Tragedy, and the human response to it

So, I guess that really we all knew this day would come again. Once again a terrorist attack has taken place in the UK. This time driven by someone who has taken extremist Islam as their reason for pointlessly murdering innocent people on our streets. It is truly terrible that 4 people who had no idea what was going to happen or choice that day had their lives taken by a coward who attacked them hoping he would never have to live with the consequences. 

There is no singular normal, typical or expected reaction to this sort of news. It is rightly so alien to us that we will all decide how to react - and it is not the right of society to enforce "norms" on us. That reaction is made up of our initial emotion, and then the judgements, conclusions and responses we then show. Many people have tried to use this attack as a weapon to whip up further hatred, anger and division. I want to consider whether this reaction stands up to close scrutiny. This is not to shame or insult people, but to offer them an alternative reflection to consider. 

We have had almost a full week since the terrible events that claimed the lives of a policeman and 3 random members of the public. Enough time for every possible shade and shape of human opinion (no matter how vile or incredible) to have made its way on to social media. Certainly an initial reaction from a lot of people (and we can't know if it is a majority, a large minority or simply the most vocal) was that this attack showed why we should "send them all home". Those angrily opposed to migration into the country certainly believed this was an opportunity to finally show how Muslims flooding into the country were a danger to our very lives. Of course, the problem with that was very quickly it was found out that the attacker was British born. 

But the leap from there having been an attack to this snap reaction is an obvious, if flawed one. If a Muslim coming into this country has carried out an attack, then there must be more coming in to do the same - this is finally the evidence of that. Of course, that sentence belies the incorrect thinking behind it - those people who are afraid that immigration makes us less secure ALREADY believed that before this attack. That the attacker was British born will do nothing to stop them thinking that. In many cases no amount of evidence will stop people thinking that. The term used by psychologists is "unsubstantiated conclusive" thinking - where you jump to a pre-determined conclusion irrespective of the evidence. It is easy to understand this thinking - particularly when it is reinforced and fuelled by so much of the media establishment in this country and parties like UKIP. 

From there, the next opinion or perception that came about was that actually all, or a large section, of the Muslim community in this country were dangerous. The proposed answer therefore is either to kick out all Muslims or to start a process for internment for them. Again, the logical flow behind this seems to be straight-forward. There is a danger from a particular community, we should therefore lock all or some of them up to keep everybody else safe. If you break that down, there are actually 3 separate ideas to consider. The first one is that there is a danger from an identifiable group (Muslims), we can spot those likely to be dangerous, and that internment will reduce the danger and make us safe. 

Well, if we take the first point, that there is a danger from an identifiable group (Muslims) then we have to look at the terrorist attacks in recent memory. The definition of a terrorist attack "means acts of persons acting on behalf of, or in connection with, any organisation which carries out activities directed towards the overthrowing or influencing, by force or violence, of Her Majesty's government in the United Kingdom". That would then seem to equally apply to 2 recent terrorist attacks - this one and the murder of Jo Cox MP. Jo Cox was killed by a man who had links to extremist organisations (the National Front, EDL and the National Alliance). Certainly 2 of those groups have openly tried to influence the government through violence. He was a lone attacker, who took inspiration from those groups without being directed by them to carry out an attack. He used weapons he had to hand to carry out a targeted but unsophisticated attack to create a feeling of terror in the political establishment. He had a troubled existence with a history of sporadic behaviours. All of those things apply equally to the recent attacker. 

There is one difference however, ISIL, following the attack claimed that Khalid Massood was now a soldier of ISIL. Many have hung their hats on this fact to differentiate the 2 events. However, that does not hold up. Khalid Massood, as far as we know at this point, had no contact or direction from them. To hang whether someone is guilty of a terrorist attack or not based on what somebody else does after the fact simply doesn't make sense. Equally, to the victims of the attack, I am sure they would have scant regard for this distinction. So we are left with not one group of terrorists to worry about, but 2 - Muslim fanatics and right-wing fanatics. 

If we look at the proposed solution to this, internment, then we would have to, from that, apply it equally to both of these groups. Of course, all of the available evidence, from whenever internment has been tried points to 2 very clear conclusions. Firstly, that it doesn't work and in many cases is counter-productive in that it acts as a recruiting sergeant for extremists. Secondly, that it will always lead to innocent people being unfairly imprisoned. These are clearly both very strong reasons to refuse to see internment as the answer. 

Clearly, this is not to say that nothing should be done to combat terrorist attacks. From every attack we need to learn what we can do to stop the next one. But currently, from what we are told, in this country we have been successful in stopping a number of attacks. To go further than we have so far we must challenge the radicalisation of any individuals in any group, ensure we have appropriate policing, security and intelligence strategies, and the tools and resources to carry them out. But internment is not one of those, and it never should be. Something must be done can not turn into the worst possible response must be done.

One of the very shameful events that cropped up in our reactions was that of the shaming of a Muslim woman, walking past an injured person being treated immediately after the attacks, ignoring what was going on and chatting on her mobile phone. For those that wanted yet further evidence of the inhumanity of Muslims, this seemed to be a "smoking gun". The picture very quickly spread across social media platforms - evidence (as if it was needed) that Muslims were against "us". When I initially saw it I too believed that it showed a woman on her phone near the scene of an atrocity. 

Again, we should break down the mindset that leads to this point. Firstly, we are attributing how somebody should react when something like that happens. Some people will rush to help, some will run away, and some people, in shock will try to pretend it hasn't happened. We can not judge how others react because we don't know what their reaction really says. Secondly, on the basis of a still photo shared on social media, this ladies actions and thoughts have been guessed at and then shared as if a clear and undeniable truth. If she was on her phone near the scene, could she not have been calling the emergency services? Telling her family what she had seen but that she was OK? Could she have been so wrapped up in her day she hadn't even realised what was happening? Anyone who has been to London will know that plenty of people in that city do walk around in that mode. Finally, there was a leap from her not reacting according to some decided norm, then on to her not caring or even being happy this had happened to that, somehow, being evidence that all Muslims are bad. I can't even believe I am writing this - but that is the logic that some bought into and shared - within 24 hours of the incident itself. 

Of course, the photo was then shown to be of something quite clearly different - the lady in question was not on her phone, but holding her face in shock and horror. But for people who wanted to believe the first interpretation because it supported their view - this wont matter. My point is that it is easy to be mistaken, or see one thing as something else. But we must be careful before being led to logical leaps and bounds by people on social media. It is natural (and uncontrollable) to have an emotional reaction when something like this happens. We all do it. It is easy to jump to conclusions - in fact in more dangerous times jumping to a snap decision is a survival strategy. But we should all be able to look at that conclusion, or flow of thought and ask ourselves - does my conclusion stack up - or does the conclusion have more to do with what I already believe? Because if we start making snap judgements on how our country protects itself, and treats us as citizens on the basis of our reactions - we bloody well have to get them right first. 

All we need now is Spandau Ballet

              I am sat writing this the evening before the first full budget of our 2nd Tory chancellor of the last 20 years, Philip Hammond MP. We have now had a full 6 years of Tory chancellors - even if for 5 of those they were supported in Parliament by a weak and ineffective coalition partner in the Lib Dems. So, it is probably worth looking at how well those Tory chancellors and governments have done for us. By us, I mean the great British working classes. I include in that those of us lucky enough to be working, and those of us who for whatever reason can't or aren't working at the moment. It is also right and fair to measure those chancellors against what they set out as their own priorities. After all, it is not fair to only measure them against things they never promised to do.

              Like most economists (and other political writers) it would be really easy for me to fall into jargon and measures that most people don't understand. Who really feels GDP, deficit, debt ratios? Whilst I want to steer clear of these as much as possible - they are necessary to consider. Mainly because these were the measures which George Osborne and then Philip Hammond have measured themselves against. But there are other measures that they feed into - and these do matter. These are how well-off we as individuals feel, and the future prospects for the economy. As well as these, there are other factors that matter - how well funded and effective our public services are; how much tax we pay and how many of us are in gainful employment.

              Coming into power in 2010 was never going to be easy for any government. The world was still reeling from a financial crisis, caused by global banks, that was as severe as The Great Depression. This was impacting pretty much every country - though some worse than others. In the UK because we had bailed out the banks here we had a massive public sector debt (the amount the government owes) that had risen from under 40% to around 65% a the time of the General Election. This was the worst of all worlds - it was driven by an increasing amount of debt from bailing out the banks, a shrinking economy and a growing deficit. The deficit or surplus is the difference between how much the government is earning (basically through taxation) compared to how much it spends (on services for the people). 

             So whichever Chancellor came in had to do one (or all) of 3 things - grow the economy, reduce the deficit and / or reduce the overall debt the government had. The prevailing idea from George Osborne (and presumably supported at that point by the public) was to reduce the deficit, within 5 years, and thereby start to pay down the debt levels. Surely we could return to surplus? After all, we had run a surplus for the overwhelming majority of the Blair years, after the deficit laden years of the Thatcher government. This therefore gave rise to the austerity agenda - the aim being to reduce how much the government spent to get in line with what they earned. 

             But the Tories also inherited a number of other problems and benefits at that time. For example, we had an NHS that was the best in the world, as proven by a number of international comparative studies. This was not only in terms of the service provided, but also how much it cost to provide. Gone were the days of waiting on trolleys in corridors. We had improved standards across schools. Whilst not all of the policies used were particularly popular, they were, mostly, working. Sure Start and EMA were supported by all parties as right and necessary because of the benefits to social well-being. The unemployment rate however had taken a marked increase - meaning fewer people were working - whilst this had stayed stable around the 5% mark for the majority of the Blair years this shot up as a result of the global banking crisis to 7.5%. This had been a massive improvement - during the Thatcher years it had been between 7.5% and 10% for almost the entire period. 

            So across those areas, how have the Tories done? Well, let's look at deficit and debt reduction, unemployment, amount we pay in tax, and those services mentioned above one at a time. 

Debt & Deficit

Since 2010, the debt as a share of GDP (the most reliable measure) has increased from 65% to 85%. In money terms, these 6 years have added £1trillion of debt. That is debt which our government must now pay back. More worryingly, the deficit is still at 3%. We were meant to be rid of both of those things by now. In fact, neither has been delivered on. We are worse off than we were. 

Unemployment

Here, it appears, we have good news. The unemployment rate has seen a steady downward trend. It has moved from a recent high of 8.5% to 4.8%. We should all be celebrating, shouldn't we? Well, it isn't quite so rosy. 700,000 of those new jobs are zero hours contracts. That is 700,000 people who don't know if they will have work from one day to the next. We may as well go back to the days of the Labour exchange. Workers earnings have not increased - which you would expect from high employment. More people can say they have a job, but more than ever don't have enough money coming in to actually survive. So we must remain cautious if we want to say this is good news.

Taxation

The level of government taxation - ie how much they take out of the economy each year to pay for public services has now increased back to levels last seen in 1986. So whilst they have spectacularly failed to reduce the deficit, they have done that whilst taking more of your money from you. Not only that, but the source of that tax has become far less friendly for you. Much less is being taken from big businesses and wealthy individuals. Instead, more tax is being taken from your wallet, by way of increases in VAT and Insurance Premium Tax. They have openly and actively taken from the poor to give to the rich. A true reverse Robin Hood. 

Public services

Well, Sure Start and EMA didn't survive the first year under the Tories. Our health service is once again falling apart. This winter we had the worst performance during the winter since we started measuring such things. Junior doctors went out on strike - previously unheard of. In education there are experts, councillors (of all parties), headteachers and MPs screaming at the government to address the lack of funding. What it the response of the current government? To instead set aside money for their pet project of grammar schools and free schools. Just consider that, any extra money they find is not going to your child's school - but to open a new one that you have no say over. Teachers are leaving the profession in droves, and recruitment of new ones is drying up. We are back to poor services where only the wealthy will be okay. 

                  So, it is amazing that we find ourselves here again. A government that can't get spending under control, where services are so poor they are a laughing stock, where only the wealthy are benefitting. Things haven't been this bad across so many measures since the early 1980s. Some would argue that there are other similarities - for example a Labour leader who is painted as a dangerous leftie by the media and who doesn't seem either willing or able to shake off the tag. What is worrying is that against this backdrop the Tories are still enjoying electoral success. This really should be a wake up call and warning to the Labour Party. The question is whether they are listening - or repeating the internal fights of the 1980s. Only time will tell. The problem is, how much of a country will we have left at the end of it?

Step right up, now everyone’s a winner, bargains galore.

Thank goodness for Donald Trump and Boris Johnson. There was I, worried that leaving the European Union might in some way be bad for our economy, workers’ rights and public sector, when they come along and show me that everything is going to be OK. Of course it is not just the US. Apparently, countries are queueing up to do trade deals with us. We now thankfully have some greater clarity on what Theresa May plans for her brexit strategy. So, what can we take from her announcement yesterday? And how bright is the future looking for us? Can we get ready for a massive influx of trade we don’t currently have? Is the prospect of a Global Britain better than the prospect of a “Shared Britain” (now removed) or a “Red, White and Blue Brexit” (now removed) or is it just another meaningless slogan?

Really, we need to understand from the speech what we are potentially losing compared to what we might gain. That is the only way we can judge whether we are looking at a net positive or a net negative. This was the most important speech that the Prime Minister has given since we voted for her to be our leader. Only joking of course, we live in a parliamentary democracy where elected representatives are chosen and entrusted to make our decisions for us. Well apart from THAT decision obviously. So, the most important speech since her party voted for her to be party leader and therefore Prime Minister. Only joking, there was no vote for her. So, the most important speech she has given since 35,000 in the borough of Maidenhead voted for her (that’s right Americans, you think you have problems).

I am going to focus purely on the aspects relating to trade and the economy. There was actually some good stuff in there, relating to how the process will run, and also massively important areas around immigration and nationality, borders and governance. But that will have to be part of another blog. So what did we learn? Well the key points were these:

·         All existing rules and regulations of the EU will become British Law and workers’ rights will be protected, then will “keep pace with the changing Labour Market”

·         We will leave the single market, and the customs union then “pursue a bold and ambitious Free Trade Agreement” with the EU

·         We might pay to be a part of “specific European programmes”

·         If we don’t get the deal we want with the EU, we will trade with them without a trade agreement

·         We will seek out new trade deals with other partners that we don’t currently have in place

Keeping existing rules and regulations, and workers protections

                So, depending on your point of view, keeping existing safety and consumer laws is a good thing or a bad thing. It will mean that we can continue to export to mainland Europe because our goods and services will be comparable. But it might also mean that we are held to a higher level of regulation than say US or Chinese manufacturers. Therefore, this could make our products uncompetitive on a global market. So this really depends on whether we get a trade agreement with the EU.

                More worryingly, is the specific language used around workers’ rights. This should be a massive big warning sign to everybody who is employed in the UK. Over the last 6 years the Tories (and their coalition partners) have overseen the stripping away of workers’ rights, and have resisted every opportunity to improve them. For example, even at the height of the furore over zero hours contracts, the government did nothing. Coupled with that our rights to strike have been eroded, weakening our bargaining power with companies. And senior members of the government are openly talking about banning the use of strikes across industries.

                Mrs May could have said that workers’ rights would be improved upon, or strengthened. But the language is purposefully specific. “Keeping pace with the changing Labour Market”. Well, if we look at how the Labour market is changing, more people are being put in to roles where their employers can pretend they are self-employed; employers can give up any sort of responsibility through the “gig” economy; zero hours contracts will become more prevalent; trade unions will be downgraded and weakened at every turn; pensions agreements will no longer be stuck to by employers whilst taxpayers bail out pensions funds. Basically, if you are employed, then this is the start of a bonfire of what rights you currently have. If you are applauding this speech, you are either an employer yourself, or not paying attention. Perhaps somebody could remind me, when we voted for the UK to leave the European Union, where we also voted to give up our working rights to Sir Philip Green and Mike Ashley? I obviously ticked that box without realising.

Leaving the Single Market and Customs Union, getting a trade deal with Europe instead, paying for access

                It is probably worth, as a starting point, understanding what our trade deal within Europe currently means. Firstly, it is worth stating that it is probably the most comprehensive, invasive and wide-ranging multi-lateral trade agreement in the world. It includes everything from free trade (meaning we trade our goods free from tariffs being applied by other countries), customs union (meaning we all apply the same tariffs to goods coming from outside our deal), free movement (of services, capital and resource ie people) and a level of political union too. It covers almost every aspect of trade and commerce, industry and services, import and export. The effort to split ourselves out from it is on a scale unprecedented and untried. It is not simply rhetoric to say it is of the scale that countries leaving the USSR and Eastern-bloc felt during the early 90s.

                So we would be leaving, with great difficulty and cost a free-trading bloc of 450 million people in 27 states (once you take us out of the official figures). It has GDP of US$13tn (again once you take us away from the published figures). It is 41km away from us at the closest point. Those are the really key considerations in any trading deal we want to do: how many individual consumers are there, how wealthy is it, how far away is it, and what tariffs would we expect. It is worth also stating that given the depth and breadth of the negotiations that will be needed, this will (you would hope) require a great deal of considered and careful negotiation. We currently have no experience of trade negotiations, given that we haven’t had to for about 40 years. It seems a reasonable assumption that what experience we can muster together will be focussed on this deal. Two years of effort to LEAVE that free trade deal.

                Of course, it is possible that we could end up with an even better trade deal. However, it is highly improbably. By its very nature, if we are choosing to say to a trading bloc that have grown together “we want to trade with you, but don’t wish to pay in to your structural costs” then it is only reasonable to assume we will get a worse deal than full membership. Even Theresa May accepts that. Hence why the Prime Minister and others have been warming us up to the idea that we will still have to pay something to continue to trade freely in certain markets. I think it is fair to assume this will include the Motor industry (if not, then what the hell have we promised Nissan?) and financial services (given it is our biggest single industry). Of course, that gives us the question of what will the cost be? How much will we have to pay for access? Not only that, does it mean any industry which isn’t beloved of the Tories (Steel, manufacturing, non-financial services) should now expect tariffs to start to affect their business. So there we have it, a deal where we still pay in (when it suits the Tories) and everybody else has their business negatively impacted.

                Not only that, but what if we start imposing our own tariffs on European goods? Well, that will lead to massive instantaneous inflation, whilst at the same time our economy is getting worse. We had this in the 1970s – and the term which was coined was stagflation – a stagnant economy whilst prices rise. It was a horrific time. If you are too young to remember it be grateful, then ask somebody who was around how it felt.

No deal is better than a bad deal, trade deals with other parties

                Of course, we could choose to have no trade deal at all with Europe. However, just the most cursory glance at this shows how completely stupid and damaging this would be. This would mean that we would immediately start trading with ALL of the European Union at WTO Tariff rates. In effect every single item that we export to Europe would immediately be less competitive, and therefore we would either have to sell less OR sell them more cheaply. The idea that no deal is better than a bad deal is complete hogwash – and everybody knows it. God even to export Oxygen to the EU we would have to pay a tariff of 5% - and they breath the bloody stuff (yes, I know, thanks). So this idea that we will go with No Deal is never going to happen. Besides which, in all honesty both parties want to get a deal. It is in their interest as well. It is entirely a PM trying to sound tough for the UKIP-leaning voters in her own party. It is simply within our interest to achieve some deal with Europe (popn 450m, GDP US$13tn, dist 40km) – and it is theirs to do a deal with us (popn 65m, GDP US$3tn, dist 40km).

                What about other deals? We are told by Boris Johnson that countries are “queueing up” to do a trade deal with us. Well, the first consideration is – why aren’t we trading with them currently? If these countries are so desperate to get a trade deal with us, why is that? Well, we already do trade with many of them. But it is at a lower level than perhaps we could. Therefore, any belief that this will lead to a massive influx of NEW trade is again erroneous. What it will do is make trade easier and therefore give some lift to our global trade levels. It might also (if we remove import tariffs) lead to consumers paying less for certain goods. It is way beyond me to be able to state with any certainty what scale the impact would be. But it would need to be very high indeed to offset any major losses of trade with the EU. I am going to leave the US to one side for a moment, but still, let’s pick out some of the options which do look like “live picks” ie countries that are talking about trading with us:

Country	Population	Size of economy	Distance	Comments
EU	450m	US$13.1tn	41km
Iceland	0.3m	US$0.016tn	1,894km
India	1,300m	US$8.72tn	7,194km
New Zealand	4.7m	US$0.174tn	18,500km
Australia	24m	US$1.2tn	17,000km
Canada	36m	US$1.5tn	5,700km
Ghana	27m	US$0.121bn	4,800km
Mexico	120m	US$2.2tn	9,000km
South Korea	50m	US$1.4tn	9,000km
Total	1,562m	US$15.3tn	9,136km average

                So, if the worst happened and we stopped all trade with the EU (which no-one is suggesting, to replace it we would need to trade with these 8 separate economies to get a trading block of the same size. Ignoring the fact that on average that would mean sending goods 45 times further on average to sell them.

                To put it another way, our trade with the EU accounts for 45% of our exports. If we lost a quarter of that export trade – on our doorstep – we would need to boost our sales internationally to non-EU countries by 11%. Unfortunately, our trade with international neighbours is already at record levels for us. What else are we going to sell – at a competitive price after sending it an extra 9,100 km? The very desperately sad thing is, we are already a successful trading nation. Is it really possible that not being part of a customs union with the EU is going to boost our trading with every we currently trade with across the board by over 10% BEFORE the end of the current deal with the EU in 2 years’ time?

                Who is going to negotiate these trade deals? Everyone with experience or knowledge will be working on the EU deal? Or should we leave that to Boris “let’s joke about the Nazis” Johnson? Genuinely? Of course, we have the trade deal to look forward to with the US. After all, we have been promised a trade deal by the President-Elect, a man who never goes back on what he says. Well, he has already threatened to pull out of NAFTA (a free trade deal), and put 35% import tariffs on goods from China and Mexico – 2 of their biggest trading partners and very strong economies. If Donald Trump is looking to trade on those terms with others, why would we believe we would get anything more beneficial?

Everything’s rosy

                There is no hard evidence to say that is all impossible. It may well be that against all odds the government manage to deliver. But for that to happen we would need a massive turnaround in fortunes, in abilities, in industry, in trade patterns and in the views of our own government. At the same time we would need the EU to be kind to us in any future trade deal. Put quite simply, the potential risks are much greater than the opportunities at the moment. I would love to be wrong about this – and I am often wrong. But I see no analysis which suggests anything other than this stark conclusion – by leaving the single market we are throwing away access to a strong market on a really good deal for the possibility of access to less accessible markets, with less good deals. This can only be bad for our economy. 52.1% of people voted for Brexit. But how many voted for an almost certain worsening of our economy, job losses, rights and protection losses, uncertainty and a weaker economy?

Some Leave voters have every right to be angry. They just need to work out who with.

So quite an extraordinary act took place last week. 3 judges from the High Court in London made a decision on a technical point of law and sent the news and the political sphere into overdrive. This doesn't happen very often, but given the topic they were ruling on this was hardly surprising. They were passing judgement on a case brought by a group of private citizens against the UK Government on the specific legal steps the government must take to invoke Article 50 of the EU - that is to start the formal process of Brexit.

This has been jumped on, by members of the public and experienced politicians alike as an attempt to derail the democratic will of the UK - that we want to leave the EU. The majority have spoken, and here are a bunch of bremoaners trying to stop that from happening. Is that the case though? Our democracy that has been hard won and hard protected now under attack? Certainly during the Leave campaign much was made of our governance, rights and democracy tying back to the Magna Carta and being uninterrupted since then. Is someone trying to run roughshod over that?
I believe the answer is an unequivocal yes. Should Leavers be angry? For some of them, I think they have every right to be.

Lots of leavers voted that way for lots of different reasons. I think it is a real shame that so many have wanted to tar them all as racists. Some Leavers had decided, long before any cases were put forward that they wanted to Vote Leave. That is absolutely fine. It is a democracy. We don't get a right to limit the vote to only people who consider issues in the way that we do. It is the system we have. But over the course of the referendum campaign, there were really 4 key issues that were used to push the Leave vote. Firstly, to take back control of unchecked immigration. Secondly, to take back control of our laws and rulings. Third, that we would be able to create new and better trading relationships with a wider range of partners. Finally, that we could save money paid in to the EU and use this, for example, to give the NHS an extra £350 million a week. 

These 4 issues, when combined and brought together, spoke to the very heart of the issues a large group of people care about. It spoke to our national pride and national strength. Anyone arguing against this could easily be derided as not patriotic (I know this, because I took this claim fairly regularly). But I can see the emotional flow of that argument. These claims were pushed very strongly, not just by the official campaign, but by UKIP and the majority of the British press too. 

It's quite easy to see, when someone is faced with this level of emotional argument, and see a set of factors that are so clearly wrong and unjust, that they expect everyone else to see it too. I actually wonder why there wasn't more aggression and violence. But also, if you have been given this story, you would assume that once through the referendum, this horrible situation would be remedied quickly. No more EU, no more money paid, no more immigration, control back in your hands.

Unfortunately, they have been both badly let down, and badly lied to. Firstly, David Cameron has let down not only Leavers but everybody in the country. This referendum was only ever meant to kill off UKIP. There was never any intention within government that Remain would actually lose. For this reason, there was never any clarity or honesty as to what would happen if they did. The government didn't even make contingency plans for that outcome. Just imagine that, a government not planning for a possible outcome of a binary referendum. Leave was never on the cards. Why else do you think the PM immediately resigned?

The other effect of this is that there was never any clarity given on how we would or could leave and what leaving would free us from. Had government departments been allowed to work on both outcomes then a clear option would have been given. Stay, and you get A. Leave and you get B. Unfortunately, this was taken away from the electorate. Instead, the Vote Leave campaign, UKIP and press barons were allowed to fill the void where official government guidance should have been. 

A really good example of this is shown by the reaction to the court case last week. The legislation which allowed the referendum was quite clear that it was advisory. Any decision was always going to be subject to British laws and British government - in the shape of the houses of parliament. But if you have been told for three months - you, personally - that you were taking back control, wouldn't you be shocked to now hear that? I would be. 

But this belief that people were given, came quite clearly from UKIP, Vote Leave and the press. It is therefore not at all surprising that all of those bodies have immediately come out and attacked the judges and the law of this country. Not because they ever believed it. But because the alternative is that this raw emotion they have unleashed turns on them to hold them to account for selling them a fairytale. 

Indeed, the judges had not made any ruling on whether we could or couldn't or even should or shouldn't leave the EU. They were purely ruling to say that British Law must be followed. However, social media and the mainstream media were awash with this attempt to stop Brexit by these judges. Never mind the fact that reading of it is completely untrue - UKIP, The Daily Mail, The Express all presented it as an attempt BY THE JUDGES to stop Brexit. In fact, in ever more dangerous behaviour Nigel Farage has called on people to march on the Supreme Court. Because nothing says respect for the rule of law like attempting to intimidate judges. 

Of course, this is just one example where a lack of planning and honesty is going to cause problems. There was never any decision or agreement on whether we would have any future relationship with Europe at all. This was not covered in the referendum. We were given a binary choice between the status quo and whatever the Leave campaign wanted to sell us. So it is far from certain whether our final leaving deal will include: Trade tariffs, freedom of movement, single market access, accepting some European rules. But the Leave camp have already sold all of these things. Given the level of emotion they have plumbed and brought to the surface, this could lead to even greater anger in the future. 

If you voted or now want to Leave, I would not expect any other outcome. But it is time to look at what you have been sold, and whether you actually want it. And if you do, what should it look like? The problem is that other Leavers might have a different view from you. There is no way you can all be kept happy. So, you have every right to be angry. But be angry with David Cameron for making a mess of such an important democratic process. Be angry with those who have lied to you. But don't be angry with the courts. Once this is all over, it is likely they will be the only ones left to us. Do you really want to damage them to the point that they can no longer hold the government to account?

How to attribute blame, apparently

         Justice, and the perception of justice, is something that can be very personal. Many people will see acts, or offences, or outcomes of criminal or civil cases and overlay their own experiences and views on them. Similarly, this must happen to those people who have been asked to act as jurors. Additionally, we have a whole host of people in the UK who are charged with seeing justice delivered - police officers, lawyers, judges, Police and Crime Commissioners. They will also use their own experiences. I want to look at the reaction to two very different situations which are surprisingly closely linked. Our system of justice works on the basis that we believe people will be as fair as they can be. But can we really trust that still?

        I am no legal expert. I am sure that any lawyers who read this will have a field day with my lack of reasoning. Having said that, I still find myself wondering what drove the jury in the Ched Evans case ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/ched-evans-rape-verdict-footballer-cleared-not-guilty-a7361701.html ) to their decision. To recap the points of the case that are NOT in dispute. His friend chatted up and took an extremely drunken girl back to a hotel room.Once there, his friend phoned him, and he travelled to the hotel, got a key card for the room, went in, had sex with the girl and then left via a fire exit. 

      

       Initially, this was sufficient evidence to have Ched Evans convicted of rape - a decision he appealed, on the basis of new evidence. What new evidence could possibly throw light on what appears a straight forward case to the uninitiated? Surprisingly, it was evidence that aimed to make the case about the previous actions of the victim rather than the accused. The new evidence was that the person in question had, in previous encounters, consented to sex with other men whilst drunk. It wasn't evidence about the night in question, or the act itself, but rather evidence that this girl could have consented AND had done so previously with other men. That was sufficient for Ched Evans to be found not guilty. Not only that, but there has been an outpouring of support for him and talk of how his life has been ruined. 

         I can just about understand how today's world can be confusing for young men. Ironically for someone who uses the internet to share his thoughts, I can see how corrupting an influence the internet can be. Recently a friend of mine had to post the following message on her Facebook account

"Just a friendly reminded that if you're a left winger and I accepted you as a friend on here based upon our similar political affiliation PLEASE don't inbox me being a perv because I'm really not interested - I mean seriously - even if you look like Daniel Craig and have the political principles of Jeremy Corbyn. I'm here for friendship / comradeship / solidarity - not sex. 

I'm getting REALLY pissed off with the amount of men inboxing creepy stuff and I refuse to stop accepting people based upon the actions of a few because we're socialists and socialism is all about being social! But let's keep in mind there's a line and let's try not to cross it! " 

         People are confused about what the social conventions are, particularly on the internet. At the same time we now have unfettered access to free pornography and the impact that has on our view of what is normal. But I defy anyone to tell me that travelling to a hotel because you believe a girl is there who is so drunk she will have sex with anyone can be seen as positive behaviour. We have to assume the court is correct. But even if it was consensual, how many of you would be happy to hear that your brother, or father, or son, or friend had behaved that way? So how exactly do people now see him as an innocent victim? Whatever the answer, the court ruling and parts of public opinion are clear - if any blame can be attributed to the victim (real or not) then they shouldn't receive justice through the courts. 

        To contrast that I want to also talk about another news story that has occurred recently. The assistant chief of police in Leicestershire said that people who don't lock doors and windows shouldn't have crimes investigated ( http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3841248/Police-chief-claims-burglaries-shouldn-t-investigated-victims-leave-WINDOWS-open-12-months-telling-officers-ignore-attempted-break-ins-odd-numbered-houses.html ). So his argument is that if you are a victim, and you could have done more to prevent the crime, in other words you carry some of the blame (by making it easier for thieves) you shouldn't get access to justice. As you can imagine, this caused uproar. Even Tory MPs rushed to condemn his comments as victim blaming. 

          I find this incredible. I don't agree with the Assistant Chief by the way. But I find the hypocrisy sickening. We may as well write the rules and laws down as "if any blame can be attributed to the victim (real or not) then they shouldn't receive justice through the courts - but only where the victim is a woman". We really can't allow this to continue. This level of horrific, damaging, harmful patriarchy simply shouldn't still exist. A system where the past behaviour of a victim (any victim) is considered as part of the crime surely can't be right? Particularly where this seems to be much more used when it comes to rape and sexual assault. When was the last time you heard a murderer get away with a crime because their victim wasn't very nice for example? Quite simply justice must be available to everyone in the same way. It is one of the cornerstones of a mature democracy. But all the available evidence shows that we don't have that, and in some cases, we don't want it.

The party is over, long live the party.

          Ah, the morning after the night before. I was lucky enough to get a ticket last night to the closing party of The World Transformed – the Momentum fringe event at the Labour Party conference. Sadly, due to childcare arrangements I left 10 minutes before Jeremy Corbyn arrived. But I did get to see a visibly “emotional” famous Guardian columnist arriving. It was a great party – I managed to see fantastic sets from Barbieshop (who did the most amazing cover of Birdhouse in Your Soul) and All We Are. Who knew people were still making music like that? Anyone who likes 80s pop electronica really should go and see them. Of course, it is now 8am the next day and I am travelling to London by Virgin “You can stick your data protection laws around CCTV up your arse” trains. So feeling a little jaded.

            Of course that is the party over, but we still have one day of conference left (although by the time I publish this we will know what JC had to say). Whilst details of his speech, in time honoured fashion, have been given to all of the major reputable news channels (and News International I imagine) I am not going to delve so much into that speech, but more generally look at the state of the overall party, given the conference so far.

            Firstly, we now have a twice elected leader. Once could be seen as a fluke. Twice, with an increased mandate, and the fact that the runner up in the election was Purged voters, really should show to those who are unhappy with JC that they will not be able to get rid of him that easily. For a man who is unelectable, thin-skinned and unresilient he has proven to be remarkably electable and robust. Of course, those are only the votes of the Labour Party members, and they are all mad lefties who don’t understand the real world or concerns of the general public. So what would they know. It is, after all, their party.

            Whilst JC has again won the leadership of the party, it looks as if he still doesn’t have control of it. I mean this in 3 different ways.

Firstly, as can be seen from the lack of discipline in comments at conference from some people – and the “faux” outrage that Laura Kuenssberg has spent 3 days trying to ferment over the Clive Lewis speech – JC does not have the level of control over the party that Blair / Brown / Mandelson / Campbell mastered. Of course, this is not necessarily a bad thing. Anyone who has seen it will remember the Mark Thomas Comedy Product where he used a list of pager numbers to frighten terrified MPs and delegates into giving repeated standing ovations during a speech (Series 3, Episode 8). I am not sure we should want to return to a party that has absolutely unwavering discipline to a messiah at it’s heart. I believe that debate and democratic tension is really important. If we lose this we will lose the right to call ourselves a democratic, socialist party.

Secondly, due to movements behind the scene, JC has also lost control of the National Executive Committee. Just days after gaining control of it. Depending on what you believe, the decision to increase the size of the NEC by an appointed member by the leader of each of the Welsh and Scottish parties has been on the cards for ages, it just happens to be now that it has become imperative OR Progress / Saving Labour have done this in order to ensure the balance remains, for now at least, against Jeremy Corbyn. Now, you can make up your own mind on that. But one thing that I certainly would draw your attention to is the fact that on the evening before these proposals were going to be voted on Saving Labour begged people who backed this to be in conference early to stop a card vote / line by line discussion. Even asking their members and supporters to “incentivise” people to turn up early and vote their way with free drinks.

I think that shows a third way that the left wing faction / JC is not in control of the party. And that is they are playing a different game from Progress in terms of how to pull the levers of power and how to get things done. We will really see this in 3 ways through the next cabinet reshuffle and elections to it (should they be reinstated), formulation of our policies and getting on an election footing, and how any question of positive selection of Labour candidates is handled.

I strongly believe that we should aim to be a party of power, and that to do that we have to win elections. I also believe that to win you have to have strong performers in your team, and that your team needs to work as one. I would therefore strongly urge that there is no immediate major reshuffle. I think that would show quite poorly however it goes. If too many MPs who have no loyalty to the leader and who are seen as superstar parliamentarians go back in, we end up with a fractured top team. It also sends a really strong signal to people like Clive Lewis and Angela Rayner and Emily Thornberry (who have been doing an excellent job) “Thanks, you have done a really good job, but the big boys are back now”.

If not enough changes are made then Jeremy Corbyn will be pilloried in the press and the right wing of the party as having snubbed them, aiming to be a party of opposition etc. If a major reshuffle happens, then it would need to be done with a deftness that so far we have not really seen from Corbyn and his team – balancing all of those things, individual drive and ambition, views from the party and an ability to deliver people in to jobs they might not have necessarily considered. So far, in my opinion, JC has not shown the level of managerialism to pull that off well.

Of course, delaying it does risk(?) a move towards some form of direct democracy in terms of choosing the shadow cabinet. Now whilst I believe that there are some in the PLP who are not pulling for the party (and fuck knows why Tristram “the 1% should rule you all” Hunt is still a Labour MP) I find myself moving towards some or all of the positions being chosen by the PLP and some by the party leader rather than direct democracy from the membership. My rationale for this is that any form of democracy or governance needs to be robust. That is, it needs to be the right size for the job, strong enough to get things done and flexible and agile to deal with issues. If we had direct elections to the shadow cabinet from the membership the administrative burden of this would be so great as to tie us down. We would not be able to deal with issues quickly and if there were resignations we would end up paralysed until the process was put through the NEC and the invariable legal challenges so beloved of millionaires and members. So maybe certain key posts being appointed by the leader, regular elections to the others by the PLP (maybe every 2 years) with any resignations being filled by the leader’s choice. This allows and forces the PLP to work together with the incumbent leader (whoever that is) and vice versa.

Of course, that also plays into the next point – formulation of policies and getting onto an election footing. Many would see this as having a fixed direction of travel in terms of policy aims, which we are settled on and that are easy to explain and understand. We can’t simply go with platitudes. We need to focus on offering an alternative to not only the tories but UKIP and the SNP. They are the parties damaging us in what are working class areas. I’m stealing from a friend of mine here but as he said “winning power means winning back UKIP voters – let me know how many of them you see at your next Momentum event”. This will not be done by going back into arguments around Trident, internal party politics, whether capitalism is good or bad. The focus on these, because they are close to the leaders and many members hearts (and rightly so) needs to stop. That is not a party geared up to face the country.

So we should focus where we can win – with clear unambiguous policies. I think we must focus on the reasons for the brexit vote. 52% of voters voted brexit. Whilst we can’t know why they all voted that way, we need to understand for those voters where it was a protest vote what we can do to improve their lives. But we need to listen to them first.

We also need to act in unison. We can not, as a party, win an election whilst we have Chris Leslie MP running around briefing against Labour policies and actively trying to scare voters away from voting Labour. It is not enough for the party to try to connect to the electorate. MPs need to connect to the party, the message and their electorate too. Where they can’t or won’t do that, then they need to consider whether they still have the desire to be a Labour MP. Part of that needs to be in my opinion, a move away from threats of deselection or mandatory reselection. I don’t even recognise what those terms mean. However, I strongly support the idea that each CLP should, on a regular basis positively confirm who they wish to support to stand up and go in front of the public on behalf of the party. Whilst there is currently a trigger ballot mechanism, this is unhelpful, combative and goes against working in a co-operative democratic party.

I would therefore strongly support a standing, regular scheduled positive confirmation from each CLP that they still support their candidate, before that candidate stands in front of the public. This should include, where it is welcomed by the members of the CLP, the opportunity for others to stand for that candidacy. We must ensure we have a strong link to the local CLP – after all their funds, hard work and resources will be spent in any election campaign. If not, then there can be NO argument if we go back to the days when Peter Mandelson could decide who would stand in constituencies where a resignation or retirement takes place, only now with Corbynites parachuted in.

My worry is that when you look at how the party is being run too many decisions are being made still by those who directly and openly oppose the current leadership and direction of the party. Momentum are (so far) holding true to their aims of developing a community, grassroots and activist movement. Even dispatches when they tried couldn’t find evidence of concerted efforts to get hold of those levers of power. What they found was what is there – a group of people of mixed ages, abilities and social backgrounds trying to embed a new way for the world to be from the ground up. What we need to see is some level of maturity and control from the centre. If Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum are not going to do this for the leadership, they need to find someone who will. But it is hard to see who will be able to save the party by pulling it back in line – without being willing to go against the leaders newer, nicer way of doing politics. And without it, will Corbyn ever control the party? Well, we should know by the time of the next general election.

Our Leadership Candidates

            Well, another summer comes to an end. Children are going back to school, the 2 weeks in Torremolinos are a distant memory for us all. Nights are just starting to draw in, and another Labour Leadership election is drawing to a close.

             I wonder which was worse now. Was it last year’s or this one?

At least for the one last year, there felt like a real purpose to it. We had lost the general election for reasons that the Beckett Report went into (http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/01/beckett-report-into-labours-loss-is-uncomfortable-reading-for-all-party-factions/) whether you believe that or not. We needed new leadership to change the direction of the party on some fundamental issues. We didn’t have a leader – Ed Miliband had stood down. We now know (thanks to Ed Balls) that he had to – after all, it was all his fault for not including Ed Balls in his decision making (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/02/ed-balls-interview-speaking-out-memoir-labour-blair-brown ). I am sure his professional dance partner is bricking it. I think we can know whose fault it will be if he is voted out.

We had a plethora of contenders. There was Jeremy Corbyn, Blairite 1, Blairite 2 and Liz Kendall MP of the conservatives for some unknown reason. (I am well aware that at some point in this blog I am probably going to fall into “purge-able” territory, but to be honest, anything you now say counts so may as well be damned for doing). There was, from the membership, a resounding decision. 59.5% of the party members voted for a non-Blairite, left-wing politician to be leader. Worse than that, the man was a serial rebel who didn’t then appear to be particularly keen on being leader. He didn’t have the polished façade of the modern politician, honed to a cutting edge by SpAds and an office funded by millionaires and staffed by consultants from the Big 4 accountancy firms. What the hell were we thinking?

It’s almost like, and I realise this may surprise some in the PLP, the membership were lashing out at this ideal they themselves had built of a professional political operator who was simply focussed on what they had been told would be the best way to win votes. Or maybe, like me, members of the Labour party really fancied a party leader who seemed to be a bit “socialist”. Whilst that terminology and that ideology are not beloved of everyone, you have to assume it was a mixture of those 2 things. After all, he won. I don’t think there was a huge swathe of Labour members saying “I disagree with his positions and policies and that is not the direction I want the party to go in, but man does he look good in a grey tracksuit. I am voting for him”.

Not only did he win, but the Labour party saw a groundswell of new membership. The reasons behind this can be argued about, but what this did mean is a massive increase in our available resources to fight the electoral battles coming up. Even if we assume that all of those members pay only £1 per month, the minimum, then that is an extra £3.6 million per year pouring into the Labour party coffers. By an eerie coincidence the tories outspent Labour by £3.5m at the last election (https://www.ft.com/content/bb84c98a-bf74-11e5-9fdb-87b8d15baec2) . So there has been a financial boon to the party of Jeremy Corbyn being leader – no matter how much has been spent on questionable court cases over whether he should be allowed to stand as leader.

Of course, there have been problems with his leadership. A central one seems to be that he is not the leader that the PLP see for themselves. Now, there has been yards (sorry, we are no longer European so I am not using metres) of column and newsprint spent on whether that is because Jeremy Corbyn is a good leader or not. For some reason whilst Clive Lewis and others find him easy to work with, many MPs say he is distant and dismissive. They can’t all be telling the truth. So, I have come to the conclusion that some of them are not being completely honest. I know. The problem is, for those of us who are rank and file members who should we believe?

That really is a question for you and your conscience. For me personally, I have seen enough to believe that perhaps the drive from the PLP was coming irrespective of his performance as leader. Not that I am entirely happy with his performance as leader. There certainly have been enough questions over his abilities. What concerns me is the consistency of his performances in front of the media. This is not only about the clear and obvious bias against him – which even those Trots at the LSE have confirmed is genuine (http://www.lse.ac.uk/media@lse/research/pdf/JeremyCorbyn/Cobyn-Report-FINAL.pdf). -but his own performances. Of course, we should have expected this, but even then the ferocity of the attack has left many startled.

So here we are again and, having followed the various leadership debates, it really doesn’t leave us as a party in a great position. From the tone of the debates themselves to the decision to leave the BBC question time debate which was always likely to be the one which more people viewed to the very end. What you ended up with was 2 battered and tired characters replaying the same lines with less zip and vigour and more simple acrimony. When you know your contenders comeback lines so well that you have a prepared “on such and such a date you said such and such” you don’t look like a leader, you look bitter.

What have we learned from the combatants in these battles? Well, the choice seems to be simple. In the red corner you have Jeremy Corbyn – beleaguered, nice guy, who wants to reach out to his membership with promises of nationalisation but who is unable to honestly answer questions on security and defence because he realises that the answers he wants to give are completely unpalatable versus Owen Smith in the slightly less red corner.

Owen Smith, the Great, White, Middle Class, Middle Aged, Managerialist, Male hope. You have to feel some sympathy for the “Anyone But Corbyn” camp that this was their chosen prizefighter. The obvious candidate – Angela Eagle - was so clearly not going to win that she was unceremoniously dumped by the very political class who had initially rallied around her. She was never going to stand a chance once the Chilcott report was published. When she had fallen back on her “Well, it’s about time it was a woman” rhetoric you knew she was defeated. It is hard for me to decide which is more depressing from an equality point of view – that she thought this was an acceptable line to take or Jeremy Corbyn’s remarks that obviously men don’t want to go home and look after their children.

The biggest challenge for Owen Smith has been that, in all of his outings, his lack of depth and of core principles has led to him spouting platitudes whilst being woefully inconsistent. For example, he tells us he will do whatever it takes to gain power because that has to be the most important measure – and in the next breath is saying he will fight for a re-run of the referendum (a strategy that seems guaranteed to keep us out of power). That he is passionate about disarmament – but only if every other country does it at the same time. That he believes in an end to nuclear weapons but would happily pull the trigger.

Worryingly, his method of delivery (in fact, his persona) is so screamingly political class that voters must worry they are seeing the re-run of Blair / Cameron / Clegg. His use of macho metaphors and empty promises that can never be held to scrutiny are exactly the things that are turning people off politics and politicians. The decision to make is whether that would be worse than a Jeremy Corbyn who makes gaffes and blunders and is completely unsupported by his own parliamentary colleagues.  Because although Corbyn seems to misunderstand a lot of the social and political changes that have happened in the last 30 years, at least he cares.