary increase in national Insurance contributions.

4.  Join Europe''s  Customs Union and Single Market. This would not be a betrayal of the Brexit vote. The Leave Campaign  frequently implied that we should remain in both. Such an act would have the added bonus of solving the Northern Ireland Protocol problem "at a stroke."   If formally rejoining is too much to swallow, then we we could "re-align" to them (which seems to be Jacob Rees Mogg's practice anyway). What we need in the famous Keynesian  "long run" and before we're all dead (which for the destitute million may not be al that long) is an export-led boom, and hampering out exporters by splendid isolation is not the best way of achieving one.

The first three of these proposals will cost a considerable amount of money, and the government will argue that the "public finances" cannot afford it.

That is nonsense.

In spite of the incompetence and missed opportunities of the last half century we are still a very rich country.  If our national income were shared equally between every child, woman and man living in the country, that would produce an  income of over £30 000 per year each. Or £120 000 for every family for four.

Untold affluence.

I'm not suggesting it should be so divided, just using that as an illustration of how rich we are.

So there is plenty of scope for additional taxation (perhaps just to come up to the OECD average).

The aim should be cut the taxes on those things that will lead to deflation  (income of the lower paid, taxes on employment such as NICs, and  expenditure taxes ),  and tax the many things that make least impact on current incomes and expenditure (known in the jargon as the "circular flow")

There's plenty to choose from:

• a windfall tax on excess profits (especially of the energy companies)
• a wealth tax: say 1% of all wealth over half a million
• a land tax
• an effective inheritance tax
• a financial transactions tax
• effective capital gains taxes
• carbon taxes
• pollution taxes.

Don't panic: I'm not suggestion we tax all of them - just illustrating the variety available if we had a political party courageous enough to grasp the many golden nettles.