“What is your policy on Eastenders?”

Tags

Ed Miliband, Newt Gingrich

In The Thick of It, Malcolm Tucker famously lambasted Hugh Abbot for not being ‘with-it’ and not having a policy on Eastenders. I wonder what he would make of Ed Miliband’s policy on chocolate oranges? Personally, I think politicians should never try to appear ‘with-it’; it’s cringe-worthy and inevitably backfires. Politics is something of an extraordinary pastime/occupation and both politicians themselves and activists spend an inordinate – compared to the general populace – concerned, arguing about and working on it. However, politicians are caught in a double-bind by the somewhat contradictory expectations of the electorate who expect them both to be ‘one of them’ and at the same time something slightly different in the sense that they are fit to represent people. Indeed, if you look at the rage that accompanies a politician having an affair, for example, you see clearly that the electorate almost expect their representatives to be slighty ‘better’ than them. Ultimately, however, being as interested in politics, consequentially how the world works and is run, probably isn’t ‘normal’ as far as most people are concerned but we seem scared to acknowledge that; but then again I have yet to hear anybody provide a workable definition of what ‘normal’ is. This however is another examples of politicians trying to pretend to be something they are not, which the electorate tends not to like.

Ed’s policy on chocolate oranges actually exposes how attempts to pitch yourself as ‘one of the people’ inevitably backfire. On closer inspection, you find that WH Smith doesn’t sell fruit so all both Mr Miliband and Mr Cameron have done is expose the fact they never shop there. Incidentally, they are both wrong politically, because the state should not really be meddling with prices in order to bend people to the behaviour that it thinks is appropriate. Some people who buy the aforementioned oranges will be obese and should probably cut back but others won’t so all you are doing with a price rise is punishing those that are not for indulging themselves in the odd bit of chocolate now and then. Not particularly fair and it is a microcosm of why this kind of nanny-state approach shouldn’t be taken.

Miliband’s stance can best be characterised as crass popularism – something Newt Gingrich knows something about after his pledge to colonise the moon by the end of his second term (notice how America has to elect him not just once but twice to get this show on the road). Gingrich obviously fancies himself as something of a Dr No (or more likely Dr Evil from Austin Powers) in the making. He is trying to steal a march on his rivals with a big, maybe inspiring, but frankly bonkers idea and Mr Miliband is trying to appeal to use something he knows is popular as leverage to talk about a broader issue. I wouldn’t be surprised if he tries to work it into his responsibility riff.

Obviously, in a representative democracy, it’s better if politicians do listen to the people they represent. However, attempting to appeal too or feed their prejudices often ends-up producing downright ugly politics – look at the welfare debate for a good example of how this kind of thing turns very nasty, very quickly. Indeed, it is pretty much impossible to have a sensible debate on welfare because it is buried under a tonne of media and political class inspired ignorant prejudice about what it is like to live on welfare and how the welfare system actually functions.

It is therefore a truism that the best politicians are the ones who are prepared to be unpopular and prepared to take positions they know people won’t like. Representative democracy inhibits them from doing that because it enhances the importance of perception over fact. This is one of the many flaws of the system we have, something that probably won’t be changed anytime soon. Still, while we argue and discuss about the changes that need to happen it would indeed be a small mercy if we were spared our leaders thoughts on the price of fine chocolate confectionary – this would at least save us from an awful lot of cringing.

The limits of globalisation

Tags

EU, Eurozone crisis, Globalisation

Globalisation, we are told, is a wondrous thing. It is bringing the dubious delights of capitalism to every corner of the globe and lifting billions out of poverty. No doubt exists in my mind that this is a truth but it is exactly that, a not the truth. Often the truth, rather than being a singular unbroken thread is a many-faceted thing.

For while the above is true, its also true that for all the billions lifted out of poverty there are billions more cast down into the poverty pit. Whole nations in fact are shackled in these chains. This phenomena is not just restricted to the starving countries you see on your TV screen but increasingly it is afflicting first-world countries.

This is not just because of the traditional avarice of indigenous capitalists but also a fundamental structural shift. Manufacturing and industry is in terminal decline in the first-world. Why would companies produce goods in Britain when they can do it at half-price or less in a country with no serious protection for its workers and they can pay a fraction of the wages they would to a British worker? Last nights Newsnight illustrated this perfectly with its report on migrant workers in China; these workers are denied basic rights of citizenship and are a slave class.

This is leaving whole communities in first-world countries mired in a cycle of poverty and reliance on increasingly thin welfare provision. No investment or support has been forthcoming from successive governments and then these people find themselves demonised as ‘scroungers’. This wretched government is going to push these communities finally under and hold them there until the last gasp of life leaves them.

Another good illustration of the problems of globalisation is the current crisis facing the Eurozone and the European Union. The EU finds itself emasculated in the undemocratic chains woven by nation-states whose governments are not prepared politically to make the necessary leap to democratic transnational governance. We are told that demands for greater national autonomy within the EU are ‘democratic demands’. Nothing could be further from the truth; it is the institutions and practices of the EU that have been created to protect ‘national sovereignty’ that are the most undemocratic. If these ‘ champions of democracy’ want to truly defend it then when will they demand a fully-elected and sovereign European Parliament? Incidentally, the economic woes of the Euro have the same root cause – muddle-headed austerity and too little integration, not too much.

It is tempting for the left, faced with all this, to collapse into offering reactionary, not progressive, political solutions. ‘British jobs for British workers’ being a good example of this type of mistake – manically screaming ‘No to the EU’ being another. Capitalism cannot complete the globalisation process due to its inherent contradictions. Socialism, with its vision of global democratic governance, on the other hand can. However, this will only happen if it opens its eyes to the world around us and seeks again to shape it, not merely react to it with a jerking knee.

Obama rallies the troops…

Tags

Barack Obama, Republicans, US Presidential Elections 2012

Barack Obama’s State of the Union address was ostensibly addressed to the American nation but in reality it was a battle-cry issued forth to rally his activist base. It was, as I saw one commentator remark, his most left-wing address for some time. However, not only did it create some clear blue water between him and the Republicans but it also emphasised the reversal of positions between America and Europe. Once upon a time, America was thought of as a citadel of red-eyed, claws drawn, free-market capitalism. Europe on the other hand was a socialist paradise by comparison. State intervention was frowned upon in America but taken as the norm in Europe (I am including the UK in Europe, though it has traditionally hovered between the two positions). Obama however is slowly but surely changing that and shifting the terms of the debate in America.

He did this by coming to power on a wave of popular enthusiasm which in some ways mimicked that which carried Tony Blair to power on this side of the pond. Sustaining that was always going to be tricky. It seemed that until recently Obama wasnt going to manage and could be heading for an early exit. However, the Republicans made a huge tactical error in precipitating the budget gridlock – a dispute they got the blame for starting.

They did so under the influence of the malign Tea Party which it seems, if the race for Republican nominee is anything to go by, has suffered a slight diminution of its power following that fiasco. Obama might well bemoan that, had somebody whose politics are obviously un-hinged as Sarah Palin’s are been made the Republican candidate then motivating his core supporters would have been easy. However, now he has to rely on his own pulling power.

Both Mick Romney and Newt Gingrich are a testimony to how bereft of anything approaching political talent the GOP are and how, consequentially, they are going to lose the presidential election in November as much as Obama will actually win it. The only sparkle either of them have is their respective tax and personal scandals – nowhere near enough to challenge the Obama machine.

The Presidential election will make fascinating viewing for a European audience if only to show how much America is changing. Obama is tentatively suggesting a larger role for the state and has taken state-led stimulus approach to the crisis – something that Goldman Sachs predict will see the US avoiding recession (compare and contrast with the UK and Europe which is crashing and burning). However, given the culture of the US which is instinctively hostile to the state playing a large role in the economy and in the provision of things like healthcare it remains to be seen whether Obama can re-frame the debate in a way which lasts beyond his two terms.

A roadmap for bringing democracy back to our Party

Tags

NEC Elections 2012

If I am elected to Labour’s National Executive then Party democracy will be my top priority. Indeed, it is this issue more than any other which motivated me to stand in the first place.

This is not an abstract matter. Party members are the organic link between the Party and the wider electorate and in our case, the wider labour movement. The disenfranchisement the members of political parties has dove-tailed with the crisis of faith in our democracy and this is no accident. Party leaderships of all stripes have become aloof, distant, unrepresentative and unaccountable to even their own members.

So, I will be making the return of democracy to our Party a top priority because it is not only a matter of principle but also electoral expediency. A Party that can’t respect its own members can scarcely be expected to show any for the electorate.

I want to propose some bullet-point suggestions to get the ball rolling. This is by no means a finished or final list but a starting place for discussion and dialogue.

The electoral college I recognise the democratic legitimacy of Ed Miliband’s victory but the manner of his victory has been a huge contributory factor in the instability surrounding his leadership. Somewhat unusually for a left-winger I support the introduction of One Member, One Equal Vote in electing our leader.

The multiple votes issue obscures the democratic scandal of vote weightings which accord far too much power to the Parliamentary Labour Party. Constituency nominations should also count in this contest – a certain number of constituency nominations should be required to make it onto the ballot paper.

National Policy Forum Peter Kenyon has recently exposed the scandal of the non-existent meetings of this body. This is entirely unacceptable. The NEC must instruct the leadership to convene a meeting at the earliest possible date.

Meetings must be regular and the deliberations of the NPF must be widely accessible to members, utilising new media especially. CLPs must have proper facility to amend and shape the deliberations of NPF. Party members, utilising the model adopted and practised somewhat imperfectly during the Refounding Labour consultation must have the same opportunity.

The National Executive 6 CLP representatives is nowhere near enough. The NEC must be expanded if necessary to make it truly representative of our Party. My proposal is that each region be given at least one seat on the NEC although in practice there probably be more than one. Elections to these seats should be based on regional contests – this means the NEC will be more representative of diverse experiences and stronger for it.

Party Conference Part of encouraging greater participation in our policy making process and our democracy is opening-up Party conference; too that end I have two proposals.

One is too make extra subsidised places available to new joiners. We must bring new members right into the heart of our Party to show them this is a political Party which takes its members seriously. Secondly, I propose that the potential for involving the wider membership via new media be explored. Properly utilised, new media can be a powerful tool for returning this Party to its members – many can’t make conference but still want to be involved.

The era where centralised command-and-control of this Party is acceptable is over – its time to send a clear signal to the leadership that we will no longer be bridled. One of the lessons we should have learned from our time in government is the central importance of being a Party that listens to its members and involves them at every step of the way. As I said, this list is by no means an exhaustive or final one. It is merely meant to start the ball rolling. I look forward to receiving feedback and participating in the upcoming discussions and debates.

Labour is fighting a losing battle on the economy

This government is spending more money on making our lives worse. Our services are being cut, our health service is being choked, our wages are being frozen (in real terms cut) and prices are rising. Meanwhile, our economy is wilting under the blows of this ideologically-induced, crazed government.

Above is a simple and powerful message that Labour can deliver on the debt and deficit which is also credible. It could go further – it could point out that there can be no sustainable economic growth without social justice and that it was social injustice that caused the crash. This message would not only inspire the electorate but unite significant sections of the Party – it would, for example not give me everything I want but at least be a message I could be proud of; I cannot say that about our current message.

In all fairness, before the madness of the last few weeks we were trying tentatively to articulate this message. It is hurting and it isn’t working was a catchy slogan. However, what was already a ropey economic narrative has been shot to pieces by the total acceptance of the Conservative and media framing of the debt crisis as one being caused by excessive public spending. In actual fact it was caused by feckless financial markets and low wages and the consequent accumulation of personal debt.

Labour desperately needs to change the entire premise of the economic debate, Frankly, as things stand it is on a hiding to nothing. It can only win an austerity auction with the government which will disillusion and alienate not just its core supporters but swing voters too.

In the latest ICM poll the 5% gain for Miliband & Balls on the economy was offset by a 2% gain and a record high for Cameron & Osborne. Why? Because fighting on their turf is legitimising their solutions. It is simply silly to say we are going to accept and continue something that we say in the next breath isn’t working. I can only conclude our leadership assumes the electorate are stupid and won’t see the obvious contradiction therein.

We need an urgent debate on the economy at all levels of the Party, especially within the NEC and NPF. Above all we need the leadership to change course because right now because the one it has set is heading straight for the rocks of electoral ruin.

A failure by every measure…

This government is a failure by every measure that it even sets itself. It came to power basically on the premise that it was going to erase the national debt and undo the profligate ‘waste’ of Labour’s tenure. However, today we have the news that the UK’s debt has passed £1 trillion for the first time since records began. The reason why is not hard to fathom, the economy isn’t growing and the government has to continue to borrow to compensate.

Meanwhile, rather than save any money, its reforms are proving to be a costly shambles. It’s reforms of the NHS, for example, costing money as well as hitting patient care. So, what difference is this making to the opinion polls? Well, it has seen the Conservative roar into a 5-point lead. Staggeringly Cameron & Osborne’s reputation for economic competently has increased by 2%. All of which is a testimony to our continued failure to provide anything approaching effective opposition.

We are not even really an opposition at all because we operate almost entirely within the frameworks defined by the government. So, we accept the underpinnings of a strategy that we, ourselves, say have failed. No wonder people see this as a tad contradictory and are either going elsewhere or de-camping to the government, which at least offers them the real deal. People are confused and disoriented by recent events and rather than offer them a clear lead, we offer them a muddled wall of static.

Britain is sadly thus doubly cursed with a shambolic government and an opposition whose performance isn’t much better. If you are going to vote for an opposition Party then generally you need to have a reason to do so. Ken Livingstone is bucking the trend of Labour’s dismal national performance in London precisely because he has found that issue. His Fare Deal proposal is the key reason he is gaining support and has turned a massive poll deficit around.  It is a simple proposal which resonates with every Londoner and that is why it has turned his fortunes around.

I don’t agree with everything Gus Baker rights on LabourList but this observation is very prescient:

By talking in nebulous terms we are tying ourselves in knots. Our inability to come up with a clear line on the benefit cap is a classic example. We are too frightened to forcefully oppose a dreadfully thought through policy; and too timid to suggest an alternative, like properly regulating buy-to-let landlords to bring the cost of private sector housing down.

Or indeed we could talk about the construction of more cheap and affordable socially owned housing. Or the Living Wage. Something that is inspiring and gives people a reason to support us. It is almost at the point where anything will do because although this government is a huge failure it is currently being eclipsed by our own omni-shambolic failure as an opposition.

Liam Brynes crazy-juggling

Tags

LabourList, Liam Bryne, Mark Ferguson

Mark Ferguson writes on LabourList that a benefits cap is a good idea but not if it includes Housing Benefit. Liam Bryne seems to be attempting a similar kind of crazy-juggling, on the one hand saying Labour won’t vote against the cap but will introduce amendments a go-go to this dreadful piece of legislation.

All well and good you might argue. Nuanced and sensible. This illusion lasts till you realise that the benefits cap itself is a utterly worthless piece of legislation unless Housing Benefit is included in the cap.

Who on this earth is going to make £26,000 a year on Job Seekers Allowance, for example? You get roughly £65 a week on JSA – so you’d have to defy the laws of basic mathematics to even worry 10 k let-alone 26. Listen carefully, for I will say this only once – the whole point of the benefits cap is to cap Housing Benefit. So, saying you support the cap but not the HB element is a position that is to be utterly blind to the logical implications of what your actually saying.

Housing Benefit is well known to take up the biggest slice of the welfare cake. Its a cost the government could reduce massively by capping private rents and building some more homes. This is what I like to call a win-win. Families get homes, the government rakes in more tax from the jobs etc created – the only people who lose are parasitic landlords. A policy that drives down rents and creates a greater supply of cheaper and affordable housing would also benefit the working poor.

If Labour is serious about opposing these reckless changes it will have to vote against the benefit cap in its entirety. In its execution it will be as shambolic as the equally barking cap on immigration and its our poorest that will suffer the most.

It is hurting and it isnt working – Labour’s ‘credibility’ drive

Tags

Ed Miliband, Len McCluskey, UK Polling Report

We are told that Labour must ‘be realistic’ about the deficit and spending etc. Pay freezes etc are must-haves to win back our shattered reputation for economic competence. So the story goes; however, the polls themselves tell a different story.

As The Green Benches points out;

In March of last year when Labour & Ed Miliband marched for an alternative we led by 11% in the polls and hit a record high of 45%. But 10 months on that position has been reversed by 16%. By any measurement Labour’s recent rightward shift has been a polling disaster.

Today’s UK Polling Report breakdown brought further disastrous news. Ed Miliband’s approval ratings stand at an eye-watering minus 53%. This includes 50% of Labour’s own supporters who disapprove of Mr Milibands leadership. Meanwhile, slightly over 50% of the electorate basically haven’t got a clue what our position is on cuts and austerity at all and frankly, who can blame them.

So, why is this occurring? Basically this leadership feels an insufferable and all-consuming desire to pander to Labour’s right-wing; this dilutes and distorts anything worthy that is said. Glimmers of a coherent alternative are snuffed out at birth by a weak desire to pander to a wing of the Party who’s answers to our current crisis are totally discredited in the eyes of the electorate.

This means Len McCluskey was exactly right in what he said – the leadership is leading the Party to electoral disaster and a heavier defeat next time around. The solution is simple – we must have member-driven policy that is decided at a National Policy Forum which actually meets. Trade unions need to start punching their weight in policy-making and we need greater internal democracy.

The leadership needs to find a backbone and start ignoring Dan Hodges columns and the pressure being brought to bear from the right. It needs to open a democratic and two-way dialogue with Labour’s natural allies – its members and staunch supporters and build from there. In short, it needs to fulfil its own promises and start to offer a coherent and radical alternative to the policies of this government. If it wants to reverse the polling collapse and return to government these are the essential things it must have; not ‘tough’ rhetoric and policies that attack its own natural allies. We tell the Conservatives often enough it is hurting but not working – maybe its time this leadership looked in the mirror and heeded its own words.

The monopoly of democracy….

Tags

International Monetary Fund

The International Monetary Fund has had  an interesting week. On the one hand it has been demanding more money from its member countries (so much for the cupboard being ‘bare’ – funny how it has suddenly found extra capacity) while on the other hand warning about the dangers of fiscal cuts which imperial growth.

Obviously the last development is quite a coup for opponents of austerity economics but it will its a development that on the surface looks a bit weird – surely  the IMF are the high priests of neo-liberal economics?  Well, yes they are but their perspective is a little different. Firstly, they are obviously asking governments for more money so that partly explains their stance. What they really mean is dont make cuts which endanger the size of the new contribution we are asking you to make.

Secondly, however I would say its position as a supra-national organisation means that it is not as in-hoc to the finance sector as national governments. In fact, national governments are best described as the bound and gagged hostage of their banks and financial markets. They may scream but nobody currently hears it. If we rewind then we start with the market crashes, then move onto bailout and end up in debt and austerity. The factors that caused the crash are multiple and range from a steady and crippling accumulation of household debt, depressed wages etc right through to reckless speculation, all played their part.

However, what caused nations to develop such elephant sized deficits was not feckless public spending as is oft stated but the rush of Western democracies, to a man, to bailout their banks. This in turn occurred because of the immense political power and influence that the finance sector and banks wield over politicians and politics. This influence has grown, not declined, with the advent of the crisis purely and simply because governments of all shades have spent so much money on an endless cycle of bailouts that the political fate of the politicians is bound to the fiscal fate of the banks.

Our democracy is, in reality, the monopoly property of banking giants and City whizzes who have successfully locked politicians of all stripes into an everlasting embrace which none can escape. This is a tragedy for our democracy because it can only lead to be it being less representative and increasingly alienated from the people it is meant to serve and represent. Not that the banks mind – all they want is a government that will continue to be their cash-cow. Alot of political chatter has been going on about vested interests - well, it is my submission that this is the number 1 vested interested that is crippling our country and has its slimy tentacles wrapped round the throat of our democracy and choking the life out of it. If we are waiting for politicians to break free of this choke-hold and fight back, sadly, I fear we may be waiting along time.

My letter to the Labour Party….

Tags

NEC Elections 2012

Below is my letter to CLP’s and individual Labour members regarding this year’s NEC elections….I would appreciate the reader sending to their CLP Secretary.

Dear Comrades and Colleagues,

I am writing to you to ask for your support in this years crucial NEC Elections.

My name is Darrell Goodliffe and I am a grassroots member of the Labour Party. I am 30 years old and work in care and support. I have worked in various Labour campaigns and been an intern for a Labour MP.

Politically, I make no bones about the fact I consider myself a socialist. Sadly, you do not need to look far around you to see examples of how capitalism has failed the vast majority of people – from the beggar on the street to the struggling working family, this system fails to provide for the basic needs and aspirations of the majority of Britain’s people. I believe passionately that the current crisis is best solved by a extension of democracy – the democratic control and distribution of socially produced wealth and a rejuvenation of our faltering political democracy. The Labour Party was created to give a voice to the voiceless and to change the world in the name of the many, not the few. Now more than ever, Britain needs a Labour Party that is true to that purpose.

Labour needs to rediscover its democratic traditions. Many of you reading this won’t agree with me – I will argue with you but I will fight to defend your right to disagree and have your voice heard. Our Party needs to reflect its commitment to democratic values in its policies and internal practice. To that end my immediate priorities with regard to the NEC are:-

- to seek the extension of grassroots representation with each region electing representatives to sit on the NEC

- to pursue a increase in subsidised places at Party Conference, especially for new members; this to be achieved through increases in the levy we charge the media and external groups to attend.

My priority is to give this Party back to its members. If the Party elects me to serve I will be a committed advocate for its  members – whether they are on my ideological wing of the Party or not. This is the first and defining duty of any representative in my eyes.

I believe you, the Party members, are best served by the election of independent grassroots members and admire the sterling work done by the current independents on the NEC. You can find out more about me using the links below and please do feel free to contact me with any questions on my email goodliffedarrell@gmail.com.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours Fraternally,

Darrell Goodliffe

Facebook – Darrell Goodliffe

Twitter – DarrellGoodliff

Blog - http://momentsofc.wordpress.com