We Need More Political Organisations Like Momentum

Samuel Hooper5 Comments

Momentum - Jeremy Corbyn - Labour Party - Facebook Page

–

We should welcome the creation of campaign groups like Momentum, not fear their potentially disruptive effect

When the last meeting of the Parliamentary Labour Party descended into an acrimonious shouting match audible to journalists listening outside, it was partly due to widespread suspicion of Momentum, the rebranded “Corbyn for Leader” campaign group which intends to continue agitating within Labour for left-wing policies as a kind of anti-Progress organisation.

Yes, there were other reasons why restive Labour MPs vented their frustrations at the PLP meeting, not least the fact that their Shadow Chancellor seems to have the political intelligence of a ten year old. But the incompetence and hard left-wingery could all be forgiven if only the bulk of centrist MPs were not terrified that Momentum might serve as a vehicle for Jeremy Corbyn to conduct a purge of the moderates, sweeping them aside in order to make room for more of his ideological soulmates.

The Telegraph’s Kate McCann reported at the time:

Senior Labour MPs have warned a new campaign group, set up by supporters of Jeremy Corbyn, is a “threat to sitting MPs” and will “undermine” the party.

Momentum, a collective set up with the backing of the Labour leader and the Shadow Chancellor John McDonnell, aims to influence party policy but MPs are worried it is the beginning of a purge of moderate members who don’t support the leader.

One Shadow Cabinet Minister said: “They are setting up a party within a party and I fear that they will use it to take control of conference, policy-making and mount a purge.”

Much of the reporting of Momentum has thus been framed in terms of the threat the organisation might pose to centrist Labour MPs and other enemies of Jeremy Corbyn, which is interesting enough, but overlooks the more important question of whether new political campaign groups like Momentum are a good or bad thing for our democracy in the first place.

Continue reading →

Labour’s Economic Policy: The Slow-Motion Car Crash You Can’t Not Watch

Samuel Hooper2 Comments

John McDonnell - Labour Party - Jeremy Corbyn

–

Labour’s loose cannon Shadow Chancellor is behaving like an economically illiterate, childish simpleton with no clue how to oppose effectively, let alone one day govern the country

The past month has not been pretty for those of us who hoped that Jeremy Corbyn’s election as leader of the Labour Party might help usher in the return of serious ideological debate to British politics.

Jeremy Corbyn has scored just one significant victory so far: his first outing at Prime Minister’s Questions, where the opposition leader’s measured tone and clever decision to raise questions submitted by the general public succeeded in changing the tone of the session – and for the better.

But that one bright spot aside, it has been utterly miserable – unforced error following self-inflicted wound, compounded by acts of astonishing political naivety. On the rare days when the newspaper front pages have not carried stories about Labour Party splits and internal warfare, the newly energised Hard Left supporters have stolen the show with their venomous spitting, their rape threats and their incessant chants of “Tory Scum!”

And now Labour’s Shadow Chancellor, John McDonnell, has succeeded in undoing the parliamentary party’s only truly coherent and sensible position, for reasons which seem to change by the hour. In his infinite wisdom, John McDonnell decided to reverse Labour’s policy of following the Fiscal Charter – the commitment set by George Osborne to run a budget surplus during normal economic times – having announced it only two weeks ago at Labour Party conference.

Continue reading →

No, Stuart Rose: To Leave The EU Is Not To Withdraw From The World

Samuel Hooper3 Comments

Stuart Rose - Britain Stronger in Europe - EU Referendum - Brexit

–

The continued efforts by pro-Europeans to distort and misrepresent eurosceptic ideas betrays a lack of confidence – and intellectual depth – in their own

The first of the pro-EU campaign groups, snappily named “Britain Stronger in Europe”, is due to launch later today, and will be headed by ex-Marks & Spencer celebrity CEO Stuart Rose.

The Guardian reports:

At the launch on Monday, Rose will say: “Those of you who know me will know that I am not an uncritical fan of the European Union. Far from it. That’s why I signed a letter arranged by Business for Britain calling for reform of the EU. Wanting reform, however, is not the same as wanting to leave.

“To claim that the patriotic course for Britain is to retreat, withdraw and become inward-looking is to misunderstand who we are as a nation. In this ever-changing and very uncertain world we need to engage with strength.

“I will not allow anyone to tell me I’m any less British because I believe in the strongest possible Britain for business, for our security and our society.”

It seems as though accusations of a failure of patriotism and belief in Britain are finally hitting a nerve. Good – these accusations are entirely valid, and the pro-EU crowd should regularly be made to feel uncomfortable by being confronted with their lack of faith in their own country to survive like nearly every other major country outside of the European Union.

It is continually amazing to witness the extent to which the pro-European forces do Britain down in order to make their flimsy case. The United Kingdom is the sixth largest economy in the world, a cultural powerhouse, a liberal democracy and a declared nuclear power. If a country of our size and influence cannot negotiate satisfactory trading relationships with the rest of the world, then no country can. And of course far lesser countries than Britain do negotiate bilateral and mutual trade deals every year without difficulty, rendering this scaremongering line of argument absurd – not that we have seen the last of it, by any means.

Continue reading →

‘Vote Leave’ Hammer Home The Message: “Brexit Is The Safe Option”

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

Vote Leave - EU Map

–

Early signs indicate that the “Safe option = Leave EU” message will be hammered home relentlessly with every single eurosceptic talking point, whether it necessarily fits or not

Today’s campaign email from Vote Leave hammers home the “safety first” option of voting for Brexit even more strongly than before.

As well as having a subtle dig at the rival pro-European campaign group Britain Safer in Europe (which launches today) by referring to them by their unfortunate initials “BSE”, today Vote Leave have this to say on sticking with the status quo of full EU membership:

Which is safer – to vote ‘remain’ and keep giving more power and more money every year to a Brussels bureaucracy that cannot cope with the problems of the modern world, or to take back control and negotiate a new, friendlier UK-EU relationship based on free trade and stronger international cooperation, often at a global (not regional) level?
 
Which is safer – to keep going with the 1950s vision of ever more centralisation of power in the Brussels bureaucracy or to build new institutions that allow faster, more agile cooperation on global challenges?  
 
Which is safer – to accept the permanent supremacy of EU law or to trade and cooperate with the EU without accepting the supremacy of EU law, as many other countries in Europe and around the world do?
 
Which is safer – to keep Brussels in charge of negotiating trade deals that affect millions of British jobs or to take back control and negotiate these deals ourselves?
 
Which is safer – to trust big multinational businesses and their lobbyists to make laws over dinner in Brussels, or to take back control?
 
Which is safer – to keep going with the Foreign Office’s hope that eventually Brussels will listen to us, which has failed for 40 years, or take back control and invest in science so we can create and build new industries?  
 
A vote to ‘remain’ is not a vote for the status quo. It means handing over even more power and money to Brussels. We need a new UK-EU relationship. The only way to take back control and get a new UK-EU deal is to Vote Leave.

As I pointed out over the weekend, not all of these “which is safer?” questions work very well. In fact, some of them have very little to do with safety or even stability one way or another.

But today’s campaign email is a real marker of intent. It shows that Vote Leave intend to continue pushing this point and throwing up “safety first” scenarios until a couple of them stick. I’m sure they will be conducting polling and focus groups to further test responses to these messages before discarding the ones that do not work, and refining those that do until they become more deadly rhetorical weapons.

At this early stage, the arguments put forward for Brexit lack any real depth or sophistication – not that the pro-EU arguments are any better. Campaigners realised that the “No” vote in the Scottish independence referendum was won party because the Better Together campaign went relentlessly negative, portraying separation from the UK as a leap into the great unknown. And now they want to seize the tool which is most likely to be used against them (arguing that Brexit represents a leap in the dark) before the pro-EU crowd get a chance.

Mission accomplished, so far. But at some point, the effect of both sides yelling “safety!” at the electorate is likely to cancel itself out. And the question then becomes: what does each side have to offer that will speak to the hopes and aspirations of the British people, not just their desire for safety and stability?

This is where the eurosceptic side could (and hopefully will) run away with the show. Those who want to yoke Britain to the EU come what may can offer nothing but a continuation of what we already have – life as part of an antidemocratic federation, where uniformity and harmonisation are relentlessly encouraged just for the sake of it. The eurosceptics can offer so much more, provided that they avoid reciting an endless list of euro grievances and focus strongly on the opportunities and benefits of re-engaging with the world.

This “which is safer?” rhetoric is all very well, but it is the arguments that come next which will win or lose this referendum.

EU Renegotiation - Brexit - European Union

–

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on Twitter, Facebook and Medium.

The Glib And Oily Art Of David Cameron’s Superficial EU Renegotiation

Samuel HooperLeave a comment

–

David Cameron’s EU renegotiation is less a firm-handed assertion of Britain’s national interest, and more a collusion with fellow EU leaders to dupe the electorate into believing that real reform is possible

The fact that David Cameron’s key demands and red lines for the EU renegotiation now underway are wilfully vague and almost comically detached from the concerns of British voters is hardly news. But this depressing truth is hammered home even more forcefully today with the leaking of the prime minister’s four-point plan to win concessions from Brussels.

From the Telegraph:

Cabinet sources have told the Telegraph they are confident they can find a way to keep Britain inside the EU with better terms of membership. Their plan involves:

  • Forcing Brussels to make “an explicit statement” that Britain will be kept out of any move towards a European superstate. This will require an exemption for the UK from the EU’s founding principle of “ever closer union”.
  • An “explicit statement” that the euro is not the official currency of the EU, making clear that Europe is a “multi-currency” union. Ministers want this declaration in order to protect the status of the pound sterling as a legitimate currency that will always exist.
  • A new “red card” system to bring power back from Brussels to Britain. This would give groups of national parliaments the power to stop unwanted directives being handed down and to scrap existing EU laws.
  • A new structure for the EU itself. The block of 28 nations must be reorganised to prevent the nine countries that are not in the eurozone being dominated by the 19 member states that are, with particular protections for the City of London.

Of these, only one point (the final one) comes anywhere close to defending Britain’s national interest and reflecting the concerns of the electorate. Of the others, the first two points are completely irrelevant, while the third is guaranteed to meet stiff resistance from other EU leaders and will likely require so many other concessions from the government that securing it would be the ultimate Pyrrhic victory.

Continue reading →