Sunday, 10 February 2019

UK polling: what's going on beneath the surface?

So one thing Polling Club would tell you, if there were such a thing, would be to look beyond the headline Voting Intention numbers that the hard-of-thinking throw around all the time. They’d also tell you not to talk about Polling Club, so it might exist after all, but that’s another story. Anyway. Since we took a perhaps ill-advised look at those very topline figures last time, this month we thought ‘Public Policy and the Past’ would take a look below the surface – at the numbers that might really determined who commands the House of Commons after the next election. Hopefully, it’s imminent, and thousands of numbers will soon pour across screens that for now remain sad and empty. So this is not a – shall we say – completely academic question.

The don’t knows – where are they now?

As you’ll also know if you were with us in January, one key to any election is the Don’t Knows, the Won’t Says and the Refused. Say one in five survey respondents tells you that they’re not sure who they’re going to vote for – even though they’ve clicked on the invite. Now imagine that they are not a balanced or normal sample of voters – that they all actually favour one ‘side’ or the other. That means that your nice clean 50/50 split from the poll might actually blow up into a lead of twenty points on polling day. We’ve actually got a good recent example of this, because in the lead up to the 2017 General Election a huge slice of ex-Labour voters had gone over to Don’t Know. And hey presto, by polling day most of them were back, boosting Labour’s score higher than even its surge in the polls guessed at.

Where are we at with this lot now? Well, the most recent evidence shows that they are now more likely to be voters who chose the Conservatives in the recent past, not Labourites disillusioned with the Party’s recent, well, troubles. Take the most recent Ipsos-Mori Political Monitor. Only five per cent of 2017 Labour voters are now completely unsure how they would vote. Only three per cent of ex-Conservatives say the same – though the numbers of ‘won’t vote’ pretty much even up the score of those who’ve shed supporters to ‘unsure’ or ‘won’t turn up’. In the last Survation poll, which returned a slight Labour lead, Conservative ‘not sures’ were 10.5 per cent to nine per cent. ComRes’ last poll showed that Don’t Know and Won’t Vote were tied at five per cent of their past supporters. And so on. One of the causes of what polling fail there was in 2017 came from citizens who weren’t sure which way they’d jump – who turned up to be Labour voters in disguise. That doesn’t seem to be holding this time.

Leaders… and the lack of them

Leadership ratings are usually a good indication of voting intention. When Neil Kinnock and John Major fought it out in 1992, one indication of how well the Conservatives were actually going to do was the Prime Minister’s leader on ‘best Prime Minister’. When David Cameron was more popular than Ed Miliband, the suspicion stuck that there was something ‘wrong’ with the headline voting figures. And so on. So we need to look at these numbers too, to test visceral reactions to the parties’ main personalities as figureheads and lightning rods. And what we find here is very interesting – that Theresa May is unpopular in a normal way, at about the level one would expect for a Prime Minister who’s now nearly three years in power, while Jeremy Corbyn is very, very, very unpopular – indeed spectacularly so, and probably more unpopular than he has ever been.

Let’s take a look at this historically. After a long period of slowly deflating, recent rows over Brexit and antisemitism appear to have done further damage to Mr Corbyn’s already-tarnished brand. Ipsos-Mori’s Political Monitor for January has just given him the highest Unfavourable rating that any Leader of the Opposition since 1977 has ever recorded – bar none – and the second-worse net result (of -55) after Michael Foot in August 1982. Now in a world of increasingly fluid political loyalties, it might not be particularly surprising that these scores are less ‘sticky’ as it were, but that’s still an absolutely dreadful result. Theresa May, on the other hand, has a net score of-25 (with 33 per cent satisfied). This is obviously pretty bad too: for comparison, Donald Trump given some rather different questions has an overall rating of -15 (itself the second-worst in history). But Mrs May’s rating is about the same as Gordon Brown’s and David Cameron’s at this point in their Premierships, and better than John Major’s numbers at that point. So it’s not particularly remarkable. Mr Corbyn’s favourables do now on the other hand appear to be at an all-time low, since they have also reached the same trough with YouGov. Those statistics might recover – they did, after all, surge very rapidly during the 2017 General Election campaign – but for now what we can say here is the Prime Minister is unpopular, and the Leader of the Opposition is very, very, very unpopular.

The extraordinary longevity of the Scottish National Party

One of the main battlefields next time will be Scotland. Which is one of the reasons why the next General is so unpredictable. Labour must make progress here to govern with an overall majority. The Conservatives must try to hang on to their impressive 2017 gains if they are to get anywhere near an absolute advantage in the House of Commons. At the moment? They’re both falling back - Labour slightly more than the Conservatives - in the face of a small but noticeable bump in support for the Scottish National Party. Partly we suspect because they have that vital political quality of clarity when they talk about Brexit, and partly because the Conservatives’ main star Ruth Davidson has been absent on maternity leave, the SNP have been clocking up some pretty impressive poll leaders – which is extraordinary when you think they have been in power in Edinburgh for over a decade. An average of the last two Scottish polls puts them on 38.5 per cent, up from the 36.9 per cent they gained last time. Labour has fallen back rather, from 27.1 per cent to 23.5 per cent.

This matters a lot. Seven out of Labour’s top twenty targets are held by the SNP, and all of them have majorities under 1,000 voters which will fall on a swing of less than one per cent. Right now, polling says the SNP will hold them all. Yes, Labour can govern without making a single gain in Scotland. But the more they win there, the less they will have to rely on and listen to SNP leader Nichola Sturgeon, and the less in government will they risk English voters’ ire by appearing to rest on Scottish voters and Scottish MPs. Looking at the other side of the equation, the Conservatives have eight seats vulnerable to the SNP on a swing of less than five per cent. These are much less vulnerable on the whole than Labour’s vulnerable Scottish outposts, but the small size of Scottish seats (and a fall in turnout between 2015 and 2017) means that we’re not talking very many actual votes here – perhaps three or four thousand at most. Lose just a few of those, or worse face SNP voters who stayed home in 2017 coming back to the polls, and the Tories could lose a scattering of absolutely vital seats. At the moment, the SNP has advanced enough to put all but one of Labour’s seats in danger, but not far enough to expose more than the Tories’ Stirling seat. None of this changes the size of likely Commons coalitions. But if the SNP push forward any more, the balance might start to change again as Conservative seats come within their range.

The unbearable lightness of council by-elections

Last but very much not least, we really should take a look at local council by-elections – contests that go on round the country week in, week out – and for the most part with very little fanfare. Sure, these are low-turnout affairs, they often throw up eccentric results, and in various parts of the country they are contested by local or regional parties that have very little chance of winning a Parliamentary seat. Last Thursday night, a Tower Hamlets-only party won a ward off Labour, while an excellent and surprising Labour win in deepest Buckinghamshire was rather marred by the fact that their candidate had been suspended from the Party before the polls had even opened. So you can’t put a vast store by these results. You can, however, use them as a broad-brush overall guide to exactly where the parties are. If one of them was absolutely tanking or surging, you would expect to see it show up here.

Except that’s not what we see at all. In fact, the overall stasis that we observe from the national Voting Intention headlines is borne out here too. There has been a small swing from the Conservatives to Labour since the 2017 General Election, though one that seems to have become a little less powerful over time (for now disregarding the small number of results we’ve had in 2019). The swing is a modest 2.3 per cent since the last General Election, and since the 2018 local elections it has been running at just under the two per cent mark. It’s not exactly a King’s ransom for the Opposition, especially when we note exactly when these wards were last fought. They were last up for election in the 2015-18 cycle, four local elections in which Labour certainly did not do very well. They lost the National Equivalent Share of the Vote in three out of the four, and only in one of them (2016) did they squeak ahead, that time by a single point – 33 per cent to 32 per cent. So this two per cent swing means that Labour might overall be on average there or there about with the Tory score – exactly what we would expect from the opinion polls. It’s not much of an insight, but as with ever confirming what you think you already know isn’t nothing.

Inner mechanics and outward appearance

So there we have it. Below the big-ticket numbers, there are a number of very interesting things that we can say about any upcoming General Election. What we know about the Don’t Knows tells us that they are not so maldistributed as they were in 2016 and 2017. Labour is unlikely to be able to draw on such a ready-made pool of sympathetic voters again. Another surge might happen, but it will need a different source this time. Leadership ratings are a bit trickier, because Mrs May has made clear that she will not fight any election held in the medium- to long-term. If there’s an election soon, though, her numbers will matter. And they’re really bad – though not so bad as Mr Corbyn’s, who is about as popular as video rental. Again, that might change, just like it did in 2017, though to come back from these lows twice might be a harder ask again. For now, amazingly, the Prime Minister has the edge.

In Scotland, Labour face a greater challenge than do the Conservatives, not that it will matter in terms of who will sit in Downing Street – the SNP could not possibly do any sort of deal with the Conservatives. Even so, what really matters there will be whether the Conservatives lose more than one or two seats. If they don’t, so much the better are their prospects of retaining power. Local by-elections tell us that we are probably are reading this all aright – that the two major parties in England and Wales do seem to be locked together in a macabre political struggle to bestride the realm of the unpopular. This time, the inner mechanics of what we know seem to confirm the words up in lights. It might not always be so: we’ll keep tracking the detailed churning of the data, and get right back to you if things change.

Update, 12 February: YouGov tells us more

No sooner had the blog above been posted, but pollsters over at YouGov published an update of results from their famous Multilevel Regression and Post-stratification model (or MRP for short). Now although this got things pretty much spot on at the last election, we shouldn’t deify MRP as anything more than an interesting new piece in the puzzle. But it is pretty much the closest thing we have to the state of the art right now, and it’s where most polling is going. Take an absolutely massive sample, and map it onto all sorts of turnout and demographic data, and you can much more accurately project a seat-by-seat analysis. And lo and behold, what YouGov have found is pretty much in the ballpark as all the straws in the wind above told us. The Conservatives do indeed have their noses in front, as their continuing hold over their 2017 voters, their leadership ratings and council byelection results have been indicating they might. Labour are as we suggested going backwards in Scotland, with five of their seven seats there in deep danger, and none of the Conservatives’ Scottish seats looking likely to fall to the SNP. So – it all fits. We’ve got a good (if blurry) picture. Whether that scene withstands the Brexit hurricane or an actual election campaign is another matter.

Thursday, 31 January 2019

What are the polls telling us about a snap election?

There is quite a lot of talk at the moment about the possibility of a snap election in the UK – of Prime Minister Theresa May trying to break the Parliamentary stalemate over Brexit by changing the composition of a Parliament that seems too confused about what it wants to make any decision at all. So this month, we thought we’d take a look at the polling and ask: what does it tell us about the standing of the parties right now?

First things first: overall Voting Intention numbers. If we take an average of each pollster in the field’s January report, we get vote totals that look rather like: Conservatives 38%, Labour 37.8%, Liberal Democrats 9.4%. So the Tories would be down 5.5% on their 2017 performance; Labour will have shed 3.2%; and the Liberal Democrats have advanced 1.8% since the last national contest: but the swing from Conservative to Labour over this Parliament would be only 1.15%: and that means the Government has actually made a very small amount of progress over the last twelve months. A year ago, those numbers actually reported a slender Labour advantage, rather than the tiny Conservative lead that we see now: Labour were on 41.5% as against the Conservatives 40.3% and the Liberal Democrats’ 7.3%.

So the ratings of both major parties have taken a hit over the last year, both drifting downwards a tad as the Liberal Democrats’ polling looks a couple of points healthier. But really, for a number of reasons, there’s even less to that change than meets the eye. You win seats under the First Past the Post, and how many votes you get regionally or nationally don’t come into it. Here, the picture has moved perhaps even more glacially than the overall numbers. So many seats are on a knife-edge that a really decisive break in one direction or the other would pile up the numbers in the Commons for whoever leads the charge; but at the moment, that just isn’t happening.

If we take those overall averages and also factor in sub-national polling from Scotland, Wales and London, in January 2018 we would have expected a House of Commons that looks rather like this: Conservatives, 293; Labour, 283; Scottish National Party, 37; Liberal Democrats, 14; Plaid Cymru, 4; Greens, 1. Right now, we’re looking at something more like Conservatives, 301; Labour, 268; Scottish National Party, 42; Liberal Democrats, 17; Plaid Cymru, 3; Greens, 1. So in a whole year of sound and fury, the Conservatives have moved forward by less than ten seats, while Labour have moved backwards a bit more, partly because of what looks like a deteriorating situation in Scotland: they’ve gone backwards in our virtual election by fifteen MPs, and forward on their unexpectedly good 2017 showing by just six seats.

That means even less when we look at what those numbers would mean in terms of forming a new government. In both situations, those seat totals add up to a Hung Parliament in which Labour would likely try to form a minority government relying on the support of the SNP and the Liberal Democrats. The only difference is the security and stability delivered by a deal between those two parties. Labour plus SNP in January 2018 looked like 325 seats; just about enough on their own to govern for quite a while, with vote-by-vote support from the minor parties. Now that picture looks slightly less rosy for those two parties: they only add up to 310, not enough without the Liberal Democrats (and probably Plaid and some liberal Tories) to do anything much at all.

This is a strange kind of stasis. We appear to be living in a period when the parties might fracture, or even break up. Their discipline in the House of Commons seems almost shot. Frontbenchers on the Opposition side are even allowed to rebel against a three-line whip and keep their jobs. There has been a chemical weapons attack on British soil, killing a British citizen. Brexit is casting a pall over everything. Public services look increasingly threadbare, and in some cases (for instance if we look at homelessness and rough sleeping) appear to be failing altogether.

But the public are just not moving. The vote totals are stuck. It is our contention that voters are so fed up – a fact that you can see in almost all the qualitative and quantitative evidence – that they’ve got into a 'plague on all your houses' mindset, promising to vote for one team or the other just because they hate the alternative. With both parties retiring into their own increasingly bizarre and fantastical comfort zones, these wide but thin coalitions might last for quite a long time.

Ah, Labour partisans say – but look at what happened in the last election, where we surged from the mid-20s to more than 40% in just a couple of months. Once reporting restrictions are introduced to give due balance to the Opposition, and once Labour gets out in sunny rallies and canvassing with its huge membership, then these numbers will be transformed. There’s probably something in that case, too: strategically, the Conservatives have very little to the public except ‘delivering Brexit’, which is likely to consolidate their base without reaching out to any new voters. And Labour’s domestic policies – nationalisation, higher taxes on the rich, more public spending – are undoubtedly pretty popular.

It is however possible to doubt that any Labour gains during the campaign will be on anything like the scale that they managed last time. For one thing, there is just much less of the vote to bite into. The Liberal Democrats were polling higher than they are now at the start of the 2017 race, and the United Kingdom Independence Party have gone from polling in the teens then to mid-single figures now. For another, the number of don’t knows that were once Labour is far smaller than when Mrs May made her ill-fated break for it in 2017. As the Bristol University academic Paula Surridge explains here on her blog (using YouGov figures) there were many more ex-Labour undecideds from 2015 at the start of the 2017 campaign than there were uncertain Conservatives. That allowed Opposition Leader Jeremy Corbyn to squeeze voters who preferred Labour, but who weren’t sure about him and his agenda, by urging to come home and ‘stop the Tories’. But that gap has now been reversed or closed altogether. There aren’t the don’t knows to make the same sort of progress.

Other pollsters confirm this picture. Take the first ComRes poll of the 2017 campaign: 11% of 2015 Labour voters said ‘don’t know’at that point, as against six per cent of Conservatives. The last ComRes poll we have in 2018 records 15% of Conservatives as uncertain, as against 13% of previous Labour supporters. Labour might indeed do quite well in a campaign. But they seem unlikely to jump upwards quite so vertiginously as they did in 2017.

What does this all mean in practice? Well, the exact polling numbers should be taken with a pinch of salt. For one thing, UK polling has a mediocre rather than a bullseye record of predicting General Election results even just before the poll, let alone months or even years before it happens. As US polling guru Nate Silver noted in 2017, the average error on UK polls fifty days out from a vote is exactly six points on the margin between either the two sides in a referendum or the first place and runner-up slots in a ‘normal’ election. That means that our tiny Conservative lead of 0.2% could actually end up meaning anything between a 6.2% lead and a 5.8% deficit on any polling day in March. Even poll numbers from the week before have a five-point error margin. The biggest miss from the week before is 9.5% (at the 1992 General Election). That means that it should not completely and utterly shock us if the Conservatives ended up either winning a snap election by 9.7% or losing by 9.5% - not much of a guide to anything, you might think.

Secondly, the whole country is entering the white-water phase of any political crisis, where the thrills and spills make you feel sick rather than excited: it’s perfectly possible that one or both main parties will splinter, with breakaway groups forming and recrimination spreading. There’s even potential for a really unplanned or disorderly Brexit, which will likely bring about more disruption and therefore political upheaval than any emergency since the miners’ strikes, the three-day week and the winter of discontent in the 1970s. It is likely that if we do crash out of the European Union, the Government will get much of the blame; but even that is unpredictable, were the Conservatives to be led into a snap election by a Eurosceptical leader who blamed everything on Eurocrats and foreigners.

Third and last, it’s important to note that everything we’ve written above is based on averages – the safest, but by no means foolproof, way of going about measuring any group of indicators churning so dynamically. And the polling differs. One pollster, YouGov, is showing a consistent Conservative lead – of five points at the last count. The others aren’t, and the last reports from pollsters Opinium and Kantar actually gave Labour three-point leads. Relying on YouGov alone would give us a House of Commons would look like: 331 Conservatives, 241 Labour, 37 SNP, 19 Liberal Democrat, 3 Plaid Cymru, 1 Green. The Tories would gain a small absolute majority that looked very much like David Cameron’s in 2015, though with a rather different geographical spread of where their seats actually were. But if we take YouGov out of the picture entirely, each party’s total of MPs would likely look much more like the average, with perhaps a handful of seats going over to Labour from Conservative.

Even so, the polling does tell us something, and that’s why it’s better than nothing – just as it told us a lot during the 2017 General Election campaign, during which both main campaigns whispered to anyone listening that they didn’t believe the surveys showing a Labour surge upwards. Well, the polls were right about that, and the canvassing data and human intelligence was wrong. So it might prove again. The polling tells us that the parties are running pretty much neck-and-neck, that the remarkable longevity of the SNP’s popularity in Scotland looks to be still holding up, and that Labour looks unlikely to make the same gains during the next campaign as it did during the last one. In short: any General Election would be a massive gamble for all concerned. Right in the middle of the bell curve of probability is a Hung Parliament that produces nothing very useful except the chaos that populists love so much: but at one end (with YouGov) the Conservatives win a majority, and at another (with Opinium or Kantar) Labour have enough MPs to govern, albeit without much comfort. That is the heat map of where we would land if there were a General Election tomorrow – which, of course, there won’t be.

Now, that level of precision (or lack of it) might be a poor return for all the work everyone is putting in. It isn’t a Rosetta Stone. But it isn’t nothing either. Such is the world of known knowns and known unknowns – and of statistical art and practice, rather than science. Experts, in this case pollsters, do know things: it’s just that they don’t know everything. They can map out the landing zone. The rest is up to you.

Thursday, 20 December 2018

Five more days that made Corbynism inevitable

Despite all the alarms and excursions of recent months, if most of the recent opinion polls are right, Britain’s Labour Party are still heading for government. Yes, maybe they’ll be in a minority. Yes, maybe they’ll be reliant on the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats if they want to actually pass any legislation. Yes, Britain might be back at the polls (yet) again pretty quickly. But as Theresa May’s remarkable stickability shows, and James Callaghan showed before her as Prime Minister between 1976 and 1979, there’s a huge amount that even a minority government can do to cling on for much longer than you’d think.

That’s why we took a look, last month, at eight of the key dates that gave us ‘Corbynism’ – that strange amalgam of radical rhetoric, conservative ideas and new-old economic thinking that has captured the Left, if not yet convinced the country. Those ranged from the big things – the privatisation and financialisation of the economy – to the little things, including Labour MP Eric Joyce’s famous punch that led to Labour’s One Member One Vote revolution and ultimately Jeremy Corbyn’s election as Labour's leader. This month, we thought it would be interesting to go further, perhaps deeper, and look at some more of those structural or big picture reasons why Corbynism has been able to take off. Here are five more dates that have made Britain’s Left turn all but inevitable in some form.

The destruction of Allende’s Chile, 11 September 1973. The single most important thing about the Corbynite movement is its anti-imperialism and anti-Americanism. That’s why the disastrous Second Gulf War gave it such succour, and why the election of Donald Trump helps it too. For the Labour Left, most things that pass in the world must be America’s fault, or the fault of ‘the West’ in general. Sometimes that’s true, of course. There’s certainly a lot of truth to that in the case of the military junta that overthrow Left-wing Salvador Allende’s Chilean government in 1973, toppled by a full-on military coup that led directly to the torture and murder of many thousands of Chileans. It's one huge driving force behind the Left's suspicion of America, and its admiration for South America's anti-capitalist Left.

Richard Nixon’s government in Washington was deeply implicated in the whole thing, fearing Soviet penetration of the Western Hemisphere, and to this day the coup is a standing warning and inspiration to the Left’s struggle everywhere. Mr Corbyn himself, who is now married to the Mexican Laura Alvarez, was married to a Chilean woman – Claudia Bracchitta – who was a refugee from the putsch, and with whom he campaigned for Chilean dictator Augusto Pinochet’s extradition to Spain for trial. You cannot understand Corbynism – its prior enthusiasm for the socialist experiment in Venezuela, its current alliance with South American populists such as Bolivia’s Evo Morales – without grasping the fundamental link between such world-historical events and the course of the domestic Left.

The invention of the World Wide Web, March 1989. There could be no Corbynism without the Web. It is there that his most fervent adherents gather, pushing video after video and meme after meme, organising campaigns, sharing Left and alt-Left stories, supporting each other on Facebook pages, and on the nastier fringes of the movement dishing out abuse to the insufficiently loyal. It was the Web that first allowed them to see how powerful the Left could become in 2015. It was the Web that helped them turn the tide during the 2016 leadership election and the 2017 General Election. It’s the Web that allows previously unheard-of activists to become media stars. The Canary, Skwawkbox, Novara Media – they are all creations of the online world that could not possibly have broken through without the aid of post-modern connectivity.

It’s here that you can read all about Newsnight putting that 'Russian' hat on Mr Corbyn. Or where you can see his mouth and words slowed down so that… well. Or that you can link Porton Down to the Salisbury chemical attack. Whatever takes your (flight of) fancy, really. When Tim Berners-Lee got frustrated at computers’ lack of a shared syntax from his CERN vantage-point in 1989, he saw the potential of the burgeoning Internet if only it could only allow all this IT to speak the same language. And lo, HyperText Markup Language was born. Little could he know that HTML would change the political world, as well as the scientific arena, absolutely and forever – for good or ill.

The fall of the Berlin Wall, 9 November 1989. There’s no way Corbynism would have got anywhere under the shadow of the mushroom cloud. Ex-spooks have come out to condemn the Jezziah. Faintly ludicrous accusations of Cold War complicity have been levelled at him. Post-War Britain was always on the lookout for infiltrators – often unsuccessfully, but at least with energy. That created an ‘us and them’ atmosphere that permeated everything. The idea that a movement so sympathetic to (say) the ex-Communist Die Linke in Germany could emerge within the Labour Party would have been anathema to its titanic Cold Warriors – men such as Ernie Bevin, Denis Healey and Jim Callaghan.

The end of that Cold War heralded by the opening of the Berlin Wall (above) initially seemed as if it would mean liberal democracy and free-market capitalism would rule the roost. It hasn’t worked out like that, of course, and the rebirth of history in its all nationalist, populist, racist, statist forms has surprised no-one with a History degree. What the removal of the Red Threat has actually done over the medium term is allow those who always saw themselves as equidistant between two Evil Empires to reposition themselves as social justice warriors primarily interested in domestic policy. Mr Corbyn’s entourage contains people happy to ‘contextualise’Stalin’s crimes and play down the deeds of those who oppose the hated American giant – whoever they are. You know what? Now that’s not a matter of pressing diplomatic concern, no-one really cares.

The election of Donald Trump, 8 November 2016. Now Donald Trump is not the Corbynites’ favourite politician, and that’s putting it mildly. But as it’s now a commonplace to note, both men share much, much more than they’d like to admit. Wildly unlikely candidate? Check. Chequered past? Check. Displacing a complacent party elite? Check. Social media rage? Check. Fervid advocates who will defend their man, whatever he’s done? Check. Black is white, and white is black? Check. But the link is actually more specific than a mere list of similarities from the same era. Since politics is about image, personality and mood as well as policy, it’s no surprise that you can draw plenty of unlikely dot-to-dots between apparent enemies. The interesting thing here is that Labour is actually basing its insurgency on Trump’s success. Cobrynite supremo Seumas Milne made that explicit when he started to beef up Labour’s media operation over the winter of 2016/17, and he got it bang on.

The techniques involved on both sides of the Atlantic are very similar. Attack, attack and attack again. Blame ‘the establishment’. Blame 'the media'. Say that everything is the fault of ‘the elites’. Offer simple solutions. Raise the stakes. Be certain. If you’re in trouble, throw off chaff and distractions – and deny the evidence of everyone’s eyes. Yes, maybe if you’re a policy purist, you’ll put your hand up at the back and say ‘erm, aren’t these employee share options just a tax the workers will never actually see?’ But by then, the kaleidoscopic news agenda of our current politics-on-acid will be haring off again, amidst a loud of shouting and screaming. Here’s what Trump knows: no-one has ever listened to people who know things. Now Labour know that too.

Theresa May’s Lancaster House speech, 17 January 2017. There’s a good case to be made here for singling out the signing of the Maastricht Treaty in February 1992 – for it was then that the European Union, as it became, surged off down the supranational route that the British disliked so much, threatening to split the Conservatives and ultimately helping to cause Brexit. But Mrs May’s speech outlining her ill-fated ‘red lines’ demonstrates, most of all, just how hard it is to keep the Conservative show on the road. The Conservatives are now really two parties: English Nationalist Eurosceptics who hark back to a closed world of cultural certainties, and British Liberals who stress openness, social change and free markets. Never the twain shall meet, and Mrs May attempted to stress the former while keeping the latter on board. That balancing act now looks very, very uncertain indeed.

What were the red lines that have now turned slightly pink? Well, Mrs May aimed to take Britain completely and forever out of European Court of Justice jurisdiction, and that’s potentially been blurred a bit. The entirety of the UK was also supposed to leave the Single Market, which if nothing happens on the Irish border question by 2021 (or 2023) won’t be achieved either – since Northern Ireland will retain those elements of the Single Market regulatory regime that are required to prevent any border with the Republic. In truth, the Prime Minister's not got a bad deal given that her overriding intention was to leave the European Economic Area and take back control of immigration policy. She’s probably got the only deal she was ever going to get, given the trade-offs involved. But even those compromises threaten to rip the Conservative Party apart, just as it was blown to bits over tariffs and trade policy in 1846 and 1903. Mrs May overbid and overclaimed, until what she did get looked mouselike: in return, her government might collapse, allowing Labour just to walk into Downing Street. Such are the wages of choice.

There is a risk of over-determination here. If you list too many causes, you end up suggesting that nothing else could ever have happened – that everything in the whole world led up to the triumph of the British Left. There were clearly lots of other moments when this could have gone completely differently. What if Mr Corbyn’s backbench opponents had really gone for broke and resigned the Whip en masse in the summer of 2016? What if Labour had never sharpened up their media operation between Christmas 2016 and Easter 2017? What if Theresa May had not decided to burn down her own election campaign? Well, then things would be different.

But they’re not different, and analysing why will occupy many historians for a long time to come. Britain is potentially about to be wrenched out of the course it’s been on since the mid-1970s. Most of the utilities are going to be nationalised. Large-scale private industry is going to be partially socialised via all sorts of binding agreements with workers, customers and partners. The Thatcherite strike laws are going to be torn up. A reborn Ministry of Labour is going to administer national pay bargaining. Tuition fees are going to be abolished, with unpredictable consequences for England’s already-struggling universities. Taxes are going to go up (though actually that just continues current trends). Capital and exchange controls might be needed. In terms of foreign policy, Britain is going to shift away from the Transatlantic alliance, and pivot Eastwards – towards Iran and Russia.

Some people will like those changes. Many people won’t. More likely, voters will like some of them but reject others. But whatever happens, and whichever side of each of those arguments you take, unpicking what has brought us to this point is a necessary and pressing task. That’s what the disciplines of History and Political Science exist to do, and the sort of task that blogs like this exist to make a start on. Britain’s national life is in a fix. Its politics sometimes look like more a tragic-comic joke than a serious attempt to unpick the problems before us. But that’s no reason, and this is no time, to stop hoping that we can understand what’s happening.

Thursday, 22 November 2018

The eight days that gave us Corbynism

Regular readers of this blog will know that we now regard Labour’s victory at the next election as very likely – not overwhelmingly likely, and certainly not a done deal, but far north of fifty per cent if we’re talking probabilities. There are lots of reasons for this. For one thing, they’re so, so close to power that they can almost touch it. They need just a tiny swing of 0.5% to take the seven or so Conservative seats that would lock the Tories out of power and allow Labour to govern (albeit uncertainly) with the Scottish National Party and the Liberal Democrats.

Labour are also riding a wave of deep concern about disorganised capitalism and its unequal results. Nationalisation is popular, and profit not so much – a phenomenon we see again and again in the British Election Study data. When the Right have been in for a long time, the public swing Left, and vice versa. All of this has happened before, and all of this has happened again. And lastly, of course, the Government is preoccupied with, and increasingly exhausted by, Brexit – that great Schleswig-Holstein of a question that no-one can even understand any more, and which Labour has tricksily and artfully navigated better than anyone else.

For all these reasons, Labour is pretty likely to win the next election. They are not in themselves particularly popular, and Jeremy Corbyn as their leader certainly is not. But none of that really matters. If the Conservatives tear themselves apart, at a time when the public are tired of austerity, then Mr Corbyn will walk into No. 10 unopposed. That outcome looks more likely by the day. But these are proximate causes, located in the present or the very recent past. The extraordinary ascension of Corbynism, to the point where it looks likely to capture the commanding heights of the state, surely needs deeper and more profound explanations than these.

So for this month’s blog, we’re going to look at eight days that made Corbyn’s move into Downing Street so likely. We’ve done this before, when we looked at why Leave could win the Brexit referendum – two months before that happened. It’s hopefully a good way to lay bare the real forces – deep and shallow, long- and short-term, policy-wise and political – that have brought Britain to the verge of its first real Leftist government in the mould of Die Linke, Podemos or Syriza. Without further ado, here are the eight days that have put Jeremy Corbyn within a hair’s breadth of the Cabinet room.

4 February 1996. This was the day that the first privatised trains since the 1940s ran on Britain’s railways. Actually, the first 'train' was a bus, pootling along between Fishguard and Cardiff, but the first real train was the suburban South Western Trains service between Twickenham and Waterloo at just after five in the morning. But there was a problem with the whole design of British Rail’s privatisation: the divide between track and train, between Railtrack (as it was then) and the Train Operating Companies, fragmented the railway and lost it some of that coherence, engineering know-how and in-house organisation that had helped keep Britain’s railways going. Now in some ways the railways are a victim of their own (privatised) success: crowded, expensive and groaning under the weight of demand, they are pushing lots of regular commuters towards Corbynism. But that doesn't matter politically. When they fail and struggle and flounder, as they often do, passengers blame privatisation - forgetting, for a moment, that all the infrastructure is owned by the state. Rail nationalisation is one of Mr Corbyn's signature ideas, and it’s popular. This is the moment when Britain's political economy gradually, gradually began to go his way.

15 February 2003. The Iraq War was a defining moment in British politics. It provides meaning for so many people, across the spectrum of British politics: a coherent part of the narrative about how ‘little people’, outsiders, the principled, the unheard mainstream are never listened to. It is one key reason why New Labour in power was not able to cement its legacy, and why Tony Blair is still so unpopular. In February 2003, probably about one million people marched against that war: many also opposed the wider strategy of military intervention that had taken hold after the 9/11 attacks in the United States. The Stop the War Coalition was the directing mind behind this demonstration, and it hated (and hates still) ‘centrists’ with a passion. They are one of the most important parts of the Corbyn coalition, and stood with him in the crucial first days of his leadership. Without the Second Iraq War, the infrastructure behind Mr Corbyn simply would not have existed.

5 May 2005. This was the moment at which Labour won its historic third term under Blair: but little noticed amidst all the toing-and-froing was that an obscure backbencher named Jeremy Corbyn had just been re-elected in Islington North. At this stage, of course, Mr Corbyn was little more than an irritant or a figure of fun at Westminster, having never been involved in a single mainstream cause in his life (beyond stirring up trouble for the Anti-Apartheid Movement and others). But Mr Corbyn had an unseen friend: no lesser figure than Prime Minister Blair, who at some point in the previous Parliament had rejected some local activists’ calls for Mr Corbyn to be de-selected. Until and even after the Iraq War, the Blair government attempted to build at least something of a broad church within Labour: Robin Cook, Clare Short and Michael Meacher were all relatively successful Ministers. The Corbynites will not make the same mistake Blair did, misled as he was by the mistaken assumption that his side of the party had won and could relax.

14 September 2007. As queues began to form outside high street branches of the bank Northern Rock, it became clear that something was very wrong with the financial system. Thousands of ordinary people were in a panic, racing to pull their savings out before Northern Rock collapsed altogether. Its tellers were overwhelmed, its phone lines jammed. The lender had ridden the wave of pumping more and more cash into an overheated property market, whoever you were and whatever you could afford: now that ponzi scheme of a model came crashing down. It was the first sign of the financial crash to come. Now the epicentre of that disaster was in New York, not London, and in the American, not the British, housing market: but the British had left themselves too exposed to the US markets, and the world economy threatened to go into a tailspin. Years of economic attrition lay ahead – and the Great Moderation, so beloved of the ‘centrists’ who stood in the Left’s way, was over. Corbynites always blame capitalism for most of the world’s ills: after this, they had a point.

12 May 2010. By this point, Britain’s Liberal Democrats had been on the rise for years. They had opposed the Iraq War. They had advanced a kind of more radical, and more Left-wing, Blairism. They had got increasingly popular, and increasingly vocal, able via targeting particular swing seats to grow and grow in the House of Commons. Now the quirks of Britain’s First Past the Post voting system put them in a kingmaker position. They chose to put the Conservatives, under David Cameron, into office. This turned out to be a huge mistake, and the lovely mood music they emitted in the Downing Street garden press conference held on this day in 2010 (abovewas an even worse blunder. Most of those radical voters who’d put their cross next to the Liberal Democrat choice thought they were voting for a radical party that could make Britain fairer, better, perhaps in some undefinable way newer: now they got the Tories back. The Liberal Democrats have never recovered, and there is now no rival to Labour on the Left, and no rival for pro-European Remain voters. That absence has helped Corbynism to first survive, and then thrive. 

22 February 2012. When the Labour MP Eric Joyce got drunk and got into a fight in the House of Commons, no-one really thought much of it. It’s not as if there’s never been a drunken disagreement in our politics before. This particular bust-up turned out to be one of the most important moments in modern British political history. Mr Joyce eventually had to give up his seat in Falkirk, but the jiggery-pokery being pulled there by the huge Unite union led to the then-Labour leader, Ed Miliband, suspending the process by which the local party picked its Parliamentary candidate. In future, trade unions were not to be allowed to pay the dues of people that it was signing up to play a role in Labour Party selections. The whole debacle put huge pressure on the link between the unions and the formal Party itself. Mr Miliband soon announced a clean break with the unions, so that Labour’s three-part electoral college was to be replaced by a One Member One Vote structure for all elections – including that of leader. That new system was to allow Mr Corbyn to be elected, as he never would have been had MPs had one-third of the say (and unions another third) over the choice.

23 June 2016. When Britain voted for Brexit, it looked as if that decision might sweep away Mr Corbyn just as it did Prime Minister David Cameron. Labour MPs and officials were furious that Mr Corbyn had basically done less than nothing to make the case for Remain – unless you count turning up at a handful of pretty pitiful photo opportunities as doing something. A political riot ensued, in which almost the whole of Labour’s top team resigned to try to force out their leader. That putsch failed, because the members continued to support him – in part of course because they had only just chosen him. But the Brexit vote secured for Labour that sense of chaos, thrill and opportunity that any new movement needs to gain a hearing: it played, and is playing, the role that the 1978-79 Winter of Discontent played for Mrs Thatcher when she said that Britain was broken. It is tearing apart the alliance of big business, liberal-minded small-‘c’ conservatives and self-consciously English patriots that allows the Conservatives to govern: justifying, all the while, New New Labour’s case that something is deeply wrong with British state and society.

22 May 2017. Theresa May’s social care u-turn was the defining moment of the 2017 General Election campaign. Her Conservatives trounced Labour in the local elections, held in early May. She enjoyed a 20-point lead in the opinion polls. Labour was a chaotic laughing stock that made a bin fire look organised. But then the Conservatives published their manifesto, and machine-gunned their own campaign. Its centrepiece was an entirely reasonable and justifiable policy – that you (or your estate) would keep more of your own money if you needed residential care in your old age. But there was a catch: the value of your house would be included in the assessment, and charged, if you needed care at home. Hitherto it had been left out of that account. Reminding people that they might need care, and still more that they are pretty soon going to get old and die, oh and by the way you’ll steal their house on the way, is pretty much up there with the most moronic decisions in all of political history. If we look at the best polling of that election, it was at about this time that the Tories’ hopes of a majority tanked, never to recover. Their majority – indeed, their landslide – was gone. Mr Corbyn looked like a winner, though actually Labour didn't even do all that well. He was well set on his march to power.

So there we have it. Labour is now likely to govern. You could always pick out other reasons for that, of course, but when a historian looks at this, they see a series of very deep-seated causes and some butterflies flapping their wings. In the ‘deep’ end: what if privatisation had never cut so deep into the British economy? What if the US banking system hadn’t got out of control? In the ‘medium’ category: what if the Iraq War had never happened? What if the Liberal Democrats had tried to keep Labour in power? What if voters had not chosen Brexit? What if the Conservatives had not launched and then unlaunched a manifesto that basically amounted to ‘we’ll take your mum’s house away’? And then the little things. What if Mr Blair had left Mr Corbyn to his fate in 2001-2005? What if Mr Joyce had not thrown his fists about? Well, just take away one or two of these, and Britain would not be on the brink of the most fundamental changes to her economic and social life since the early 1980s. But they did happen, and here we are. Whatever else it is, it’s quite a story.

Sunday, 30 September 2018

Is the Labour Party institutionally racist?

Is the UK Labour party institutionally anti-Semitic? Almost unbelievably, that has become a real live matter of public debate over the last few months – a development that previous generations of Labour activists and members could scarcely have imagined. Once upon a time, Labour seemed like the natural choice for Britain’s Jewish community. Labour was of course a rallying-point for all Britain’s non-Anglicans, as the Conservatives represented Deep England’s Established Church; it was an anti-racist Party that welcomed all-comers; it was friendly towards Israel, or at least sympathetic to that country’s situation. Most (though by no means all) Jews thought of Labour as their home.

Not so today, after more than three years of mounting tension between Labour and the Jewish community. This year’s local elections showed that Jewish communities in (for instance) Barnet have had enough of Labour – and will boot out their councillors where they live in enough numbers to make that choice. What we know from opinion polling is that Labour’s vote has crashed to almost nothing among Jews – and that for instance 85% of them regard the Party’s leader, Jeremy Corbyn, as quite simply an anti-Semite. There are some dissenting voices, to be sure: but that’s the picture taken as a whole.  

Why has this happened? Well, let’s just take a look at the whole sorry farrago. To be honest, it’s exhausting just trying to give you a list, but here's an initial reckoning with these frankly astonishing events. Over the past few years, it’s become clear that a minority of Labour members and office-holders – a group of very hard-to-determine size, though perhaps it amounts to some thousands or tens of thousands – hold very worrying views about Jews. We’ve had councillor after councillor, officer after officer, member after member, repeating the same awful hate speech as if they think it's okay. Apparently ‘Zionists’ run the world’s press. Or the banks. Or the ‘deep state’. Or the whole international economy. Apparently they’ve organised themselves into a sinister cabal biased against the Left, determined to prevent real people taking a real leading role in public life. Apparently they’ve got money and they’re influencing our politics behind the scenes. Apparently some Jews have divided loyalties as between the UK and Israel. And so on. And on. This sort of thing has become such a constant drumbeat of low-level fear and loathing that it’s often forgotten amidst the shrapnel storm of Labour’s unending civil war – though it shouldn’t be.

Instead of listening and learning, the core group at the heard of Corbynite New Model Labour doubled down on their denials. They basically decided to go to ground with their hands over their ears, shouting ‘lah lah lah, can’t hear you’. Their allies on Labour’s National Executive Committee let plenty of people off. Members got slapped on the wrist. Deadlines slipped. People were recommended for ‘training’. A long-standing friend and ally of the leadership team was appointed to oversee this type of complaint. Labour’s new masters also encouraged the creation of a ‘Jewish’ group called Jewish Voice for Labour, which was a Jewish Voice only in the very dark sense that it showed just how little Labour thought of most of them. JVL then set about muddying the waters about who was who and what was what, which was always the whole point of them. Having watched Trump take advantage of the media’s liberal naivete and its false cult of ‘balance’, they made sure they got themselves on broadcast after broadcast – often facing off against Labour’s far, far more representative Jewish members, organised as they always have been in the Jewish Labour Movement. Pretty soon they were all over the airwaves – and busy talking nonsense at Labour Party Conference as well. A tiny groupsicle of activists had got themselves legitimised as one strand of Jewish Labour thought. That was lovely.

Things ramped up a great deal the moment ex-Labour Mayor of London Ken Livingstone took it upon himself to repeat a load of old far-Right nostrums about Hitler’s supposed support for a Jewish homeland. All a load of unpleasant nonsense of course – Ken has form in this respect – as any actual historian will tell you. But it was enough to light the touchpaper on the real crisis to come, as scandal followed blunder followed nightmare for what seemed like years. As soon as the whole thing blew up, some thousands of Labour members got onto Twitter and Facebook and started either agreeing with Ken (though about what, it was never one hundred per cent clear), or saying ‘it’s all a smear’, got up by… well, again, they never quite said.

Len McCluskey, head of the Unite union and in many ways Labour’s paymaster, said that all those Jews and academics getting worried about Labour’s behaviour were just playing some tired old ‘mood music’ to get rid of Jeremy Corbyn. The chair of the Disputes Committee, the Party’s disciplinary clearing-house – herself installed after a rather nasty old battle inside Labour’s National Policy Forum - had to resign when she was found to have defended a Holocaust-denying councillor.  Labour carried on pretending that there were just a few cases of Jew-hating being reported, even while it was being reported that the Party’s compliance unit itself was (and is) close to collapse.

Then, things got even worse. Labour’s leader was caught shooting the breeze in a number of Facebook groups where anti-Semitic tropes were freely thrown around like confetti. Not a single word did he say about it all – before that membership was published. Then he was shown to have defended a clearly anti-Semitic mural. He dissembled about that for a few days, then issued a half-apology, then went silent, obviously hoping that the whole thing would go away. He was dragged out a few times to make some general and meaningless ‘anti-racist’ statements before being sent off once more on some speaking tours to make the same anti-austerity stump speech he always makes. It didn’t look good.

Then Labour published its new 'anti-Semitism code'. In a distasteful little move almost beyond parody, this downgraded four of the International Holocaust Remembrance Alliance examples of anti-Semitism from being actually racist to merely being bad. So you could now compare (say) Israelis to Nazis if you wanted to, or question British Jews’ loyalty to Britain, if you saw fit: just so long as you didn’t show ‘anti-Semitic intent’. Whatever that means. No consultation appeared to have taken place with Labour’s mainstream Jewish groups (nor did it when, faced with a storm of protest, the Party promised to consult yet one more time). Lots of Corbynites – including Jon Lansman, one of the leader’s more thoughtful backers – supported the new code for a little while, before it became clear that it was utterly indefensible. A huge hoo-ha followed, during which Labour promised to consult again (after which, unsurprisingly, it didn’t), and then basically gave in – though not without Mr Corbyn attempting, one last time, to append a deeply offensive new text to the IHRA’s examples.

Mr McCluskey, for his part, said that ‘Jewish groups’ wouldn’t 'take yes for an answer': that they were basically a load of difficult refuseniks who should get with the programme. Lately, he's been saying that Labour's only agreed to make changes to take the issue off the agenda. That was helpful. One of Labour’s NEC members, Peter Willsman, got taped ranting about all those Jews who apparently admire President Trump, declaring as part of his masterly oratory that he’d never seen anti-Semitism in the Party – despite sitting on a disciplinary committee that oversees oodles of it. He got voted back in by members just a few weeks later, by the way. Oh, and other NEC members – including the Party’s General Secretary, Jennie Formby – sat and listened to that without much demur. She just rebuked Mr Willsman after the meeting. A fine state of affairs.

In the interim, Labour’s leader-slash-campaigner had been caught on video snidely remarking to some particular Jews as lacking a ‘British sense of irony’, despite having ‘lived here all their lives’ – a nasty little bit of upper-class presumption revealed for all to see. That was bad enough, but what followed was much worse: official Labour spokespeople actually tried to defend what everyone in the whole world could see was an impossible-to-excuse bit of racism. Yeah, it was ‘Zionists’ all right he was having a go at: though, of course, that reference to how long they’d been here gave the game away, despite his attempts to make amends on a Friday evening just before the start of Shabbat, or by cutting and pasting stuff he’d said before. The mask was torn away: yet Labour members went on fixing Twitter hashtags and Facebook likes to their defence of the indefensible.

That was in many ways the most worrying development of all – because the poison has entered the Left bloodstream more widely, via partisanship, a usually-healthy scepticism, and sheer failure to grasp the hard-to-believe scale of what’s really going on. Because all this will have long-term consequences. Mr Corbyn and his immediate coterie will be gone soon. Maybe they’ll be in Downing Street for a while on the way. Maybe not. But the Far Left lived through such a political ice age in the 1990s and early 2000s that there’s not that many of them, and they’re rather old: one day fairly soon, a Soft Left Labour leader, such as Emily Thornberry or Angela Rayner, will sit where Mr Corbyn sits, and will gradually move the party away from its more egregious and eccentric fears and hatreds. But the anchor that Labour’s leadership team is moving is shifting the Party further and further away from Britain’s Jewish community, just as it’s remaking Labour more generally as a closed, autarkic, resentful community of the conspiratorial and the suspicious-minded. 

You can see it in those local Constituency Labour Parties in which some activists are moving against Labour MPs who took a stand alongside Jewish community groups back in the spring – including motions that basically say ‘one can understand anti-semitism after the banking crisis’. You can see it on all those forums and Twitter feeds where people say ‘there is no anti-Semitism’ or ‘the Tories are worse’ or ‘what about Israel?’ In all those people who say ‘I’ll turn a blind eye to a bit of racism so long as we abolish tuition fees and nationalise the railways’. The hate has gone deep. It’s hard to see now how the breach can be mended. The gulf is just too wide.

So, to try to answer the question – is Labour institutionally anti-Semitic? Let’s be clear here. Even if it were, that would certainly not mean that most Labour members or elected representatives were closet racists. Most of them are lovely people – retired public sector workers, students, teachers, lecturers, trade unionists, radicals of all stripes originally attracted to a Party just trying to make the world a better place. It’s not as if there isn’t plenty of work to do in that respect. And many of these same members know that their party has a problem. A majority of them agree that it has – to a greater or lesser extent – and that number has been growing. It’s not a nest of vipers.

Still. Consider what the following chain of disaster and excuse sounds like. A group of people who have always experienced prejudice come forward with a long list of complaints against an old and established British institution. At first, that institution rejects their complaints. Then, it starts to take them on board, but does it badly, while denying they have a real problem. It’s all a few bad apples. You’ve got to understand the unique problems. You’ve got to realise that there’s a context here. Oh, and others are just as bad. Those in authority try to set up their own rules, in defiance of the community complaining about them. Then, the institution in question adopts a new code of practice that has been designed by others, but don’t quite take it to heart. Its leaders close their ears to the pain and hurt they and their followers are causing. It takes a policy disaster of unprecedented scale to force them onto the right path. Sound familiar? Yes, it’s the Metropolitan Police and its antediluvian attitude towards young black Londoners between the 1950s and the early 1990s - before the Stephen Lawrence case and the Macpherson Inquiry forced them to at least start mending their ways. And just by the by, it’s exactly the path Labour has been treading recently, albeit in accelerated fashion.

Institutional racism is a very grave judgement. It’s one we’re reluctant to make. No-one thinks that Mr Corbyn or Mr Cluskey, whatever their other faults (and they are legion), go home at night and think ‘I hate those Jews’. That’s absurd. Be that as it may, they have given every indication that they are full of fear and loathing for one of Britain’s minority communities. They are full of innate preconceptions, as we all are in a way, but in a more exaggerated form. When they hear the word ‘Jew’, they also hear the word ‘Israel’, and engage all their hatred of that state’s oppression of the Palestinian people in the Occupied Territories – a state of affairs that British Jews certainly shouldn’t bear any responsibility for, in Labour or elsewhere. There's a word for that immediate association: that word is prejudice.

Somewhere in their consciousness, since they are economic determinists, they furthermore think that apparently wealthy and successful communities can’t be discriminated against, and that if all economic inequality were abolished, racism would disappear with it. They’re wrong about that, of course, as they are incorrect about so, so much else: but the idea exerts a powerful hold over them. And if you start saying that ‘the banks’ are an international problem, that the world economy is ‘rigged’ for ‘the elites’, rather than the many? Well, you’re not much more than a Trumpian hop, skip and a jump from the British Left’s traditional anti-Semitism, as obvious in the DNA of Edwardian New Liberalism as it is in the warp and weave of what has become of the 1960s New Left. They don’t suffer from the traditional race hatred of the boot-boy and the skinhead. They have a far more refined set of prejudices. If they truly examined them, talked about them, admitted they’d got it wrong, spoke to everyone, they could have avoided all this. But they won’t, and now they probably can’t.

Even so, ‘institutional racism’ would be a heavy conviction when Labour’s members are showing signs of waking up, when its governing body has just adopted a new code that might finally purge anti-Semitism from its ranks, when there are still plenty of activists, councillors and MPs fighting for a truly cathartic change such as that which the Macpherson Report wrought on the Met. It’s all very suggestive of a Party that is sick, but not quite yet succumbing to the fever. The case is not dismissed – not by a long way. But it is still a deeply problematical one.

Make no mistake, though: if Labour continues to turn a blind eye to the stream of hatred flowing through social media, goes on ignoring the need for a mea culpa right from the top (Mr Corbyn refused to say sorry in a recent BBC interview), keeps pushing back its self-imposed deadline for getting on top of even just the high-profile cases, revisits the IHRA definition with some weasel form of words once the new NEC takes office after Conference: then a verdict of guilty will be unavoidable. 

Labour has walked right out to the edge. Just a few more steps, and it will sink irrevocably into that rancid sewer so obvious to those of us who've been watching properly. It has stopped, rightly hesitant – for now. Whether it now turns around and begins to recover remains to be seen. The signs are not very hopeful. We shall see.

Friday, 13 July 2018

The end... again

So it's been a very long year. To be honest, as politics speeds up (and weirds up), it's often seemed that it will go on forever. But it couldn't, and it hasn't. It's time to wind up 'Public Policy and the Past' for the academic year 2017/18.

We hope you've enjoyed it. To be honest, 'enjoyed' is probably over-egging the pudding. As British politics has degenerated into something crossed between a shaky 1980s sitcom and a black-and-white Scandinavian horror movie, 'endured' has probably been something more like it. Let's face it: both of the UK's main parties are a bad joke, as we've chronicled. The Conservatives have absolutely no guiding philosophy worthy of the name, and what detailed proposals they do have are just plain wrong. Labour's little better, with a mix of policies that will massively redistribute wealth and power towards wealthier citizens, and which are based on a load of prejudices unworthy of the word 'analysis' in the first place.

That's why both parties have struggled to break away from one another: not because they are strong, but because they are weak, and because their supporters are motivated not by enthusiasm for their choice, but fear of the forces on the other side. The UK is now covered by an unstable rash of micro-marginals that will probably head in lots of different directions at the next election, though Labour must be favourites to win it given the Conservatives' divisions over Brexit and their total lack of any new ideas at all. Then, as that government struggles in its turn, the Conservatives may well come roaring back at a government whose reading of the world is misleading at best, and downright mendacious at worst. Can't wait? Well, you've got stronger stomachs than us.

So this is the end... for now. We'll be back in the week commencing Monday 17 September to look at the ongoing Brexit drama, the United States' midterm elections, European 'populism' and much, much more. We expect to see you right here. Don't let us down now, will you?

Wednesday, 27 June 2018

Labour's basic presumptions are false

So as you will know by now, 'Public Policy and the Past' is no fan of the UK's ruling Conservative Party - at least in its present guise. Almost everything it tells you is just flat wrong. Philosophically, it is barren. Its policies are threadbare. The remedies it espouses - from the mythical Brexit dividend, via help for homebuyers, through expanding grammar schools and on to their vaguer and even less convincing appeal to 'equality of opportunity' - are at best wrongheaded, and at worst cruel fictions designed to fool the many at the cost of the few. They are overdue, and more than overdue, for an electoral drubbing.

So this month, we thought we'd look at the other side of the fence. What, if anything, can Labour's policy offer achieve (above)? If the Conservatives are in such trouble - and the signs of incipient civil war are there for all to see - are the official Opposition's ideas any better? We are less than convinced. The public aren't all that keen: opinion polls right now are pretty much deadlocked, with a historically unusual (albeit small) lead for the governing party as they toil unconvincingly into their ninth year of government. And, to be frank, you shouldn't be impressed either. For Labour's ideas, such as they are, are based on folk knowledge and prejudices that just don't really pass muster in detail. That being the case, British politics will have to struggle on with two sets of preconceptions that are simply not fit to bear the burden placed on them. Don't believe us? Here are four examples.

Most new jobs are on zero-hours contracts. Well, no, not really. It's a standard Left critique of Britain's puzzlingly-strong jobs market that employment growth is all in bad jobs. It's been repeated by Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn at Prime Minister's Questions. It's very misleading. For one thing, we're talking about quite a small number of jobs here - less than a million, and less than three per cent of all employment. And most job creation recently has been in full-time, permanent roles: in the last year, for instance, full-time roles have increased much faster than part-time ones. Now they haven't yet replaced the great big hole in that part of the labour market that the crisis of 2007-2008 ripped out of that part of the job market, but they're not now far away.

Labour has pledged to ban zero hours contracts. But what statistics we have show that both their absolute number, and the number of businesses using them, are now in decline after a very rapid rise in their number between 2012 and 2015. In fact, Labour is tilting at a windmill here. For one thing, lots of people - young workers or students, for instance - might quite like zero hours contracts. Her Majesty's Opposition would be much better off focusing on the world of work more widely: on the very rapid growth of self employment in particular, but also on on the whole question of supposedly full-time posts and apparently permanent contracts that seem much more likely to add up to a string of jobs rather than one simple-to-understand career. The much-heralded but very undersketched idea of a 'National Education Service' might do some of that work. But unless and until they accept that they're fixing on the wrong problem here - and one very small part of the overall jigsaw - Labour will have to go some to stand up their plans in any credible manner.

Britain has the most expensive railways in the world. Sort of, but sort of not. If you rock up at a UK mainline rail station and try to buy a peak-time ticket, you'll get fleeced compared to the prices you would pay in comparable European nations. So far, so familiar. But book ahead a bit, even a day in advance, and you're likely to do okay - especially if you want a return ticket. Don't believe us? Here's a not-so-random selection of comparisons from people who do know. Once you understand that, two key insights follow. The first? This is a highly redistributive and progressive system aimed at charging business travellers - and especially business travellers who want or need high levels of flexibility - in order to subsidise everyone else. And it's exactly the system you would expect if you were looking at an old railway, squeezed at vital bottlenecks into very tight urban areas, which is suffering from capacity constraints during a period of enormous success and passenger growth. That is, Britain's rail fares price congestion at peak times, so as to spread the load. Whoever owns them will have to do the same.

Don't expect new state-owned Train Operating Companies to start slashing fees where they are relatively high, because if they do, they'll be letting high-end businesses off the hook and choking our railways to death. Now we could go on and on about this, but the mental picture so common among Left-wing Britons - of profiteers gouging passengers - just isn't true. They are highly regulated. They make very low profits, as these things are measured (which is one reason why they struggle to make the whole thing work). Other problems are more complex than they appear. Old-fashioned ticketing systems? Mandated by the very Department for Transport that would be in control of nationalisation. Inadequate capital spending, broken points and out-of-the-ark signalling? Already nationalised. Now you could nationalise the Train Operating Companies. There would probably be some gains to integration. Would it change all that much? Probably not.

Inequality is getting worse, and has been getting worse for years. Now this one is pretty contentious, and the big-ticket answer is 'it depends what you mean by inequality, and it definitely depends on how you're measuring it'. Overall, the headline Gini Coefficient measure of inequality, which looks at the income of top earners against those of the less well-off, shot up in the early- to mid-1980s, before reaching a plateau in the early 1990s and then gently drifting slightly downwards during the years of John Major, New Labour and the Coalition. So far, so not-particularly-controversial. Slightly more controversially, and little noted among the 2010-15 government's many failings, it did actually continue to fall under Chancellor Osborne too - partly due to strong real income growth towards the end of his tenure, and partly because behind his cut to the highest rate of Income Tax he stealthily made things rather less comfortable for higher-middle earners (via income tax thresholds), as well as asset-rich landlords, investors and the like.

To some extent this highly counterintuitive picture might be a little bit of a statistical artefact, because it's quite hard to capture the earnings of the really wealthy (especially when they move around), and if we delve into thismore closely, it might be that inequality has been at best stable, and at worst rising slightly. There's no sign of that in terms of wealth inequality, which we'd have expected to rise if that was the case - this has been held down by pension auto-enrollment, accruing capital for ordinary people - but it might be that inequality has been bumping along at about the same level it's been at for years. Even so: here again, Labour is really not homing in on the real problem. Inequality isn't surging. Anger and confusion over the boundaries and function of the job market are. If you're in work, low inflation, tax credits and lower income tax (via rising thresholds) have at least helped you regain your ground by now. Where the pain is really acute is at the margins of the working world, for instance for those people who the Department for Work and Pensions imagine will be 'encouraged' (read: pushed) into working under 16 hours a week by the inception of Universal Credit (opens as PDF: see page eight). Or for those people with lots of problems who are nevertheless being moved into jobs and are going to find it very, very challenging to manage the constant to-and-fro of employment and benefit changes. That's where the real attention needs to head - as soon as possible.

University fees are deterring working-class kids from getting on. Again, this is at least arguable, and it's certainly not an open-and-shut case given that the number of undergraduates from poorer backgrounds have definitely been rising in recent years. Labour's Shadow Education Secretary Angela Rayner (usually a rather impressive politician in many ways) has gone out of her way to single out fees as the reason universities' social profile is still so narrow - and been forced into at least a partial retreat. It's hard to be sure, because there is no one accepted yardstick for who is from a 'disadvantaged background' and who isn't, but it does seem as if lower-income youngsters have closed the gap just a little bit on better-off students in recent years. Certainly that gulf hasn't widened. The percentage of students who used to claim free school meals has gone up a bit. Those coming into English universities from poorer postcodes has also increased a little bit more quickly than those entering HE from other districts (though if we look at a wider basket of indicators, the picture is quite static).

Against most of our instincts, and probably yours too, the tripling of fees in 2010 hasn't actually made things worse. Now you could build a counterfactual in which numbers from non-traditional backgrounds went up even faster if tuition was free, but it's hard to be sure - and there are some good reasons to believe that they wouldn't. In fact, countervailing the undoubtedly daunting debt numbers has been the fact that fees have allowed the cap to come off student rolls, facilitating an expansion that is letting more students in than ever before. Given that Labour will want 'value for money' if and when it's paying for everything in Higher Education again, we wouldn't give you much chance that the cap won't come back when they're in charge - something that will throttle working-class life chances more than anything, as we've already seen in Scotland.

Now we know that there's a risk of setting up a series of straw men here. Not everything that left-wing Labour types hold close to their hearts is wrong. Britain's public sphere is - literally - crumbling, with local government services in particular having been made to take the strain of nearly a decade of cuts that's leaving the cupboard bare for any more. Simply put, there's not much else to cut before you lop off a limb: one of the reasons for the support Labour is marshalling among middle-income and middle-aged Britons worried about their local roads, libraries, parks, high streets... and, most of all, what on earth they are going to do if their elderly parents need looking after. The privatisation of core non-commercial functions of the British state (such as the prison service) has been a disastrous failure. And even if inequality as a whole has not been rising, the level of egregious cruelty meted out by the Conservatives' welfare 'reforms' is at such a pitch that most people can tell you a bleak and tragic story of an uncaring or unwilling state that simply isn't there for anyone any more.

But putting those very real problems into the mix with a more general (and mythic) critique blurs the focus. Everywhere you look, it's just misrepresentation after illusion after distortion. You know that 'youthquake' that was supposed to be a key part of Labour's surge upwards at the 2017 election? It didn't happen. Remember all those empty homes in London, bought up by rich foreign investors and left empty, to the detriment of everyone else looking for a home? Outside of some upscale hotspots, we're talking pretty small numbers here, and very few even of those are actually empty. Heard of that Private Finance Initiative that's bankrupting public services? It peaked twelve years ago, and it never constituted more than fifteen per cent of capital formation in the public sector.

This kind of dross actually lets the Government off the hook, and diverts us from thinking about real world structures and solutions. Labour's surge was actually powered by the middle aged and the middle class. Young people's housing woes are caused by an ageing society and a ridiculously tight planning system. The NHS has been tanked by tiny real real terms funding increases, not really by its building costs. And so on. Take those four examples we've highlighted here. What would constitute actually-relevant answers to our true problems?

You can probably guess the thrust from the discussion above, but here's some thoughts. Banning short-term contracts is probably going to cause more problems than it solves (as many tasks are driven underground): more sophisticated labour market regulation is usually better than binary yeses and noes to anything. Nationalisation is unlikely to be more than a palliative or a short-term boost for Britain's railways, while medium-sized wodges of government cash could lift capacity constraints and ease bottlenecks better than rebadging things ever could. Big increases in public service spending and tax changes should be focused on areas and groups where most can be done, rather than sprayed around indiscriminately; while bringing back grants and reforming fees for students from low income backgrounds, and above all focusing on part-time education, would be much more likely to change the mix in English HE than simply abolishing fees altogether.

At the moment, British voters are faced with an unpalatable menu that amounts to what we've elsewhere called 'Brexit versus nationalisation'. The Right is busy kidding itself that it can reinvent the 1950s. The Left seems to be bodging up a faux 1970s. Labour's members, and to a lesser extent the new white-collar electoral alliance they reflect, understand the world through a particular prism: one in which Britain is failing because it is not settled enough, not organised enough, not equal enough, and not educated enough. While there's some truth to that - and has long been truth to that -  there's little evidence that the remarkable break-point in the UK's productivity record experienced at the time of the Great Recession (and at the heart of so many of our problems) has its roots in any of those long-term structural failings. Otherwise, the country's productivity would have stagnated in the 2000s just as much as it has in the 2010s. Reader, it didn't.

There are some good ideas on the Left. The new Centre for Towns has some. Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell's nascent co-operative agenda - far, far more likely to do good and stick than some of his bizarre Ministry of Works-style organigrams - is another good place to start. But overall Left Britain is living in a bit of a narrow comfort zone. More and more, its ideas look like a cluttered mantelpiece of tat, with a Post-It here, a battered Wally Dog there, and a load of pens in coffee-stained mugs everywhere else. A trail that tells a story: but not a coherent one, and not really an appealing one either.