Liberal Democracy in Britain — now is the hour

     I spent my life assuming that the Liberal Party (becoming in time the LibDems) was my natural political home. But I was thinking of Gladstone, Asquith, and Lloyd George; thinking of a liberalism that extended the franchise, gave home rule to Ireland, massively taxed the landed magnates, introduced pensions and a heath service, and weakened the privileges of the House of Lords. I was taken with the idea that Liberals commanded the moral high-ground, unique in British politics and perhaps in world politics in that they fought not for their own pockets, but for other people's welfare, people less privileged than themselves. Liberalism was much more than laissez-faire free markets. 

     I trusted that Liberal policies would be well considered, and costed; by philosophers and economists. As I have grown older I have begun to doubt that superior moral and intellectual underpinning, and realise now that I have to do some radical thinking myself. I cannot rely on the Party line, but must shoulder my share of responsibility in forming the Party line. We must not let the LibDem label signify an empty reluctance to hold an opinion.

     I was brought up to the typically British notion that we have little or nothing to learn from other countries. It was a shock to find that, back in the seventies and early eighties, Germany and Scandinavia had already legislated for worker participation (Mitbestimmung, q.v.). More recently I came across the concept of Ordoliberalismus (q.v.), which emphasises the role of the state in actively ensuring that the free market produces results close to its theoretical potential. Germany evolved this vision back in the fifties; we seem not to have fully grasped it yet. 

     We have become mesmerized by the USA. There is the facile and lazy assumption that whatever works in the USA will work here, so we build shopping malls and BurgerKings, and watch Hollywood films, and abandon the adverb. But the USA has as maniacal a fear of socialism and trade unions as it has a love of firearms. Have we not yet grasped that we are different? We (I speak for myself and surely for many millions) are nearer to Europe than to the USA, geographically, climatically, emotionally, historically. 

     I think Capitalism is too rampant, in the UK. Are the current LibDems going to do anything about super-tax, wealth tax, off-shore accounts, money laundering, green energy, worker participation on boards of large and medium companies, curbing director salaries, reviewing student fees, and local government funding? If we stay in Europe have the LibDems got any policies to ameliorate real defects of the Europe project or to improve the way Europe is?
     In the history of the LibDem party this is a crucial 15 days. If we want to vote against the chaos of Brexit, we may have to vote with Labour in certain marginal constituencies. It would be an absurd vanity to expect a labour candidate to stand aside for a LibDem candidate if they are polling far more strongly. (In some few constituencies it should be the labour that steps aside.) 
     There will never be any future for the LibDems, and no proportional representation, till that is grasped. But absurd vanity seems to exist. Oh dear!

--

Ian West, 9 Thenford road, Middleton Cheney, Banbury, 

Another Public Meeting on Brexit?

Another Public Meeting on Brexit?

Dear Tommy Gilchrist,

    Thank you (and Andrea Leadsom) for inviting me to attend your public meeting on 25th Jan. I would have come, but once again travelling abroad prevents me; I fly that morning. 

    Two years ago, I joined Varoufakis and advocated a Norway-style arrangement that would cost, but might last 10 years while we sorted things out. I still advocate that. 

    The next best option might be a second referendum, though there are arguments against.  Of the various sound reasons for avoiding (if possible) a second referendum (what of the cost? should we ask the public their views when they do not even know how the EU parliament is elected, nor its function? what if it has a different result on a smaller turnout?  what is the question? what about having a third, and a forth?), reaching from the sensible to the ludicrous, the one argument that is unacceptably illogical is to say that it is an offence against democracy and an insult to the public to ignore the first referendum. It IS democracy to have another referendum. We have all-but established that the public was both ill-informed and mis-informed at the 2016 referendum, and electoral rules were broken. Two years is a long time. Anyway, the 2016 was itself the second referendum on this topic. 

    The ‘May deal’ seems worse than the above two options. (The Irish problem is geometrically insoluble — a border between UK and EU, but not between Eire/NI/GB). And to sidle up to Europe for frictionless trade but with no say in the rules seems semi-daft. 

    The handling of this affair (both the enthusiastic widening of Europe, and the subsequent ill-informed panic) shows up the British Parliamentary system as weak. The Labour Party has spent 2 years manoeuvring to overthrow Tory austerity; they are neither united, nor interested in Brexit. There has still not been a debate in Parliament on the issues involved. Why? Fear of the result? And anyway, Parliament is not representative. 

    Yours sincerely, Cawstein

---

9 Thenford Road, Middleton Cheney,
BANBURY, OX17 2NB,

Racists and Racism

Racists and Racism

     Jeremy Corbyn is said to have wanted to add the following rider to the Labour Party’s adoption of the IHRA definition of ‘antisemitism’: “it should not be considered antisemitic to describe, Israel, its policies or the circumstances around its foundation as racist because of their discriminatory impact, or to support another settlement of the Israel-Palestine conflict”.

    I have been trying to think of a way in which Jeremy Corbyn could possibly be regarded as other than perfectly correct to say that the policies, and manner of founding, of Israel was racist. But, even if his statement was correct [ref.1], it may have been ‘wrong’ to say it. It may even have been anti-semitic to spell out the rider; though there is often a case to be made for telling your friends unpleasant and hurtful truths. 

    Both semitism and anti-semitism are racist. On the 19th of July this year Israel’s Knesset passed a law [ref.2] that itself declared Israel to be a racist state: “the national home of the Jewish people”.  But racism is not necessarily bad. (Who could take offence if I say “Ethiopians and Kenyans make outstanding marathon runners.”?) However, racism does represent a certain type of loose thinking that allows generalizations, which can be productive as well as dangerous.  

    Corbyn may have been wrong in thinking this was the right time to raise a pedantic, linguistic or philosophical point. But what about the political point? The State of Israel exist. There comes a time when the past seems beyond the reach of the law. In the various courts of world opinion (legal and lay), judgements are still pending on the actions of the Egyptians in 1948 and 1967, of Israel in 1982 against Lebanon, in 2014 against Gaza, and in 2018, in the Knesset. 

    It is hard to draw a clear line between the living issues and the dead. Perhaps an issue is ‘dead’ when less than half the population remembers it. On this basis Israel exists, but perhaps it should be helped back towards democracy and the rescinding of its law of 19th July 2018. Sometimes one has to be hurtful to be kind.

References

[1]  The online Oxford dictionaries give two meanings for the word ‘racism’:

i.  Prejudice, discrimination, or antagonism directed against someone of a different race based on the belief that one's own race is superior.

ii.  The belief that all members of each race possess characteristics, abilities, or qualities specific to that race, especially so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races. )

[2]  Among the 11 provisions of the new law, it describes Israel as "the national home of the Jewish people" and says the right to exercise national self-determination there is "unique to the Jewish people". https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-44881554

Future of the Labour Party

The Future of the Labour Party

Introduction

     ‘Power’ in British politics requires commanding the ‘interest' of 51% of the population. The movement called 'New Labour' in the nineteen nineties grasped the truth that our ‘first past the post’ voting system leaves no room for parties that  appeal to minorities: to Trade Union members, Manual Workers, Recyclers, Climate Changers, or Liberals. To campaign honourably and passionately on behalf of the weakest sectors of society may inspire 30%; but not 51%. Climate change may worry 30% of the country. But unless these interest groups combine, and combine with others, till their consortium comprises a majority of the population, they will never have the power to form a government and change the law.

     It may be that 'New Labour’ grasped the even more depressing truth that the biggest umbrella to cover the biggest interest group is money. If you can convincingly claim to have policies that will make 51 percent of the population richer, you will gain power. If you offer to raise disability allowance you may gain some respect, but will gain a mere handful of votes for your cause.

     What New Labour did not grasp, however, is the importance of proportional representation. Had they introduced proportional representation when they had the power to do so, the forming of these alliances would have become a much simpler task. Parliament would have become more representative and more powerful (relative to Government). Our present electoral system is a system for generating disgruntled voters. With three or more parties we have the triumph of some 30% and the eventual despair of the 70%.  The system disenfranchises the majority of voters and throws their votes away. Voting turnout falls. (In ‘Safe Seats’ voting is always pointless for supporters of the 2^nd 3^rd and 4^th parties.) It is perfectly possible to devise a system where at least some account is taken of the 70% of votes that are lost in the present system. The first step would be simply to publicise the figures.

     Labour surely arose as a class-based party. Its success doubtless stemmed from the  fact that there were many more manual workers than owners. If the many little people combined and unified, they could take on the big guns. But automation has progressively eroded the manual work-force, and we have seen an enormous growth in the numbers of white-collar workers. Today the Labour Party probably attracts some traditional workers, and some others who are the loyal sons and daughters of former Labour voters. Labour’s support for the underprivileged, and the unemployed may appeal to another bunch of voters, and this altruism may attract further voters with ethical issues. But this is inevitably a weak alliance. Without the power to make law, it is hard to convince the electorate that Labour would reduce CO2 levels better than Green Party.

     There is an enormously important factor in deciding the outcome of constituency elections which is barely touched on in the media, and that is the intellectual and moral quality of the candidates. Unless a party can field good quality candidates they will not win elections. And failure to win elections feeds back on the ability to attract good candidates. Unfortunately the hysteresis in this feedback loop is vey long — maybe extending to a generation. After a by-election, there is much discussion of the issues, and voter responses to those issues, but scarcely a mention of the candidate. However, in a general election it is possible to detect candidate-specific results as ‘results that buck the trend’. Though these seldom attract the attention of the press unless that candidate wins. However, it is quite clear that there are good candidates and weak candidates; and that voters can tell the difference.

     In a two-party system the ‘official opposition’ can be seen as a government in waiting.  The quality of the party in opposition will be judged very largely by its performance in the House of Commons. It may wish to oppose at every opportunity, or it may wish to appear judicious. But need we have a two-party system and an ‘official opposition’? We should think outside that box.

     Any two-party system is divisive; it causes, exploits, and perpetuates a split in opinion. The original Right/Left nomenclature comes from the French Revolution when those wanting little change sat on the right side of the legislative chamber and the new radicals who wanted to change everything sat on the left. It was not in essence a Rich/Poor divide, but of course there is a tendency for those who are already well off to resist change, while the dissatisfied will seek it. In nineteenth century Britain the split was not based on wealth but on source of wealth; land versus commerce. Both sides of the house were wealthy, and all MPs were gentlemen. The issues included: free-trade, empire, education and the franchise.  In the twentieth century the Labour party brought to parliament the clash between capital and labour, which had already existed for a hundred years on the shop-floor. Success was its undoing. Leap-frogging wage-claims forced Britain out of world markets, and annoyed the country, with Thatcherism as the result. New-Labour was hardly a Labour party. It adopted many capitalist concepts (and faults), among them the idea that money is the only motivator, and that every issue should be judged by 'the market'; but it won three elections. Since 2010, the Tories have run with the same baton, though surely the banking fiasco should have put paid to this discredited system. Unfortunately, economics is a complex intellectual puzzle and academic economists are as split as the politicians. The current Labour party, with a tenth of the expertise of the Tories, was just beginning to focus on economic fairness when a second divisive issue arose in the field of foreign policy. It gradually became clear to thinking people that our military adventures in the middle east were both immoral and damaging. Jeremy Corbyn rode into the ring on this latter issue, supported by a wave of disgust at militarism, elitism, and a feeling of grass-roots-powerlessness. But his appeal is not currently sufficient to win 51% of the country. The moral high ground, alone, is not enough.

     The country was split more or less 50/50 in the nineteenth century on the issues of free trade and imperialism. The Labour/Capital debate of the twentieth century produced an unstable equilibrium (and needs further thought — see below). The present split of Self/Others will of course always be won by ‘Self’ interest, though there are now the issues of Europe, immigration, and ‘populism’ to divide us further.

The Future

     Pending proportional representation there should be as much deliberate and courteous pre-election discussion as possible between opposition parties; like the Primaries in the United States;  Labour waving a popular LibDem candidate through in one constituency should be matched by an uncluttered two-candidate fight in another where a Labour candidate has a good chance of winning. Scores can be kept, and there should be an explicit agreement to support PR at all times.

     Quality candidates must be sought and cultivated.  It is infuriating for the grass-roots to see resignations and firings of able front-benchers. The method of choosing ‘the party leader’ must be re-examined. Indeed the very concepts of 'party leader' may need re-thinking. I suggest that the Parliamentary Labour Party must be a team and have a unity of purpose; the 'official opposition' must be seen as ready to take office. Party Leader in the House must be agreed unanimously by the MPs, probably for his qualities as a chairman. He may not have the qualities of a cross-examining barrister required at Prime Minister’s Question time, but need these questions come from the Party Leader in the House?

     The Party membership, and the trade unions can certainly choose a leader; a president perhaps, or Chairman of Congress, but clearly cannot foist their choice on the MPs.

    

     The economy must be thoroughly and visibly understood by any party of government. A beginning was made in 2015 when John McDonnell, as Corbyn’s shadow chancellor, formed an economic advisory committee, but that has broken up and vanished. Why? Was it from faulty chairmanship, or perhaps from lack of funding?  The Danish Labour Movement formed their "Economic Council of the Labour Movement" (ECLM) in 1936. Where is ours?

     Post-war Germany developed a unique political philosophy they call Ordoliberalismus, believing that the state must actively protect and regulate the operation of the ‘free market’. “Ordoliberal ideals drove the creation of the post-war German social market economy”. We talk about the German Economic Miracle, but do little to understand and imitate; we suspect that it involves hard work and leave it at that. Why?       (Word count = 1,452)