Resurrecting The Citizen Politician

Ben Gummer MP

After Brexit, attracting more exceptional citizen politicians and fewer mediocre career politicians is the next crucial step towards democratic renewal in Britain

A worthwhile article by new Labour MP Laura Smith for LabourList underlines the urgent need for more politicians who look and sound like contemporary human beings rather than cautious clones who have been training to become MPs their whole life.

Laura Smith writes:

I’m new to politics. I’ve never been in local government; I was an activist, a member of the union and came from a long-standing Labour Party family. I haven’t come from a background of jargon and empty words, and I know what it’s like when life throws you a curve ball that takes the wind from your sails and the plans that you had made lay shattered in a million pieces. I can say with integrity that I will try my best to fight against the injustice that members in my constituency feel, and I’ll do it with vigour and sincerity.

Entering Westminster has been an eye opener without a doubt. Never have I been more sure that the ambitions of many there come from a place of self-indulging hypocrisy, and the decisions that they make are sheer games rather than coming from a place of care.

I don’t know the parliamentary protocol nor do I care much for it, I speak with a northern accent, I came to the door with an overdraft, no savings and a limited wardrobe purchased on a credit card to try and look smart.

I am what I am and that is representative of millions of women in Britain. My class has been with me my whole life, forged from the experiences of my Scottish mining grandfather, and I’ve ridden on the rollercoaster of the ups and downs of life. I’m proud to be working class, I’m proud of my people and for as long as my constituency wish to keep me in Westminster I will fight for the working people of this country.

How refreshing it is to hear a politician – especially a Labour politician – speak passionately about the politics of class rather than the politics of identity. Both are divisive, to be sure, but the former is at least reassuringly familiar and relatively harmless these days, while the latter is doing more than anything else right now to tear apart the fabric of British society.

I would probably disagree strongly with about eighty percent of what Laura Smith stands for, but there can be no denying that this is exactly the kind of decent, committed person we should want to attract to Westminster – somebody with strong convictions, a record of community service but also, crucially, a life outside politics (Smith held real jobs and ran her own business).

It cannot hurt to have more MPs of all parties who know what it is to live on a budget as Smith has done, or to have struggled with debt, unemployment or work-life balance issues, to complement those who know how to be an ambitious party functionary but little else. Being an MP is a calling and not a career, but certain accommodations can and should be made which would make serving in Westminster more appealing while still demanding sufficient dedication to public service.

Smith’s dismissal of parliamentary protocol will also chime with many people, including all those SNP MPs who didn’t understand why clapping after a speech was verboten while braying like a donkey at Prime Minister’s Questions is positively encouraged. While there will always be an important place for tradition and rituals which remind us of our heritage and the small part we play in our larger shared history, it is also undeniable that certain habits and protocols are hopelessly outdated and serve no useful purpose. There is no reason why Parliament should not adopt electronic voting, for instance, rather than wasting time while MPs physically traipse in and out of the Commons chamber to record their vote.

But most impressive in Laura Smith’s article is the fact that she clearly went to Westminster with a purpose greater than her own political advancement. Not every MP can or should be a statesman, a philosopher or a leader, though MPs of all backgrounds and ideologies have fulfilled these roles. We also need MPs who care deeply about their constituents and about particular issues, campaigning MPs who want to use their term(s) in office to make a specific difference. Indeed, such MPs can often be far more valuable and effective than those who merely spout reheated rhetoric from four decades ago, be it Michael Foot-style socialism or unreconstructed Thatcherite dogma.

Yet too often we let motivated MPs of this calibre languish for a term or two on the backbenches before they either become disillusioned and stand down, or else lose their inner fire and slowly transform into unremarkable, uninspired time-servers.

One of the best recent citizen politicians in Parliament was former Conservative MP Dan Byles, a man who was the first in his family to attend university, received a prestigious Army scholarship, served on active duty in Bosnia, rowed across the Atlantic, climbed mountains and served on the board of several charities before serving a single term in Parliament from 2010-2015.

This is exactly the kind of person who should now have a senior Cabinet role, and whose charisma and leadership skills might presently be leading the Conservative Party in a more inspiring, less suicidal direction. Yet despite becoming one of relatively few first-term backbench MPs to rack up some real accomplishments to his name (including constitutional reform of the House of Lords via a private member’s bill), Byles stood down in 2015 to “pursue new challenges”. Some of our most exceptional people no longer feel that they can make a meaningful difference by serving in Parliament.

Westminster attracts the power-hungry, the ambitious but also – thanks to elitism and nepotism – the mediocre and the self-serving. And too often, the genuinely talented are overlooked in favour of the well-connected. Witness Theresa May’s government, which managed to find a place for the utterly unremarkable Ben Gummer (son of former Tory minister John Gummer) in Cabinet while leaving thoughtful and intelligent conservative voices like Kwasi Kwarteng or James Cleverly to languish on the backbenches. Note also how Harlow MP Rob Halfon, who could actually articulate a positive (if controversial) vision for conservatism, was sacked as a minister while Theresa May kept faith in Home Secretary Amber Rudd, who entered politics not to advance any deeply-felt political agenda but to “get a grip on her life” and add another accomplishment to her CV.

As if the chaotic Brexit negotiations did not already make it abundantly clear, the calibre of leadership we manage to attract at the national level does not serve us well. This is in significant part due over-centralisation at Westminster and the neutering of local government in Britain, where at present there is probably only one executive role outside of Cabinet – the mayoralty of London – which might remotely prepare a politician to plausibly step into the role of prime minister. But it is also because we expect too little from the people we choose to represent us.

To take the next step in renewing British democracy, we must break the stranglehold that national political party headquarters wields over candidate selection. We must do away with affirmative action shortlists and central casting candidate lists alike, empower constituency party organisations and allow them to nominate candidates who they feel best represent their values and their concerns. We must devolve and decentralise significant powers away from Westminster to the counties and the regions, so that local government can transform from being adult daycare to a useful incubator of future national leadership talent.

And we must re-embrace the idea of the citizen politician, valuing the contributions of those candidates with different backgrounds.We must identify and advance talent wherever it is found rather than demanding that passionate and inspired MPs with executive experience outside politics first spend years acting as bag-carrier for other ministers before being trusted with any real responsibility.

Only if we embrace this radical decentralisation and ideological renewal – here it is particularly important that committed small-C conservatives seize back control of the Tory Party from the dead hand of Theresa May, just as the Corbynite Left deposed the centrists within Labour – can we take the next step after Brexit and finally begin the democratic renewal of Britain.

The alternative is more of the same uninspiring, grinding disappointment with which Britain has sadly become so familiar.

 

Theresa May - Conservative campaign bus - photo op campaign phony

Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:

Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on TwitterFacebook and Medium.

Advertisements

Problematising Boundary Review Is Just A Way Of Entrenching The Labour Party’s Structural Privilege

parliament-westminster

There are many obvious reasons for delaying or scrapping the upcoming constituency boundary review changes – but no good ones

See what I did with the headline there? Right-wingers can adopt the wheedling, victimhood-soaked language of the Cult of Social Justice and Identity Politics too, if we think it is going to advance our cause or smite our enemies.

Left Foot Forward editor Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin is in high dudgeon because the coming boundary review and shrinkage of the House of Commons from 650 seats to a slightly more manageable 600 MPs apparently means that too many of those who are left will be on the government payroll.

Ní Mhaoileoin writes:

The government’s plan to cut the size of parliament will increase the proportion of MPs on the government payroll, the Electoral Reform Society (ERS) has flagged.

According to new research, in a 600-seat Commons some 23 per cent of MPs would be on the government payroll, the highest proportion ever. The ERS warns that this could have ‘deeply worrying’ effects on parliamentary scrutiny and is calling for a cap on the number of payroll MPs.

‘This research shows we risk a crisis of scrutiny if the cut in MPs goes ahead without a corresponding cap on the number of payroll MPs,’ ERS chief executive Katie Ghose commented.

Having nearly a quarter of all MPs in the pocket of the PM is not a healthy situation for our democracy.

I think we can all agree that a body tasked with holding the executive to account which itself includes government ministers, parliamentary private secretaries and other hangers-on is always going to struggle to do an effective job – which is why many of us who think and care about constitutional issues all the time (as opposed to only when the system throws up a result we don’t like or disfavours our own preferred party) favour the total separation of the executive and the legislature.

Conservatives and progressives could potentially work together on reducing the size and cost of government while improving oversight by reducing the number of unnecessary junior ministers and official bag carriers, were it not for the leftist desire to have a government minister for everything under the sun, from Culture, Media and Sport to “Children, Young People and Families”. When your political philosophy expects and demands that the state be involved in every aspect of our lives, it inevitably necessitates a large cohort of ministers to do the meddling.

A cap on government payroll MPs would nonetheless be a reasonable (if typically British) compromise, but of course this is not what Ní Mhaoileoin really wants. And what Ní Mhaoileoin really wants is to maintain the current structural privilege currently enjoyed by the Labour Party. As Labour tends to perform best in urban seats, which themselves tend to be smaller and less populated than the suburban and rural constituencies where the Conservatives do well, the net effect for many years has been that it takes far fewer votes to elect a Labour MP than a Conservative MP.

Think of the gross anomaly whereby the SNP won 56 seats in Parliament at the 2015 general election with just 1.5 million votes, while UKIP won just a single seat despite winning 3.9 million votes. In the case of Labour and the Conservatives, the disparity is less pronounced – but it still exists. Boundary reform seeks to equalise constituency sizes, thus addressing the problem (though sadly not helping UKIP, who do not boast the SNP’s narrow geographic concentration of support). And this equalisation will enforce a basic fairness, the value of which makes it worth suffering through any negative side effects, particularly where these can reasonably be mitigated.

The concerns about the upcoming boundary review are well-rehearsed and rapidly becoming tedious. One might take them more seriously if those who raise the concerns showed any interest in solving or overcoming the issues that they raise rather than cynically using them as an excuse to halt something which – despite its inherent merit – is likely to be detrimental to the Labour Party’s electoral fortunes.

In short, this overwrought leftist concern about a toothless Parliament in the pocket of Theresa May is merely an attempt to problematise the issue of boundary reform, throwing a spanner in the works to prevent electoral disadvantage to Labour. Ní Mhaoileoin is doubtless in favour of reducing the size of the Commons as an abstrat theory, and if she were pressed through a hypothetical example would likely object to the current distribution of voters among seats which favours one party over another. But because the currently-favoured party in our system is Labour, and because Labour stands to lose out in relation to the Tories through this particular boundary review, Niamh feels compelled to oppose it.

But how to oppose something that is so self-evidently worthwhile and logical? The only way is to go grasping for every last flaw or possible technical hurdle in the review, inflating them out of all proportion and presenting each one as a show-stopper (or at least as justifiable grounds for interminable delay). As with the British Left’s general approach to Brexit, Ní Mhaoileoin is desperately problematising the boundary review, hoping to scupper it without ever having to reveal her true, grubby, anti-democratic reasons for doing so.

Smart politics? Maybe. The principled, moral, liberal thing to do? Absolutely not. Niamh Ní Mhaoileoin’s position is actually profoundly conservative – and not in a good way.

But apparently any behaviour, no matter how tawdry and self-serving, becomes noble and virtuous when it is performed in the service of the Labour Party.

boundary-commission-for-england

Top Image: Wikimedia Commons

Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:

Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on TwitterFacebook and Medium.

This Generation Of Politicians Will Not Secure The Benefits Of Brexit

brexit-pixabay

Four months after the EU referendum, our leaders continue to shrink from the challenges (and opportunities) which lie ahead

As is nearly always the case, Pete North has the best analysis and summary of exactly where we are with our Brexit deliberations – and right now, the answer is rather depressing:

For several months we had the great and the good telling us how important the single market was and how valuable the EU was to the UK. Now that they are tasked with leaving the EU we see that they can barely define the EU and the single market let alone offer an adequate critique as to whether it is right for the UK.

Through successive treaties our parliament has idly signed away substantial areas of policy to be decided overseas with hardly any public scrutiny. It is therefore ironic that MPs now demand parliamentary sovereignty in scrutinising the terms of the exit arrangements when they showed so little interest in what they were signing away.

By voting to leave the EU we have caught the entire system of government off guard to show that is is totally ill-equipped to govern – and those claiming to represent us have failed in their duty to safeguard our democracy. Through forty years of negligence the UK’s trading relationship with Canada is decided not by Number Ten or Westminster. Instead it depends entirely on the Walloon assembly in Belgium.

And therein lies the inherent flaw in the EU design. The DNA is faulty. Introduce democracy and the whole thing grinds to a halt. Take it away and power ends up in the hands of the few. It cannot work and it cannot be reformed yet we have endured decades of politicians telling us otherwise.

One of the most depressing aspects of life post-EU referendum has been watching our national leaders shrink from the challenge of implementing Brexit. I don’t mean that they are all necessarily in denial, or that they wish to subvert the referendum result – but rather that their every public pronouncement suggests that many of them are simply not up to the task which lies ahead. Typically, this isn’t a question of intelligence, but rather a lack of imagination and ambition. And in truth, perhaps it is too much to expect the same politicians used to implementing EU decisions or operating within their constraints to suddenly step up and become adept drivers of a country suddenly without training wheels.

The debate has thus devolved into two rather tiresome strands – the one held by most Remainers, who have become intent on catastrophising Brexit at every turn and seizing upon every scrap of potentially troubling news as further evidence that the end is nigh, and the opposing, buccaneering view which loudly insists that everything can be wrapped up to Britain’s complete satisfaction by March 2019, and sees any questioning of this certainty as evidence of anti-Brexit treachery.

This blog falls down the gap between these two comically exaggerated positions, which is perhaps why I haven’t been writing about Brexit as much as I should have been lately. One can only slap down so much ridiculous establishment catastrophising of Brexit (now the nation’s fluffy kittens are in peril, apparently), while pointing out the need for a transitional arrangement and securing continuity of access to the single market still falls on deaf ears among those in charge, and only feeds the smug (but not entirely false) Remainer assertion that Brexiteers don’t know what they are doing.

And yet a transitional arrangement is exactly what we need, as Pete North explains:

What will become clear in due course is that Britain will need a continuity arrangement that sees little or no change to the labyrinth of customs procedures and regulations that make up the single market. Neither Britain nor the EU can afford to start tinkering under the hood of long established trade rules. The sudden collapse of CETA at the hands of a Belgian provincial assembly shows just how dysfunctional the system is.

If anything is inflicting damage on the UK it is not Brexit but the overall uncertainty over what Brexit looks like. This in part down to those media vessels determined to make Brexit look like a catastrophe and in part down to those politicians who have not bothered to plan for the eventuality. We are four months on from the referendum and key ministers are still struggling with basic terminology.

Brexit is by far the biggest and most ambitious thing that this country has attempted in decades – frankly, since the Second World War. It demands painstakingly extricating Britain from a web of agreements and schemes of a complexity befitting an organisation which still seeks to become the supranational government of a federal Europe. But to make it even more complicated, we will wish to maintain many avenues of cooperation after leaving the EU’s political union, meaning that a slash and burn of laws will not do – hence Theresa May’s much over-hyped Great Repeal Act.

As Pete points out, it is highly ironic that sulky Remainers are suddenly so interested in having Parliament examine every aspect of the secession deal (with the more juvenile characters, who clearly know nothing about negotiations, expecting to be briefed in advance) when over several decades they blithely signed away powers to the EU with barely a second thought, and certainly no real public debate.

It makes the Remain camp’s current favourite attack line – Brexiteers wanted to return decision-making power to Parliament, so why won’t they let Parliament have a say?! – especially cynical. But the argument is wrong anyway. “Returning powers to Parliament” is a handy catchphrase, but it is a glib one, always favoured more by eurosceptic MPs than the general public.

The current anti-establishment rage currently roiling Europe and America shows that political leaders have become too distant from (and unresponsive to) the people, no matter the level of power. Therefore, returning powers to the Westminster parliament is not enough – we need an end to British over-centralisation and the devolution of power back to the counties, cities, towns and individuals.

Sadly, the chance of meaningful constitutional reform taking place in Britain any time soon continues to hover around zero. And rather than Brexit being the catalyst for such change, as this blog once hoped, it now seems that an intellectually and imaginatively challenged political elite will hide behind the complexity of Brexit as an excuse to avoid doing anything else of substance. One can easily foresee a situation in a decade’s time where Britain is technically outside the EU but stuck in an increasingly permanent-looking halfway house, with acceptable access to the EEA but with none of the later work to move towards a global single market even started.

Would this be good enough? Well, Britain would be outside of the political structure known as the EU, which was always the base requirement – so if one is happy to shoot for the middle and accept the bare minimum then yes, it might have to do. But it would be an appalling failure of ambition, when there are real opportunities to improve the way that international trade and regulation works and to revitalise British democracy through wider constitutional reform.

But to realise great ambitions requires there to be half-decent leaders pointing the way. And looking at the Tory “Three Brexiteers” and the dumpster fire that is the Labour Party, one cannot help but conclude that great leaders – even just competent heavyweight politicians – are in short supply at present. Do you really see Boris Johnson’s name featuring in a future Wikipedia article about the great British constitutional convention of 2020? Or Theresa May’s? Jeremy Corbyn or Hillary Benn’s?

Do I regret my decision to campaign for Brexit? No, never. The European Union is offensive to any proper sense of democracy, or to the notion that the people of a sovereign nation state should decide and consent to the manner in which they are governed. Being rid of the EU (and hopefully helping to precipitate that hateful organisation’s eventual demise) is a solidly good thing on its own. But Brexit could be so much more than it is currently shaping up to become.

And perhaps this is the most damning thing of all about the European Union: the fact that 40 years of British EU membership has slowly turned the nation of Winston Churchill, Clement Attlee, Margaret Thatcher, Hugh Gaitskell, Tony Benn, Barbara Castle and Peter Shore – men and women of principle and substance – into the nation of Tony Blair, David Cameron, Nick Clegg, Chuka Umunna, Diane Abbott and Owen Smith.

A nation simply does not bounce back from that kind of decline in the space of a few years, and the more that our contemporary politicians carry on about Brexit the clearer this becomes.

Assuming that Brexit goes to plan, it may not be until the next generation of political leaders come of age (at the earliest) before we can finally take full advantage of our newfound freedom.

 

European Union - United Kingdom - Britain - Flags

Top Image: Stux, Pixabay

Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:

Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on TwitterFacebook and Medium.

Live Blog: Theresa May Becomes 76th UK Prime Minister

David Cameron - Theresa May - Prime Minister Britain United Kingdom

Theresa May Becomes New UK Prime Minister – Live Blog

Contact: semipartisansam@gmail.com

 

14 July – 13:19

The greatest threat to Britain

 

Many commentators are speaking of this post-referendum, new government period as one which is fraught with danger. This is a great pity, and reflects the establishment’s gnawing fear of change and lack of confidence in Britain.

Fighting back against this attitude is the speech given by Sir John Holmes to Chatham House, attempting to chart Britain’s future outside the EU.

A key excerpt from the speech:

At the same time we have to stick to our view of ourselves as global players. There is a widespread perception in the rest of the world that we have just dealt ourselves out of the game, and gone back to being the small island off the continental shelf of Europe we were before our glory days. That perception must not be allowed to stand.

This means that our approach has to be one of resolute maintenance of Britain both as a country which wants to have a close and positive relationship with the rest of Europe and the EU, and also as an open, tolerant and internationalist country, with a determination to go on contributing to the solution of the world’s problems. These are not just platitudes. Only if we can achieve that will it be possible to say to all those young people horrified by the result of the vote that they are not condemned to live in a narrow, isolated society driven by a combination of nostalgia for an imagined past and xenophobia. That is their concern, I am convinced, rather than a more specific concern about whether or not we are part of the EU institutions. At least some of those who campaigned to leave the EU are firmly in this open, internationalist camp. We have to encourage them to stay there, and to make it happen, not just talk about it.

This is critical. There is a perception – partly in the world, but frankly more commonly held by the British elite – that we have “dealt ourselves out of the game”, as Sir John Holmes says. And many people do indeed seem to think that we will now go back to being a “small island” before our “glory days”.

This is jarringly, sickeningly false. Britain’s “glory days” did not begin in 1973 when we acceded to the European Economic Community. This country shaped the entire world for centuries before the EU was even a twinkle in Jean Monnet’s eye. The fact that people – some of them in positions of great influence – sincerely think that Britain’s global success somehow began when we joined the EEC, when we were in fact at our weakest and most run down as a nation, is utterly ludicrous. But it does speak to the remarkable effectiveness of EU mythology and propaganda.

Holmes is quite right. Very few of the young people weeping into television cameras about having their futures “ripped away” by Brexit actually understand the first thing about the European Union, what it is, how it operates and what it intends to become. They are wedded to the idea of being outward looking and internationalist, which itself is a commendable thing. As victorious Brexiteers it is our job to now show them that this is what many of us were fighting for, too. We must show the doubters within the British electorate that our quarrel was with the failed, sclerotic and deeply antidemocratic institutions of Brussels, not the idea of friendly cooperation between neighbouring countries.

It is therefore vitally important that Theresa May’s new government projects the proper image of optimism and potential, rather than some kind of war government battening down the hatches to ride out a dreadful storm. Will there be immense difficulties? Of course. But we already have the sore loser Remainer contingent determined to catastrophise Brexit and seize on any morsel of bad news as proof that they were right (rather than working positively together to achieve the settled will of the British people to leave the EU). We can afford no additional negativity from government.

The greatest threat to Britain now is not some fictional retaliation from a spiteful, scorned European Union, but rather the danger from within – the lack of self confidence shown by government and citizen alike that we possess the strengths and attributes required to succeed and function like every other single advanced country on earth outside of the European Union.

As Franklin Delano Roosevelt said, at a time when his country faced a genuinely grave threat (rather than the bright opportunity of Brexit now presented to Britain):

So, first of all, let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless, unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.

Theresa May, Philip Hammond and Boris Johnson will not bring down this country. Only we the British people have the potential to do that. We, with our nameless, unreasoning and unjustified terror in the face of newfound freedom.

14 July – 12:18

All roads lead to Norway?

The Guardian tries to war-game the various Brexit scenarios under the new Theresa May premiership:

May is a stickler for detail and doubtless will be alarmed by the absence of a coherent plan for Brexit in Whitehall. If preparation is a prerequisite for successful Brexit, the omens are poor. The official leave campaign, focused on victory and avoiding internal division, drew up only the flimsiest plan for what Brexit would look like, pointing vaguely at the exit door, but with little idea of what lay the other side. Foreign Office diplomats were instructed to draw up no contingency plans whatsoever, supposedly for fear they might leak.

The appointment of David Davis as Minister for Brexit, and Liam Fox as trade secretary suggests May is willing to go for a hard Brexit, where the UK does not remain in the single market – as the new chancellor, Philip Hammond, has also said – and removes itself quickly from the EU. But the civil service may feel the Davis blueprint recently published on Conservative Home is optimistic. In essence he argues article 50 should be triggered by the end of the year and predicts the UK could sign bilateral trade deals with a set of markets larger than the single market within 12 to 24 months.

[..] Detailed options on Brexit were previously discussed little, due to the foreshortening of the Tory leadership election. On the Labour side, a coherent policy on Europe that combines its pro-European instincts with its voters’ dislike of free movement has yet to emerge.

The discussion has instead been confined to thinktanks, bloggers, the House of Lords and Oliver Letwin’s hastily assembled Cabinet Office Brexit unit.

Yes, we bloggers did have a thing or two to say about the optimal Brexit plan. At the time, getting the message out there was next to impossible as the media preferred to hang on every word (and false warning or promise) made by the vapid “leaders” of the Remain and Leave campaigns. At least people are now beginning to take note.

The Guardian then starts to use language which could almost be lifted directly from the pages of one of the Leave Alliance bloggers:

A soft Brexit means a relatively slow negotiation designed to retain as close as possible a relationship with the rest of the EU. Access to the EU’s single market, with as few tariffs as possible, is the goal.

The off-the-shelf model is Norway’s complex European Economic Area agreement, but probably only as long as the EU agrees that Norway’s limited flexibility on free movement can be extended. This has been described as “EEA-minus”.

Rune-readers reckon this model might be the instinctive preference of both May and her Whitehall civil servants. It minimises disruption, calms business and could be sold as a staging post while Whitehall starts a bigger process of disentanglement.

Well, well, well. “Off-the shelf”. “Staging post”. Finally, the messages pushed by the Leave Alliance are being picked up even by the Guardian (with no attribution, of course).

Here, too, we see evidence of the Guardian skimming Leave Alliance output:

Some say that there are little-noticed flexibilities in the free movement in the Norway free trade agreement, such as article 112 that allows EEA states to “take unilateral action to restrict freedom of movement in the event of serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties”. Some Brexiters have claimed this gives an EEA member state the right to restrict the freedom of EU citizens to come to the UK through a form of emergency brake.

Before conceding:

All this complexity may well lead the cautious May and her new “minister for Brexit David Davis” back to the Norway option as the best starting point.

It took two seconds for voters to mark a cross alongside leave on the ballot paper. It is increasingly apparent it might take two decades to work through the full consequences.

Precisely so. It has taken the Guardian awhile to get there, but they seem finally to have arrived. Brexit will indeed be a process, and a long and complex one at that. Forty years of political integration and the handing over of whole core competencies to the EU cannot possibly be unpicked in a couple of years. And as the Guardian belatedly comes to acknowledge, this leads consistently back to an interim staging option where single market access is preserved as we seek to scope out our optimal longer-term solution.

The dedicated bloggers and citizen journalists of The Leave Alliance came to this same conclusion many months, even years ago. It is a pity that the Guardian could not offer any attribution for their eureka moment.

14 July – 10:40

A kindred spirit’s take on Theresa May and Brexit

Allister Heath gets it:

Brexit is an idea, an intellectual vision for Britain, a 10- or 20-year journey to reshape our economy and society, reinvigorate our democracy and reinvent ourselves as truly global, high-wage, high value-added trading superhub. It matters little who begins to deliver this, as long as our withdrawal from the EU is executed in the best possible way: the referendum was about changing our destiny, not about making any specific pro‑Brexit individual our next prime minister.

We were voting for an idea, not a gang; this was a referendum, not an election. Ideas both predate and outlive individuals, and Euroscepticism is no different: the mark of true ideological victory is when erstwhile opponents implement a policy that they used to oppose and hire their former enemies to assist them in the task. Capitalism triumphs when ex-socialists privatise industries, deregulate and cut taxes; Euroscepticism truly wins when an ex‑Remainer takes us out of the EU.

[..] It also doesn’t matter that our new Prime Minister is not especially ideological; in fact, in the present circumstances this may well help her. A radical, disruptive, previously unthinkable belief structure – to quit the EU – has been chosen for her and imposed upon her. It’s an immense, awe-inspiring task; what we now need is managerial ability. Lady Thatcher had to find her mission; May has been handed hers.

More and more people are coming to think of Brexit in these terms, which is encouraging. Allister Heath was one of the first journalists to advocate the interim EFTA/EEA “Norway Option” approach championed by The Leave Alliance, just prior to the EU referendum. It is good to see Heath continuing to talk of Brexit in terms of a complex process which demands the best of Britain’s managerial talent to accomplish.

Heath also takes heart from Theresa May’s first address as prime minister:

She has started superbly, delivering a powerful, uplifting speech targeted at that category of hard-working, aspirational, lowish-income working people who are “just managing”.She is framing her non-Brexit vision as “unionist”, as in the Conservative and Unionist party; to her, it means that we are all united as citizens and that our economy must work for everybody.

These principles – opportunity for all, a colour-blind society, meritocracy, no discrimination, improving state schools – are profoundly Tory. They have little to do with “modernisation” or “centrism”; they are at the heart of what all successful Tories have always believed in. The devil, of course, is in their implementation: it can be through harnessing conservative and free-market principles, or via Left-wing means. We should hope and expect that it will be the former.

Heath interprets May’s speech almost exactly as I did last night, seeing it as a statement of our shared national destiny and recognition of our duty toward one another, while also praising May’s smart, laser-like focus on the people in the squeezed middle who are “just managing”.

Heath also shares this blog’s concern about which route Theresa May’s government will take to get to this promised land – whether it is through bold conservative means (as Thatcher did) or through leftist redistribution. It looks like both us us will be keeping Theresa May under close observation on this point.

Heath is clear about what he would like to see from May in the economic sphere:

She must also add to her remarks last night by telling us more about her vision for the economy. This must come from her, not her new Chancellor. Her leitmotif needs to be about empowering the poor by unleashing enterprise, not hobbling the rich; this will require more housebuilding, the re‑creation of an ownership society, far better schooling and adult education, led hopefully by private sector involvement, and a deregulatory and supply-side revolution to encourage investment and the creation of even more small businesses.

That would be pure Thatcherism 2.0 and much as I would love to see it all come to pass, on the balance of available evidence I just don’t think that Theresa May will be that good on economic policy. During her incredibly brief leadership campaign, May was sounding positively Miliband-esque on capitalism and redistribution. This certainly will not be a case of a radical conservative being held back by the doubting “wets” in her own cabinet.

But if everything on Allister Heath’s wish list does come to pass, this blog will certainly be celebrating.

14 July – 10:00

That jocular, back-slapping PMQs was nothing to be proud of

Finally, someone says what this blog was thinking yesterday as David Cameron took his swansong in parliament.

James Kirkup was unimpressed:

The political career of David Cameron ended, like they all do, in failure. He led Britain out of the EU without wanting to, and he had to quit as a result.  Under such circumstances, some people might have expected his last appearance in the House of Commons to be a painful, even embarrassing affair. Others might have expected him not to show up at all and leave it to his successor.

Yet here was being hailed and praised, the Commons all full of jokes and chuckles. Even Jeremy Corbyn tried to be jolly with a humiliatingly bad attempted joke about Strictly Come Dancing.  Only Angus Robertson of the SNP seemed interested in doing to job his voters sent him to Westminster to do, and his reward was disapproving tuts and groans from the rest of the House.

[..] Because “the House uniting to pay tribute” is actually everything that’s wrong with politics, everything that makes people hate their rulers and makes them vote to kick them as hard as possible, or not vote at all because they’re all the same, a cosy club of smug so-and-sos who look after their own and sod the rest of us.

Many people are angry at David Cameron. Many people are sad that he is leaving. Others are indifferent, jubilant, victorious, dismayed, optimistic, depressed.  The job of politics and politicians is to reflect and, as far as possible, reconcile such a spectrum of opinion. Yet on days like this, the House sounds one bland self-regarding note of praise, not many divergent tones.

I’m inclined to agree with this view – on reflection. Initially my instincts were also that it was a nice, rather touching affair, and I bristled when Angus Robertson made his serious political intervention. I was wrong.

What better time than to begin debating the legacy of a prime minister as he takes his leave of PMQs? This should have been an occasion for David Cameron to robustly defend his record in office, cheered on by his supporters and called harshly to account by his detractors on both sides of the house. And yet what we had was a rather nauseating, saccharine, Hollywood-style tribute where the errors and controversies were momentarily airbrushed away.

And why? Because, as James Kirkup points out, David Cameron is “one of us” (us being the political class). And too often, those in positions of the greatest power and authority in Britain barely receive verbal censure for their errors and missteps, let alone more serious sanction. On balance, this blog considers David Cameron to have been a very bland and unexciting leader, a letdown to serious conservatives but the Devil incarnate to deranged leftists. But that’s no reason not to have the debate one last time, while Cameron is still there to defend himself.

Kirkup concludes:

I’m not saying Mr Cameron should go out in sackcloth and ashes, but politics shouldn’t be a cosy club. It should be a fight, a contest of ideas and arguments and policies.  David Cameron fought many such battles and won a good many of them, even if he lost the last one on Europe.  His last day in the Commons should have rehearsed and aired those arguments, MPs criticising and praising him as they saw fit and as voters would want, with Mr Cameron giving a full account of himself. If he and his fellow MPs really wanted to do their duty today, they should have made sure he went out fighting.

Funny. Enraged by David Cameron’s despicable behaviour in the EU referendum (again, something which was brushed under the carpet in his triumphant, valedictory PMQs, this blog was all in favour of the sackcloth and ashes approach.

Predicting Cameron’s downfall as he lied, threatened and cheated his way to failure in the EU referendum, I wrote:

That’s why the prime minister’s days are numbered. At present he takes false courage from the fact that his normally sworn enemies in the Labour Party and on the generic Left are holding their fire in their shared desperation to keep Britain in the EU. But on June 24, Cameron will quickly realise that a good half of his own Conservative Party, together with everyone else in the country, will be straining at the leash to eject him from office, strip him of the bully pulpit he has so abused, and send him marching barefoot back to Witney in sackcloth and ashes.

Well, I was half right. The Conservative Party did indeed move quickly, dispassionately and ruthlessly to replace David Cameron once he announced his intention to resign. Unfortunately, he was sent on his way with a lot more praise ringing in his ears than his recent conduct deserved.

The House of Commons can either be a place for the people or an elite, self-serving club which looks after its own before even considering its duty to represent the full range of opinion across our United Kingdom. Yesterday, it never looked more like the latter.

13 July – 22:30

Where there is discord may we bring harmony…

 

Well, it wasn’t quite Margaret Thatcher quoting St. Francis of Assisi, but it was a solid and hopeful opening speech by Theresa May, Britain’s new prime minister.

This passage was particularly good, politically speaking:

If you’re from an ordinary working class family, life is much harder than many people in Westminster realise. You have a job but you don’t always have job security. You have your own home, but you worry about paying a mortgage. You can just about manage but you worry about the cost of living and getting your kids into a good school.

If you’re one of those families, if you’re just managing, I want to address you directly.

I know you’re working around the clock, I know you’re doing your best, and I know that sometimes life can be a struggle. The government I lead will be driven not by the interests of the privileged few, but by yours.

We will do everything we can to give you more control over your lives. When we take the big calls, we’ll think not of the powerful, but you. When we pass new laws, we’ll listen not to the mighty but to you. When it comes to taxes, we’ll prioritise not the wealthy, but you. When it comes to opportunity, we won’t entrench the advantages of the fortunate few. We will do everything we can to help anybody, whatever your background, to go as far as your talents will take you.

That’s aspirational conservatism at its best, right there. Unfortunately it was preceded with some rather excessive (but expected) praise of her not-very-conservative predecessor and an unnecessary foray into identity politics, but on the whole this was well done by Theresa May and her speechwriter(s).

The powerful repetition of “not the powerful / mighty / wealthy, but you” is particularly effective, underscoring the Tories’ claim to what is often (wrongly) considered exclusively Labour or left-wing territory.

The undercurrent of everything currently happening in British politics – the EU referendum, the self-destruction of the Labour Party, everything – is the chasm between the priorities of political class and the needs of the increasingly squeezed working and lower middle classes. Any politician who does not now make incredibly earnest-looking efforts to appear as though they understand and atone for past failures in helping the squeezed middle is asking for existential-level trouble, and Theresa May is quite right to plant the Conservative Party square on their side.

(Of course, the devil will be in the details – Thatcher helped the working classes with Right to Buy and a crackdown on industrial strife whereas May seems to have more left-wing redistributionist policies in mind, stealing straight from the Miliband playbook).

This section on the unity of our United Kingdom is worth marking, too:

Because not everybody knows this, but the full title of my party is the Conservative and Unionist Party, and that word ‘unionist’ is very important to me.

It means we believe in the Union: the precious, precious bond between England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. But it means something else that is just as important; it means we believe in a union not just between the nations of the United Kingdom but between all of our citizens, every one of us, whoever we are and wherever we’re from.

I’ve been chewing this section over, uncertain what to think of it. Other commentators seem to have responded well to it, warming to this novel rebranding of what it means to be a unionist. The cynic in me worries that it is more empty platitude than statement of intent – or worse, a very clear statement of intent that her government will seek to fortify its place in the political centre ground through a raft of targeted financial giveaways to this voter group.

But let us be optimistic at the start of a new administration. Let’s assume that our new prime minister is exhorting us to once again think of ourselves as one nation, a cohesive whole, rather than a jostling coalition of warring special interest groups and competitive victimhoods. Let’s dare to hope that we are now led by a prime minister who will use the challenges of Brexit – something which she did not want but has vowed to deliver nonetheless – to inspire us all to play our part as engaged citizens with a common destiny rather than avaricious, selfish consumers.

And then this peroration:

We are living through an important moment in our country’s history. Following the referendum, we face a time of great national change.

And I know because we’re Great Britain, that we will rise to the challenge. As we leave the European Union, we will forge a bold new positive role for ourselves in the world, and we will make Britain a country that works not for a privileged few, but for every one of us.

May’s speech teetered between asking what we can do for our country and hinting about what our country might do for us (well, for some of us anyway). Perhaps that is as good as we will get in this day and age. It is certainly an improvement on other politicians who have sought to ingratiate themselves with us by promising only what they will make the government do for us. Theresa May does at least seem to suggest that it is “we” who must rise to the challenge, not just “others” or the government.

And for a blog which has consistently implored politicians to set us a challenge, that can only be a good thing.

Right now, that’s about all we can say with any certainty. If we take Theresa May at the best interpretation of her words today, then this could be a fruitful premiership. This blog’s approach, as stated before, will be to trust but verify.

13 July – 14:30

Farewell, David Cameron

 

And so, at the end of today’s session of Prime Minister’s Questions, David Cameron bowed out with these final words to the House:

“You can achieve a lot of things in politics. You can get a lot of things done. And that, in the end – the public service, the national interest – that is what it’s all about. Nothing is really impossible if you put your mind to it. After all, as I once said: ‘I was the future once’.”

Woolly, vague platitudes with a superficially appealing thin veneer of optimism – Cameron took his leave from top flight politics in exactly the same way that he practised it.

Of course one wishes Cameron well. To serve in government is to dedicate a portion of one’s life to public service, and while this blog became increasingly strident in its criticism of Cameron as his premiership went on, he bore his responsibilities with grace and (usually) good humour.

In fact, one of the most endearing things about David Cameron is the sense that he is not loathe to give up power in the way that, say, Tony Blair and Gordon Brown so obviously were. Cameron the pragmatist clearly wanted to stay in order to continue implementing his agenda (or treading water, in this blog’s view), but when after the EU referendum result and Andrea Leadsom dropping out of the Tory leadership race it became clear that his departure was to be suddenly accelerated, Cameron prepared to make way for Theresa May with high spirits and (judging by his unintentionally-recorded singing) a clear conscience.

That being said, one cannot look back on David Cameron’s six years as prime minister and come to any other conclusion that this has been a lost half-decade, a dispiriting period of time where the Tories were in office but hardly in power. Whether it is the utter failure of George Osborne to get to grips with the budget deficit (let alone the national debt), the housing crisis, the indecisiveness over airport expansion, civil liberties, national defence, sovereignty, foreign policy, the reflexive pro-Europeanism and much else, this government has been nothing but a letdown, made all the worse by the knowledge that once Labour finally sort themselves out and regain power they will drag the country even further to the left after Cameron failed to move it even slightly to the right.

And sadly, Cameron’s replacement shows no signs of tacking away from this centrist course. As my Conservatives for Liberty colleague Paul Nizinskyj puts it:

Then there is the depressing reality that, on economics, Theresa May is essentially Ed Miliband in kitten heels. It is the sincere hope of this organisation that she picks an economic liberal as her Chancellor because she is simply economically illiterate. The fact she has, with a straight face, proposed curbs on chief executive pay would be hilarious if it wasn’t so terrifying. This is a woman, who in being called out by Jacob Rees-Mogg on her attempt to push through the European Arrest Warrant without a vote in 2014, has shown she has no respect for due process. She does not understand property or individual liberty and she does not care.

Our conclusion? Theresa May is not only an authoritarian with no respect for civil and economic liberty, she is not only most definitely not a libertarian, she is in no way even a conservative.

Ouch. But Nizinskyj is not wrong. Civil libertarians, small-c conservatives and conservatarians (like this blog) will have our work cut out for us in scrutinising Theresa May’s government, doing our best to keep it honest and resisting its most illiberal tendencies.

But even then, if I had to give a prediction for the success of Theresa May’s new administration, I would be pessimistic. I hope to be proven wrong. But as things stand, and based on everything that Theresa May has said and done in her political career – not least the various centrist noises she made at the launch of her own Tory leadership campaign – we are looking at another lost term of office.

Why? Because this blog believes in the politics of persuasion, while centrists like Theresa May and the Labour rebels believe in the politics of pandering. This blog believes that the point of an election campaign is to educate, preach, cajole and convince people that one’s own ideology and policy solutions are the best choice for an individual and for the country as a whole, while the centrists believe that people’s views are fixed and immovable, and that the point of an election campaign is to bend, flatter and shapeshift until you have tricked the voter into believing either that you have his best interests at heart, or at least that the other side intends to do them harm.

So far I have seen nothing to give cause for hope that Theresa May will be any different to David Cameron in this regard – both take the dismal latter rather than the inspiring former view of politics, unlike Margaret Thatcher, their radical conservative predecessor who actually dared to convince voters rather than simply flatter them.

Margaret Thatcher, when faced with a terminally dysfunctional Labour Party, saw an opportunity to boldly remake Britain in a Conservative image, and in so doing she saved the country. David Cameron and Theresa May, when gifted the same golden scenario, see an opportunity to tack to the centre and cement themselves in power forever by being as blandly inoffensive as possible.

I dearly hope to be wrong. This blog would like nothing more than for Britain’s second woman prime minister to be another trailblazer, a new Margaret Thatcher to David Cameron’s rather lame Ted Heath tribute act.

But as things stand, there are precious few grounds for hope.

13 July – 12:00

The hypocrisy of Owen Smith

So it is official. With the launch of Owen Smith‘s campaign for the Labour leadership, Tweedle Dee has officially joined Tweedle Dum. Two complete nonentities with almost zero high level experience between the two of them (within politics or without) are to be the dual stalking horses for the pitiful higher profile centrist Labour MPs who dare not make a stand of their own.

The Guardian reports:

Owen Smith, the former shadow work and pensions secretary, will launch a challenge to Jeremy Corbyn for the Labour leadership on Wednesday.

Smith said Corbyn was a good man and been proved right about many things including strongly opposing austerity, but was “not a leader who can lead us into an election and win for Labour”.

He added: “Working people cannot afford to have a day like today when the Tories are popping champagne corks and celebrating their coronation and the prospect of a Labour government feels so distant.”

[..] Supporters of Smith, MP for Pontypridd , argue he is a better choice than Eagle because he was not in parliament for the Iraq war and has pitched himself on the soft left of the party. However, Eagle’s backers believe she is a strong choice to oppose Corbyn after performing well in PMQs against the prime minister. Many on her team also argue it is time Labour had a female leader.

What strikes one most is the hypocrisy of Owen Smith’s charge against Jeremy Corbyn that as leader, he failed to immediate conjure up a comprehensive alternative policy platform. Just a few years ago, under the uninspiring, failed leadership of Ed Miliband, the Labour Party was largely silent on new policy while their interminable policy review was completed.

In fact, this length of time into Ed Miliband’s leadership, the Labour Party’s policy platform was a self-described blank sheet of paper. Apparently failing to instantly come up with new policies is fine when you are a woolly Fabian centrist like Ed Miliband, but an unforgivable sin when you are Jeremy Corbyn.

But of course in reality, Labour’s policy vacuum has nothing to do with why Owen Smith launched his own, self-aggrandising leadership bid. It is just a convenient excuse. Smith seem to think that his time in the trenches as Shadow Welsh Minister and Shadow Work & Pensions Secretary give him such an overwhelming leg up over Angela Eagle, whose eleven whole months as Minister for Pensions and Ageing Society clearly make her a viable prime ministerial candidate.

Good luck to both of them. They’ll need it.

13 July – 11:50

The root of Labour’s unpopularity

Pete North muses on the unpopularity of the Labour Party in a very persuasive piece, the conclusion of which is worth quoting at length:

Social policy makers look at the charts of income distribution and see a wealthier population, but I would venture that social mobility has stalled, people feel trapped by their circumstances and there are masses of bureaucratic and financial obstacles in the way of getting even a basic foothold. The English dream of a house, a car and a family was once a birthright. Now if you have a crappy semi in Wiltshire and a car less than five years old, you might as well be Alan Sugar by the estimations of most young people.

With so many things now beyond the reach of young people without making unacceptable compromises, they are resigned to live a pointless life with no stake in anything, working in service jobs, grazing according to their short term whims and no real direction. And we’re supposed to vote for more of the same?

These are the reasons why Labour has absolutely nothing to say to working class people. Or anyone with a pulse for that matter. They are far too obsessed with their own internal feuds and bombing Syrians for no reason. The Labour leadership cares more about Palestinians than Yorkshirefolk.

It is not interested in removing these bureaucratic constraints because they are major sources of revenue for their public sector empires. They are not interested in creating more freedoms for people. They like telling us how to live and controlling what we do.

This is why I am instinctively a conservative. I believe it is the job of government to remove obstacles, not create them. If you want an aspirational society then you have to give people a helping hand and second chances. If even the basics are out of reach then you simply don’t have a society. You have cohabitation. Miserable cohabitation. We’re left to rot, filling in forms, working tedious jobs to pay exorbitant rents, unfair taxes and a mountain of public debt.

If you look at the list of gripes above and they are very much hangovers from the Blair era. The era of massively inflated public sector, nannying interventions, ever more CCTV, unnecessarily outsourced public services and a mortgage system completely warped by Labour’s debt binge. And what has Labour got to say for itself now? Nothing. Even now, the Blairite wing of Labour is conspiring to reassert control over the party when they are the ones who made Labour unelectable.

And why would Labour have a clue what it’s like to struggle to find a path in life? When you have Jo Cox’s and Chuka Umunnas and Corbyns, none of whom ever had to lift a finger, it’s little wonder they are out of step with just about everyone in the country. With a head full of fair trade and sustainable development bilge, their world is not our world.

In our world a penny on petrol matters. A bus lane fine means cancelling a school trip, speeding points mean crippling insurance, a CCJ costs the chance of a job anywhere in the banking and insurance world, and a hike in business rates closes down the local shops we rely on. Bailiffs make us frightened to answer the door. Council tax means the poor never get a holiday. Court costs means we can never address injustice. Education costs mean we can never change careers. Public transport costs eat into our disposable income. That is Labour’s legacy. That is why Labour deserves to die.

Though there are obvious worthy exceptional individuals, one simply does not get the sense that the current Labour Party gets excited about the same problems and injustices as the ordinary British people – particularly now, when the party’s centrist MPs are more concerned about deposing their leader and restoring their sorely missed influence running the show.

Not that the Corbyn leadership is in any way saintly or immune from criticism. When North says that the Labour leadership “cares more about Palestinians than Yorkshirefolk” he hits on a worrying grain of truth.

But what comes through most clearly is the yawning disconnect between Labour’s recent legacy in government (continually expanding the public sector, making more people dependent on government and exerting more coercive control over peoples’ lives) and in opposition (agitating for more of the same), and the priorities of the people.

The time has come for a split in the Labour Party so that the cerebral, theoretical leftists can go one way, the party which actually defends the interests of the working classes can go another, and the parasitical political class can (ideally) fall down the gap in between the two.

 

13 July – 00:20

Jeremy Corbyn taunts centrist Labour MPs with a subtle repudiation of Neil Kinnock’s 1985 party conference speech denouncing Militant Tendency

 

After avoiding a party stitch-up to prevent him from automatically going forward into the Labour leadership ballot, Jeremy Corbyn and his supporters have been taking something of a victory lap.

The Labour NEC’s decision prompted the valedictory video shown above, hosted on the official Jeremy Corbyn YouTube channel and promoted on the Labour leader’s social media accounts.

In the video, Corbyn concludes his remarks:

Our party is determined that the next government will meet the needs of all of the people of this country. That will invest in health, in housing, in education, in jobs, in infrastructure.

The next government will be a Labour government – a Labour government – committed to ending the injustice and inequality that exists in Britain today.

My emphasis in bold.

I highlight this phrase because I do not believe it was accidental. In fact, I believe it was a direct and very deliberate reference to former party leader Neil Kinnock’s 1985 speech to the Labour Party conference, in which Kinnock (in a bid to make his party more electable) denounced the far-left Liverpool city council and the Militant tendency wing of the party.

Here’s what Kinnock said in 1985:

I’ll tell you what happens with impossible promises.  You start with far-fetched resolutions.  They are then pickled into a rigid dogma, a code, and you go through the years sticking to that, outdated, misplaced, irrelevant to the real needs, and you end up in the grotesque chaos of a Labour council – a Labour council – hiring taxis to scuttle round a city handing out redundancy notices to its own workers.

Jeremy Corbyn’s choice of repetition (“a Labour government – a Labour government”) in his address today is, I am certain, not coincidental. On the contrary, it is a direct reference to Neil Kinnock’s speech and a repudiation of Neil Kinnock’s work in the 1980s to drag the Labour Party closer to the political centre (Corbyn himself was part of an effort to depose Neil Kinnock from the leadership in 1988).

By co-opting Kinnock’s turn of phrase, Corbyn is defiantly stamping his own authority on the Labour Party. Corbyn is making clear that he is the Labour Party now, for all intents and purposes, and that the party of Kinnock, Smith, Blair, Brown and Miliband has passed away.

Anybody entertaining any lingering wistful belief that Jeremy Corbyn will “do the right thing” and slink away “for the good of the party”, letting the centrists resume their rule without a fight, should now abandon all hope.

This is Jeremy Corbyn’s party now. And he is here to stay.

 

Neil Kinnock’s 1985 party conference speech – highlight:

12 July – 23:31

The Economist weeps for centrist Labour MPs

Showing their traditional concern for the interests of people who are not part of the political, cultural or economic elite, The Economist is busy rending its garments in despair for the poor centrist Labour MPs whose party, hijacked by evil ordinary people with their despicable left-wing views, has apparently “deserted them”:

The coming months will be ugly. They may culminate in centrist MPs abandoning a party that has abandoned them, and at a time when Britain needs a strong, united opposition. Still, the confrontation is welcome. Labour has long been an awkward coalition of anticapitalists and social democrats, undermining and frustrating each other. With the Tories drifting rightward and the centre ground looking sparse, Britain could use a centre-left party capable of holding the government to account and, as Brexit negotiations begin, pressing it to keep the country as open and dynamic as possible. Whether by defeating Mr Corbyn or splintering off, Labour’s moderates now have a chance to create such a force.

It takes a peculiar arrogance to openly fret more about the welfare of centrist Labour MPs, members of the privileged political class, than the ordinary people who make up the rank and file Labour Party. And yet this is exactly what the Economist does when it speaks about how Jeremy Corbyn’s party has “abandoned” the centrists, as though we should somehow feel sorry for a group of people whose collective vision and charisma inspires almost zero love and devotion among their own party membership. Focusing on the MPs rather than the party members (let alone the British people) is a complete inversion of what politics is supposed to be about – serving the people.

And yet the Economist’s conclusion is quite right – a split is looking more and more likely, and more logical. Jeremy Corbyn’s mandate from the party membership is overwhelming – and will be even more so if revalidated in the coming leadership election. Labour MPs claim a “mandate” from the people who elected them, which sounds nice and grand but is actually meaningless. Many people vote for their Labour MP as the “least worst” option, or for tactical reasons. Only true believers join a political party – the positive mandate they bestow on their choice for leader is much stronger and frankly counts for more.

Sometimes, a bit of instability is good. And in this case, the fallout from the EU referendum is seeing the cobwebs blown away from many of the dusty relics in British politics, including the Labour Party’s fraught coalition of working class supporters, socialist true believers and the professional political class who just happened to toss a coin and pick Team Red as the vehicle for their rise to power and prominence. Now the internal contradictions of that coalition are being exposed, which is a good thing, even if it means short term discord.

Ultimately, the impasse has to be broken. Ordinary people who are committed enough to the Labour Party to pay their dues and walk around with a membership card in their wallets want Corbyn. The professional politicians who front Labour in Parliament do not. The MPs can therefore either come around to Corbyn’s way of thinking, make their peace and accept a period in the wilderness while the Corbynites try doing things their way for a change, or else leave the Labour Party and try to found a new party of the centre-left.

There is honour to be found in all of these options. But if Corbyn prevails in this second Labour leadership election, there will be no more honour in centrist Labour MPs carping from the sidelines.

12 July – 21:50

Theresa May’s threat to liberty

Spiked does an excellent job of summarising the many, many ways in which Theresa May is a civil libertarian’s last possible choice to succeed David Cameron:

May is the figurehead for what is the most powerful authoritarian faction in today’s political firmament. She keeps alive the bland, technocratic, Third Way politics that began under New Labour, but she combines it with a vaguely socially conservative outlook. In this way, her authoritarian tendencies are constantly dressed up as mere managerial competence. She’s not undermining liberties, really; she’s just ‘getting on with it’ – she’s ‘getting the job done’. To May, the freedoms of the individual fall under the same category as, say, paper shortages, or lazy secretaries: obstacles to efficient management; administrative hurdles to be overcome.

Consider the action she’s taken on drugs. In 2014, against all advice, she banned Khat – a mild stimulant, popular with Somalis and comparable in harm to coffee. But that wasn’t enough. She then introduced the Psychoactive Substances Bill, which came into force in April 2016. The bill effectively prohibits the possession and use of any psychoactive substance – except those on a pre-approved government list. The intention was to crack down on so-called ‘legal highs’ – but the real effect the bill will have is to turn on its head the age-old principle that actions should be legal until made illegal – under May, it seems, actions are illegal until they’re made legal. An important principle of civil society is, to May’s mind, a managerial nuisance: this principle stopped her from ‘getting the job done’, and therefore it had to go.

[..] Most worrying of all is her broad-brush, cavalier attitude to what she calls ‘extremism’. For all her talking up of the extremist threat to the British way of life, May has done more harm to British liberties than any sad-act neo-Nazi or wacky hate-preacher ever could. In her speech at the Metropolitan Police conference on counterterrorism this year, she boasted of how she had deprived certain British nationals of their citizenship because she deemed them not ‘conducive to the public good’; she boasted of how her Internet Referral Unit has, since 2010, quietly removed over 90,000 pieces of extremism-related material from the web; and, most ominous of all, she boasted of how the new statutory requirements of the Prevent scheme will require ‘local authorities, the police, prisons, probation services, schools, colleges, and, yes, universities’, to monitor people’s behaviour for signs of extremism. More recently, she suggested that Ofcom be given unprecedented powers to strike down any TV programme it deems to include ‘extremist content’. This represents, effectively, the transformation of a vast swathe of the public-service workforce into a spying network – all cloaked in the bland, unassuming language of ‘effectiveness’. Again, it’s no big deal; May’s just getting the job done.

This blog agrees wholeheartedly, sharing all of these concerns. And in any other situation than the truly unique circumstances in which we now find ourselves, having voted to leave the EU and standing on the cusp of freedom from ever-closer European political union, this litany of faults would be more than enough reason to bar Theresa May from ever entering 10 Downing Street as prime minister.

The fact that Theresa May was the best of an underwhelming final two options for the Conservative Party leadership, with even that choice ultimately taken away when Andrea Leadsom dropped out of the race, means that while our new prime minister in waiting is likely best equipped to negotiate Brexit (assuming that she uses her talents for good and does not renege on “Brexit means Brexit”), we must be ever vigilant of her domestic policy. And stand ready to forcefully oppose it where necessary.

12 July – 20:28

Labour NEC confirms that Jeremy Corbyn will be on the Labour leadership contest ballot paper without needing to seek fresh nominations

Common sense and the rule of law have prevailed, and the Labour NEC has ruled 18-14 in a secret ballot that incumbent leader Jeremy Corbyn will not need the fresh nominations of 20 per cent of the Parliamentary Labour Party to go forward into the contest.

From the Guardian:

Jeremy Corbyn was jubilant after the party’s ruling National Executive Committee (NEC) decided his name should automatically appear on the ballot paper in the leadership contest triggered by Angela Eagle.

In a crunch meeting at Labour’s Westminster headquarters that began at 2pm on Tuesday and continued into the evening, NEC members, including Corbyn himself, voted 18-14 in a secret ballot that he was not subject to the rule that forces candidates to show they have the backing of 20% of the party’s MPs and MEPs.

However, in a separate decision taken after Corbyn had left the room, the NEC ruled that only those who have been members for more than six months will be allowed to vote – while new supporters will be given two days to sign up as registered supporters to vote in the race, but only if they are willing to pay £25 – far higher than the £3 fee many Corbyn-backers paid in the contest last year.

Labour’s membership has shot up to more than 500,000, according to party sources, as both Corbyn’s supporters and those who want to replace him recruit new supporters to their cause. But the introduction of the six-month cut-off point is likely to infuriate members who have joined in recent weeks with the hope of influencing the vote, and will not now be able to do so without paying an additional £25.

Good. Like Jeremy Corbyn or loathe him, the blatant misinterpretation and violation of the party rules which would have been required in order to keep the incumbent leader off the ballot paper would have made a mockery of the Labour Party’s own internal processes, as well as violated any sense of duty owed by the party to its own members.

Of course, not everybody is pleased with this outcome:

Unfortunately there could be no other outcome. Labour MPs have set themselves implacably against the leader overwhelmingly supported by the party base. Corbyn’s leadership has a strong and recent mandate. “Ah, but Labour MPs have a mandate from their voters”, I hear you cry. Yes, they do, albeit of a very ethereal sort. But if that is the case, and the wishes of paid-up party members are to be overruled and subverted at will whenever MPs arbitrarily invoke their “mandate” from the voters, then what’s the point of having a party membership at all? And who exactly do those MPs think will knock on doors and deliver leaflets for them come the next general election?

No, this was the right result. And if it precipitates short term chaos, then so be it – it is the kind of chaos which sometimes needs to happen, the coming to a head of a tension between Labour’s natural base and its political class which has been left to fester unresolved for far too long.

If the Labour centrists wish to be rid of Corbyn, it is for them to come up with a pitch to party members that is so fresh, compelling and powerful that it sweeps aside their preference for and loyalty to Jeremy Corbyn. They do not get to unilaterally assert their will and subvert the party rules to get their own way. They must win fair and square. If the centre-left case is so compelling then let it be made loud and clear. So far it has not been – even Corbyn’s challenger, Angela Eagle, refuses to name a single area of policy where she disagrees with Corbyn. Is this because she doesn’t disagree with her leader on policy, or is it because she knows that expressing her own sincerely held centrist views would condemn her to defeat?

Labour Party members deserve to know. The time has come for the Labour centrists to put up or shut up.

12 July – 17:05

Tweedle Dee joins Tweedle Dum

 

Now Owen Smith, that other hugely respected big-name heavyweight, is throwing his hat in the ring to be Labour leader.

Politics Home reports:

The former Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary has gathered enough support from his fellow MPs to join Angela Eagle in challenging Jeremy Corbyn.

He and Ms Eagle have held talks in recent days over one of them becoming a so-called ‘unity candidate’ to take on the under-fire leader.

But they failed to reach an agreement and Ms Eagle announced her own leadership challenge this morning.

A senior Labour source said Mr Smith will announce his candidacy this week, and could even do it after tomorrow’s meeting of the party’s ruling national executive committee.

Speaking last week, Mr Smith said he was “ready to do anything I can to save and serve the party”.

Assuming that Corbyn is not hobbled by the Labour NEC’s blatantly antidemocratic plotting to keep him off the ballot paper, the incumbent Labour leader can look forward to another thumping victory as Angela Eagle and Owen Smith divide the anti Corbyn vote between themselves while centrist Labour’s only viable centrist heavyweights continue to cower and bide their time.

12 July – 16:38

Will the Labour NEC press the self destruct button?

There are early unconfirmed reports that the Labour National Executive Committee is to decide whether or not Jeremy Corbyn requires nominations to go into the coming Labour leadership contest (he doesn’t – see previous update) by secret ballot.

There is only one reason the NEC would resort to such a move – they intend to subvert the democratic processes of their own party in order to keep Jeremy Corbyn’s name off the ballot paper, but don’t want to face accountability for their cowardly decision.

Labour’s snivelling, self-entitled centrist MPs lack the courage to face Jeremy Corbyn in a fair and open leadership contest, knowing that the party membership no longer has any time for their dreary, self-interested policies. And so rather than engaging in any form of introspection, thinking about why they are so deeply unpopular, instead they seek to remove the obstacle which stands in the way of their path back to power and influence within the Labour Party.

This is utterly despicable.

The Labour Party certainly faces a dilemma, with the bulk of the Parliamentary Labour Party utterly opposed to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership. The proper release valve in such a situation is deselection. Centrist Labour MPs are implacably opposed to a party leader who is overwhelmingly popular with the membership. It therefore follows quite logically that such Labour MPs need to be deselected by their constituency associations and replaced with parliamentary candidates who actually support the leader and share his political outlook.

We should be much less squeamish about MP deselections, and stop fetishising Parliament as the place where the Serious People sit and must be heeded and respected at all times. In this case, much of the Parliamentary Labour Party is an obnoxious, self-serving little private members’ club, grubbily pursuing their own interests rather than those of party members. It is no good for the public to complain about self-serving, failed politicians and then get squeamish about one of the best tools available to remove such politicians from power and influence. The CLPs should be actively pursuing the option of deselecting their current MPs where those MPs defy the local party’s wishes on a matter so fundamental as the leadership of the party.

Without the release valve of deselections, we will remain trapped in this impasse, with Jeremy Corbyn rightly clinging to the leadership based on his mandate from party members and Labour MPs determined to ignore and undermine his authority.

The centrist Labour MPs have lost control of their own party. Labour now belongs to the Corbynites. The centrists have the choice of accepting their turn on the back seat until they can command widespread support from the membership again or leaving to form a new party of the centre-left. Both of these would be honourable choices. But what is not honourable is their current tactic of whining and undermining their current leader while shamefully lacking the courage to put up a candidate to stand against Corbyn in a free and fair fight.

This blog is quite clear: it is not for Jeremy Corbyn to move an inch further. Here is a leader who has already accommodated more difference of opinion, taken more abuse and dealt with more open disloyalty than any other Labour Party leader in history. If Labour’s rebellious centrist MPs cannot now make their peace with this shift in power, the door is wide open and they are free to leave.

Very few of them will be sincerely missed.

12 July – 15:00

The Labour NEC to rule on whether Jeremy Corbyn needs to seek nominations or will automatically be put forward to the ballot as incumbent Labour leader

This is the precise wording from the Labour Party Rule Book, Chapter 4, Clause II:

2. Election of leader and deputy leader

A. The leader and deputy leader shall be elected separately in accordance with rule C below, unless rule E below applies.

B. Nomination

i. In the case of a vacancy for leader or deputy leader, each nomination must be supported by 12.5 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void

ii. Where there is no vacancy, nominations may be sought by potential challengers each year prior to the annual session of party conference. In this case any nomination must be supported by 20 per cent of the Commons members of the PLP. Nominations not attaining this threshold shall be null and void.

My emphasis in bold.

Let’s speak plainly: anything other than a clear endorsement by the Labour NEC of Jeremy Corbyn’s right to participate in the coming Labour leadership contest without needing to seek new nominations will be a flagrant disregard for the rules and a blatant attempt to subvert the party’s own internal democracy in order to impose the will of Labour MPs on party members.

The clause itself could not be more specific, with two separate subclauses detailing the procedures which should take place when there is a vacancy for leader and when there is not. With Jeremy Corbyn still very much in charge, it is clear that the party should follow subclause B-2 which states that “nominations may be sought by potential challengers”, and that those challengers are subject to the 20 per cent of the PLP threshold requirement.

Nominations may be sought by challengers, not by the incumbent.

Apparently the treacherous MPs of the Parliamentary Labour Party claim to have solid legal guidance that in face Jeremy Corbyn does need to seek nominations. I would love to see this guidance just to behold the verbal contortions and cognitive dissonance involved in writing a piece of legal advice which so blatantly contravenes the Labour Party’s own clearly expressed goals.

And why? Because scores of self-entitled, spoiled centrist Labour MPs think that they have a divine right to rule the Labour Party and that anybody else should just shut up and let them get on with it. The real left-wingers are welcome to stay as long as they sit in the back and impart a nice sentimental hue to whatever the centrists are up to, but by no means are they to attempt to exert any influence of their own. That right is reserved for the centrists, even when they are hated and held in contempt by their own party membership. That is the noxious arrogance currently roiling the Labour Party as they seek to unseat their left-wing leader.

I know it’s unfashionable in Westminster, but the Rule of Law is actually quite an important thing. Just as Acts of Parliament are not to be lightly disregarded when they become inconvenient to the government of the day, so a political party should not go tearing up its own rule book just to rid itself of somebody whose approach they dislike.

If the centrists are right that theirs is the better philosophy and the only wing of the party which stands a chance of seeing Labour returned to power, let them make their case to the membership and have one of their own win the party leadership the old fashioned way.

They gain zero legitimacy by cheating their way back into power, and if they think that they would be able to enjoy their reasserted rule of the party in such a scenario, having legitimised all kinds of toxic briefing and plotting against the leadership, they will be in for a cruel awakening.

If the NEC votes for a decision requiring Jeremy Corbyn to seek the nominations of his treacherous MPs when the party rule book clearly states that he is not required to do so, effectively barring the overwhelming favourite from taking part in the leadership election, the Labour Party will tear itself apart at the seams.

And it will be squarely the fault of the centrists.

12 July – 14:05

In making sure that Theresa May actually implements Brexit, the mantra should be “trust but verify”

Dr. Richard North of eureferendum.com looks ahead to the triggering of Article 50 and urges vigilance:

Whether Mrs May means what she says, only time will tell. The crucial test is invoking Article 50. Basically, there are two options. We either play it long – not going until after the French and German elections, putting in the papers late next year.

Politically, that’s almost certainly unacceptable. Therefore, we need to play it short. We can avoid the certain disaster that that would bring by leveraging an early notification against an agreement by the EU to extend the negotiation period – say to five years – as the first order of business.

What then happens is, to a very great extent, up to the larger “leaver” community. If we sit back and relax, or continue promoting unrealistic leave options, then the “remains” will make the running. We’ll be left out in the cold.

Basically, the smart money is on EEA-plus, but we have to make it clear that this is only an interim option, and start pushing for recognition that there is an end game, beyond the EEA option.

We also have to settle the freedom of movement issue, and I am now confident that this can be secured within the framework of the EEA Agreement. But this is going to take considerable negotiation skills, and strong organisation.

For the rest, we have to play the hands we have been dealt. We have no option but to take May at her word – but also keep up the agitation to make absolutely sure that she keeps to it.

I like the idea of using the early invocation of Article 50 as a bargaining chip in exchange for an extension of the original mandated 2 year negotiation period. As the Leave Alliance bloggers never tire of pointing out, unpicking 40 years of incessant, deepening political integration will take time, and even an “off the shelf” interim solution like the EFTA/EEA approach could benefit from breathing room – especially while the British government re-arms itself with scarce competencies in trade negotiation and diplomacy.

North also seems to acknowledge the new reality that the invocation of Article 50 cannot be delayed for long. No matter how misguided the “Article 50 Now!” campaign may be – it is akin to deciding that you have had enough of hospital while undergoing surgery under local anaesthesia, and hopping up off the hospital bed before the surgeon is allowed to finish his work – delaying beyond the end of 2016 no longer seem politically feasible.

And the conclusion, though far from ideal, is absolutely correct – we do indeed now have to take Theresa May at her word when she says that “Brexit means Brexit”, and that she does not seek to misuse any of the interim stages out of the EU as a final resting place for Britain.

12 July – 12:50

An obsessive focus on social order while freedom goes out the window

Janan Ganesh cannot resist a dig at the fact that every prominent Leave-supporting politician has now fallen by the wayside, leaving it for stealthy Remain supporter Theresa May to sneak through and claim the crown:

In the Bizarro World of British politics, a country that voted to leave the EU will now be led by someone who wanted to stay. No prominent Leaver has survived more than a week or two of serious examination. Given their sanguine certainty about the consequences of exit, it is magnanimous of them to let others govern the beatific Shangri-La that is surely around the corner.

But Ganesh quickly trades humour for a dark warning tone about the prospects of a Theresa May premiership in terms of liberty:

Mrs May is the most seasoned new prime minister since Jim Callaghan in 1976, and somehow a mystery at the same time. Colleagues know as much about her as a Londoner might know about a neighbour. All we can do is assemble clues — and for a liberal voter, or just a pragmatist who thinks a country with 5 per cent unemployment has no screaming need to discard its open economic model, the clues are disconcerting.

Although Mrs May began her career in finance, she has never had a business-facing job in politics. Before her eight-year immersion in the home affairs brief, which can make a curtain-twitcher of any libertine, she held portfolios for transport, culture, the environment, work and pensions, the family, education and women, as well as the Tory chair. This amounts to a tour of nearly every function of state except oversight of the economy.

The gap in her experience is neither her fault nor proof that she has been conditioned to view the anarchic workings of enterprise as menaces to be contained by paternalist government. But then the clues do not end there. It is some feat to say things about migrants that make nativist Tories feel queasy. Mrs May has done it twice in nine months, in a party conference speech last autumn and more recently in her hesitation to guarantee the status of EU nationals already in Britain.

Before concluding:

She is not a reactionary. Nobody who sensed the perceived nastiness of her party as early as 2002, as she did, and challenged the police as often as she has, could be. But if Tory history pits the spirit of freedom against the claims of social order, the one periodically dominating the other before giving way, she might herald the latter’s resurgence.

This blog shares that concern (and indeed was warning about it long before Janan Ganesh turned his gaze on Theresa May). People often think of the Conservative Party as a coalition of two sides – the more free market Thatcherites for whom Stepping Stones is a Bible, and the traditionalist social conservatives who make up the Law & Order wing. The belief was that the Tories would then oscillate between these two imperatives according to their leader.

But Cameron broke this myth apart by occupying a third ground. David Cameron cared about gaining and holding power by pledging “modernisation”. Sometimes that modernisation required a more laissez-faire approach and sometimes it involved the Tories being as snarlingly authoritarian as they ever were – the tone of the Cameron government would change as the situation demanded.

Say what you will about Theresa May, but she is no moderniser. And given the fact that she has had hands-on experience in nearly every government department save those which directly touched the economy, it is hard to see how our next prime minister will not act and think as though government should take an active, outsized role in nearly everything – Cameron’s “plan for every stage of your life” made flesh.

On the balance of available evidence, it seems that the Tory Party pendulum is swinging well and truly back towards the authoritarian tendency. Expect to see this reflected in Theresa May’s cabinet choices when she picks her government in the coming days.

And then prepare for an onslaught on your freedoms and civil liberties the likes of which many of us have not seen in our lifetimes.

12 July – 01:38

Building a New Jerusalem

Ben Kelly of The Sceptic Isle and Conservatives for Liberty is excited at the opportunity ahead of us to use Brexit to rebuild our democracy and our entire civil society:

The vote to leave the European Union was the catalyst for the biggest political change in this country for seventy years. The magnitude of it really cannot be overstated and it is slowly beginning to sink in. No one, not even those who voted for it, can say they haven’t had a moment of feeling overawed. Anyone who has been shocked by the immediate fallout has shown a great deal of naivety; for Britain and Europe, this is huge. The changes that Brexit will bring about will not be felt just in the initial year or so, it will be a chain reaction lasting for decades.

[..] There is not a single part of government policy that the EU does not touch in some way; from trade to fishing, agriculture, energy, environment, transport and telecommunications policy. We are bound by the EU’s position in international organisations and international conferences, meaning we have been gradually losing control of foreign policy too. This has been a contributing factor to our muddled and reluctant presence on the world stage and the starving of personnel and funds from our Foreign Office.

The subordination of our institutions of government has meant that everyone from the Minister, to the MP right down to the councillor is restricted and working within parameters that are not conducive to new ideas and innovation. Leaving the EU has the potential to reinvigorate British democracy and bring about major reforms in the way we are governed. The reformation of British politics will demand dynamic personalities, world class talent and fresh thinking.

Brexit is going to be a difficult and complex process and it will take a long time. There are serious risks too. We need to manage our transition sensibly and protect our economy by adopting a transitional arrangement in our negotiations. However, we will soon be in a position to begin repatriating vast policy making powers and begin a comprehensive review of the statute books. Let us not be daunted or allow a fundamentally positive development to be shrouded in pessimism.

This is the biggest political project since the Second World War. We have before us a monumental task; the rebuilding of British governance and the construction of a new Britain. This is something we should be tremendously excited about.

Kelly also comprehensively debunks the popular notion among disappointed Remainers that the British people voted for Brexit motivated primarily by xenophobia or intolerance of immigration:

They have convinced themselves that Leave voters didn’t know what they were voting for and that we are leaving in a pique of anti-immigration rage. The evidence thus far challenges their theory; according to Lord Ashcroft’s poll 49% of Leavers said their main reason for voting was to ensure that decisions about Britain were made in Britain. Similarly, a ComRes polls found that the ability of Britain to make its own laws was cited by Leave voters as the most important issue when deciding which way to vote (53%). This gets to the heart of the matter. The Leave vote was motivated by the desire for Britain to be a self-governing country. This is a fundamental principle; it cannot be disproved and it cannot be overruled by experts. People’s understanding of what this means will have varied from the basic to the sophisticated but it is an inherently valid reason.

Kelly is absolutely right. The EU’s tentacles reach into nearly every aspect of our government, and disentangling ourselves will take time. Those who suggest otherwise are guilty, at best, of extremely simplistic thinking. And this is why we must ultimately be glad that Theresa May rather than Andrea Leadsom has prevailed in the Conservative Party leadership contest.

Throughout the EU referendum campaign and following the result, Leadsom – despite her promise in other areas – has shown a worrying glibness and superficiality in her thinking on how to achieve Brexit. While she did not sink to the “repeal the European Communities Act” idiocy of some other prominent eurosceptics, neither did Leadsom give any indication that she really grasped the complexity of what lies ahead.

Theresa May, for her many faults – and this blog has not been shy about highlighting them over the years – does seem to get it. She gives the impression of understanding the complexity, and of the need for a transitional, staged approach to Brexit. This gives the interim EFTA/EEA (Norway Option) route out of the EU’s political union the greatest chance of success as the UK’s “departure lounge” on the journey to full political autonomy.

But as Pete North points out (see previous update), the failure of the eurosceptic aristocracy – Farage, Hannan etc. – to articulate a clear positive vision of what Britain outside the EU should look like means that the establishment have now well and truly seized control of Brexit, and regained their footing regarding political events in general.

This means that while the promise and opportunity spoken of by Ben Kelly still undoubtedly exists for the taking, we must work twice as hard to actually realise those benefits.

11 July – 23:54

Rod Liddle channels the incomprehension of disappointed Remainers

 

Some time ago, a very generous reader compared me to a “low rent Rod Liddle”. On reflection I realised that this may have been meant as an insult rather than a compliment about the good value provided by this blog, but I was happy enough with the comparison that I added it to my About page (together with Owen Jones’ petulant and false accusation that I am a “patently dishonest man” for suggesting that he believes the things that he writes in his own Guardian column).

In this video, the original and best Rod Liddle channels the twisted thought processes of many of the most common types of Remainers-in-denial as to why there should be a second EU referendum.

Highlights from Liddle’s Glenn Gould-like skit:

“It’s just hate! It’s a vote for hate. Just hatred. And hate isn’t democratic. And that means the vote isn’t democratic. And so when they have the vote again, people who hate aren’t allowed to vote.”

Annabelle Snowflake – Carer, Camden

“The thing is, the thing that they’ve done is that they’ve betrayed the kids. And you can’t betray the kids. That’s why we need a second referendum and I would say nobody, y’know nobody, man, nobody over the age of forty should be voting in that. They betrayed the kids and it’s the kids who are going to inherit this Earth of ours, y’know?”

Binky Allbran – Pop Musician

“The misapprehension I think people have is about these so-called “numbers”, 52 and 48. They are not themselves real or intrinsic or tangible. Numbers are simply symbols, you see, that we give to quantities of things. They are not themselves quantities. And so there is no one-to-one relationship between the number and the quantity. It is all up here in our minds, and so it could be the case that while some may argue that 52 is a greater quantity than 48, at a deeper structure it may be that 48 is a greater quantity than 52.”

Professor BJ Trout – Philosopher, Oxford

“The important thing, perhaps, perhaps the most important thing is that the referendum must be respected. The views of those people who voted to leave, they must be respected. But almost as important, perhaps more important, is that they should also be ignored. So, respected – and ignored.”

Sir Michael Hetherington Volestrangler – Former Politician, Westminster

Brilliant. One hears endless variations on all of these themes repeated ad nauseam by weepy Remainers who sincerely believed that they were Captain Planet in a giant real-life game of Good versus Evil. Hopefully some of them come to look back on their conduct (and open contempt for democracy) with a degree of embarrassment as it becomes evidence that Brexit has not ushered in the apocalypse or a new Era of Hate after all.

11 July – 22:52

Pete North on UKIP’s failure

Pete North sees Theresa May’s coronation as Tory leader and the next prime minister as a direct consequence of the failure of UKIP, Nigel Farage and the eurosceptic aristocracy to bother planning for Brexit:

Today highlights what a monumental failure Farage is. Today the eurosceptic movement was routed and does not have a seat at the table in the Brexit proceedings. At best we may see Leadsom or Gove in a junior role as a courtesy – but more as an act of party unity. But these will be ceremonial roles only.

And is this because of an establishment stitch up by the Tory machine? Kind of but not really. You see, had the eurosceptic movement campaigned with a plan and a set of specific demands, they could have called the shots post-referendum. Having failed to do so it has failed to capitalise on the referendum win in order to take us the rest of the way. Now the process of leaving the EU is to be decided entirely by the establishment along with the domestic agenda.

All the likes of Ukip and the Tory right have been able to muster is some fantastically naive proposals on what Brexit might achieve and some or other nonsense about an Australian points based immigration system. Not at any point have they put the work in to demonstrate that any of it is even possible and now it is down to the technocrats and the lawyers to decide what Theresa May means when she says “Brexit means Brexit”.

[..] The problem has always been the lack of a plan of any kind. If you are going to overthrow the orthodoxy then you need to be sure that you are the ones with the ideas otherwise people will go with what they know in the ideas vacuum that follows. That is why there is no place for Farage, Gove and Johnson et al. They are men of no substance with nothing to add to the process.

It is hard to disagree with this narrative. When the history of this EU referendum and the years leading up to it are written, people will marvel at the fact that those politicians and leaders who built their entire reputations on being tub-thumping, Brussels-bashing eurosceptics completely and utterly neglected to decide what their preferred vision for Britain looked like, let alone articulate it to the people.

This is an astonishing failure of vision. And as Pete says, it has allowed the establishment (in the form of Theresa May, a Remainer, and the centrist Tory team she will doubtless now assemble around her) to take the both the credit for and the initiative from what the people achieved with their bold decision to leave the EU. What we now get will be a Very Establishment Brexit – better than a Remain vote, to be sure, but far from the more far-reaching renewal of our politics and democracy which we could have seen if only the standard-bearers for our movement had spent less time preening on YouTube and more time doing the serious intellectual legwork of working out what an independent Britain actually looks like.

11 July – 22:35

Angela Eagle’s forgotten leadership bid

 

The Guardian looks back on Angela Eagle’s rather self-indulgent and hilariously badly timed leadership challenge, all but bumped from the news agenda by the Conservative Party’s rather more consequential manoeuvrings:

Finally beginning her campaign after weeks of speculation that she would take on Corbyn amid a revolt against him by Labour MPs, Eagle said the party needed to move beyond the factionalism and divisions of the current era.

“I’m not a Blairite, I’m not a Brownite and I’m not a Corbynista. I am my own woman – a strong Labour woman,” she said, to cheers from supporters. “I’m not here for a Labour party that just takes part. I’m here to win.”

The long-planned launch experienced a hiccup when it coincided with Andrea Leadsom’s hastily arranged announcement that she was pulling out of the Tory leadership race. As well as rendering parts of Eagle’s speech immediately out of date, it brought a deeply awkward moment as she sought questions first from the BBC and then ITV’s political editor, Robert Peston, only to find they were not there.

The former shadow business secretary, who was among dozens of Labour frontbenchers to quit in the past few weeks, said Corbyn had made a useful contribution to new ideas in the party, but should step down.

The pomposity of a bland nonentity such as Angela Eagle presuming to assess Jeremy Corbyn’s decades-long contribution to the Labour Party really is something to behold – it can be best likened to a beered up England fan holding forth on the strengths and shortcomings of Raheem Sterling in terms of raw analytic value.

But Angela Eagle is quite right in stating that she is not a Blairite, Brownite or Corbynista. In fact, she is blissfully free from any terms which denote believing in a fixed or coherent ideology. Eagle thinks that this is a great selling point – and of course it is, to those grasping centrists desperate to worm their way back into power and unconcerned about what values and principles have to be traded away to get there. But to everyone else it represents everything that is rotten with a Parliamentary Labour Party which was determined to undermine their left-wing leader from Day One, and who are now using the post-EU referendum chaos as the ideal smokescreen as they go about their dirty work.

In hilarious and heartening news, Angela Eagle could be about to face deselection by her own constituency party (CLP). The Liverpool Echo reports:

As Angela Eagle launches her bid for leadership of the Labour party the Wallasey MP may also face deselection by her own local members.

The Wallasey constituency Labour Party (CLP) had urged the MP, and former Shadow Business Secretary, to support Jeremy Corbyn last month when plans for a vote of no confidence were first revealed.

Ms Eagle later emerged as one of the frontrunners to challenge the Labour leader after the party’s MPs overwhelmingly backed the no confidence motion in him. Shortly after a petition was launched calling on Ms Eagle to resign, and has now collected more than 14,000 signatures .

But now Ms Eagle also faces a vote of no confidence, with an enlarged local party membership which has seen its numbers swelled since the prospect of a challenge against Corbyn first emerged.

Since June 24 vice chair of Wallasey CLP Paul Davies said they had seen their membership grow by 367 members to total more than 1,200.

Tonight (Monday July 11) the CLP’s executive is due to meet to prepare a meeting of the full membership, scheduled for July 22.

This would certainly be a fitting end to an overambitious and comically mistimed attempted leadership coup.

11 July – 21:55

The trials and tribulations of Theresa May

In an uncharacteristically generous profile of Britain’s prime minister to be (Prime Minister Elect hardly seems an appropriate term), the Guardian looks back over Theresa May’s career.

Gaby Hinsliff writes:

Hers was a comfortable middle-class upbringing – two years of private school, then a local grammar and Oxford – and she enjoys a famously strong marriage to Philip, a banker she met at a Tory student disco.

But life hasn’t always been easy. Her father was killed in a car crash shortly after she graduated, and her mother, who had multiple sclerosis, died the year after. Then came the bitter discovery that the Mays could not have children. She watched as, one by one, her male Oxford contemporaries bagged seats before her and, despite being promoted dizzyingly fast when she finally reached Westminster in 1997, was never quite part of any leader’s inner circle.

My emphasis in bold.

How awful, that the smooth path from Oxford to a safe Conservative seat took slightly longer for May to tread than her male contemporaries. That’s the discrimination against women which we most urgently need to fight in 2016.

But of course as far as the Guardian is concerned, this is exactly the type of oppression which upsets them the most. Utterly divorced from the travails of ordinary people or anybody in the working class, the “injustice” of a female member of the cosseted Westminster elite taking a few years to reach high ministerial office is indeed a tragedy.

In her brief speech to the nation today (later repeated in an email to Conservative Party supporters), May spoke of the need for “a strong, new, and positive vision for the future of our country. A vision of a country that works not for the privileged few but works for every one of us.”

Never has the Guardian spoken and worked more forcefully for the privileged few and less for the struggling everyday Britons whose interests they claim to champion. Something they might like to reflect on as they continue to agitate against Brexit and support the centrist coup against Jeremy Corbyn.

11 July – 17:40

Theresa May addresses the nation

 

“Brexit means Brexit, and we are going to make a success of it” says Theresa May as she addresses the Conservative Party and the nation. It is good to hear this reassurance once again, though for Brexiteers our attitude must be one of “trust and verify”.

Also good to hear May speak about “forging a new role for Britain” and “giving people more control over their lives” – the latter rather uncharacteristic given her authoritarian tendencies, but certainly welcome if it is sincerely meant. It is encouraging to hear May speak about Brexit as an opportunity rather than a calamity or a threat, despite her Remain position in the EU referendum. And certainly Theresa May is one of the few heavyweight Conservatives who might be ready to begin forging that new role for Britain from Day 1.

Very disappointing, though, that the BBC felt the need to report on May’s “characteristic leopard skin shoes” as she concluded her remarks. Seriously, who cares? And why is a supposedly progressive and politically correct organisation like the BBC obsessing over details of fashion on this most momentous of political days, when a man would never be judged on such a metric? Hardly a proud moment for feminism, unlike the Conservative Party’s elevation of its second woman leader.

Sadly this comment from the BBC’s reporter Carol Walker is emblematic of the poor quality of coverage and analysis from the Westminster political lobby throughout the EU referendum campaign and its aftermath.

11 July – 16:45

Initial reaction to today’s developments

There are once again rumblings about the possibility of an early general election.

Hilariously, some of these calls come from the Labour Party, who given their betrayal of their core supporter base in the EU referendum and fratricidal coup against their popular party leader would surely be obliterated in any immediate poll and reduced to an angry, SNP-sized rump party in Parliament, whether led to the polls by an embattled Jeremy Corbyn or the bland and utterly pointless Angela Eagle.

But regardless, an early general election is a bad idea – not least because it would make a mockery of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act which set the standard length between general elections to five years. Fixed terms are, in the blog’s view, a good thing (albeit only when coupled with further constitutional reform which currently shows no sign of taking place). And it would be hypocritical and opportunistic in the extreme for the UK to adopt a “fixed terms when it suits us, snap general elections when we feel like it” constitutional muddle.

Of course there may be a public clamour for an early election nonetheless. Expect to see lots of aggrieved social media status updates bemoaning the fact that there has been a change in prime minister with no accompanying general election. These complaints will be made almost entirely by people who were too fat and indolent to stop watching The Great British Horses Strictly Come Dancing On Ice for five minutes in order to understand how their own democracy and constitution work. “We want reform and a general election!” they may now scream. Join the club. Where were you for all those wilderness years when constitutional reform was “boring” and “not relevant to the struggles of everyday people”?

And from a purely practical standpoint, now is not the time to hold another general election. Given the divisions within the country, such a referendum would inevitably partly play out as a re-run of the EU referendum, with the allied parties of the Left no doubt coming together in some sickeningly sanctimonious , holier-than-thou bloc to override the expressed will of the people for Britain to leave the EU. The worst case (but unlikely given the current state of the Labour Party) scenario would be that a pro-EU government is then returned to Westminster. What then? Which instruction should the government follow – the instruction of 23 June to leave the EU, or the instruction of a general election which was fought by one side on a platform of overruling that decision? No. Such a rash decision would beckon utter chaos.

What is needed now is strong, stable government to deliver the expressed will of the people and negotiate the best possible secession terms for Britain from the European Union. In this blog’s view, this should in the first instance involve a move to an interim EFTA/EEA solution maintaining our single market access while we work to steadily unpick forty years of political integration with Brussels. Of course this must not become the final destination, and it will be important for us to maintain the pressure on the government not to rest on its laurels and settle for a permanent place parked on the outskirts of the EU. But this is the approach which satisfies the concerns of the people for Britain to no longer be part of a supranational political union (with “Britain making its own laws again” shown by opinion polls to be more important to Leave voters than immigration or the economy) while maintaining economic stability in the meantime.

This blog has numerous misgivings about Theresa May. In fact, May is about the last person this blog would have wanted to be the successor to David Cameron, given the fact that she offers a continuation of muddled Cameron centrism mixed with her own signature dash of flinty-eyed authoritarianism. We must all be on guard to defend our civil liberties now that May is moving from the Home Office to 10 Downing Street.

But given the dismal eventual choice between Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May, it had to be May. Leadsom lacked the experience, temperament and fortitude to step into the role at the most testing time in British politics since 1945. This may one day change, and nobody would be happier if Andrea Leadsom one day becomes a Thatcher figure for the 21st century. Be she is not there yet, and we do not have the luxury of letting a green and inexperienced candidate learn on the job.

There is little to celebrate in Theresa May’s elevation to 10 Downing Street save the fact that once again the Conservatives prove themselves to be the true party of equality of opportunity while the sanctimonious parties of the Left are all talk, and the knowledge that a safe and moderately competent pair of hands will be guiding the ship of state in this turbulent, opportunity-filled period in our national life.

Brexit is the most important thing on our national plate, and will be for some years to come. We must not fumble the ball.

11 July – 16:20

Theresa May will be Prime Minister by Wednesday

 

Another momentous day in British politics, with the honourable but out of her depth Andrea Leadsom withdrawing her candidacy for the leadership of the Conservative Party, leaving Theresa May the unopposed candidate. Graham Brady of the 1922 Committee then confirmed that May will be certified as the official winner of the contest, and that the succession timetable would be dramatically accelerated.

David Cameron then announced outside Downing Street that he will chair his final cabinet tomorrow (Tuesday) and take his final Prime Minister’s Questions on Wednesday before going to Buckingham Palace to tender his resignation to the Queen.

This means that Theresa May (…) will be the 76th prime minister of the United Kingdom by Wednesday evening.

As an additional delicious bonus, all of this drama has utterly overshadowed Angela Eagle the Forgettable’s spiteful and treacherous challenge to Jeremy Corbyn’s leadership of the Labour Party, with the launch of her candidacy for leader pushed well down the news agenda.

Semi-Partisan Politics will be moving back to a rolling live-blog format over the next few days, providing rolling semi-partisan analysis and commentary of events as they develop.

Stay tuned to this live-blog, and to my Twitter account here.

 

Theresa May - Investigatory Powers Bill - Mass Surveillance

Top Image: Metro

Support Semi-Partisan Politics with a one-time or recurring donation:

Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on TwitterFacebook and Medium.

It’s Local Election Day. Who Cares?

Zac Goldsmith or Sadiq Khan for London? Who cares?

“I think voting is great, but if I have to choose between a douche and a turd, I just don’t see the point” – Stan Marsh, South Park

Apparently Thursday 5th May – local election day across the UK – is being dubbed “Super Thursday“.

Except that unlike the Super Tuesdays of the American presidential primary calendar, there is nothing remotely exciting about these local elections, with the partial exception of the Scottish and Welsh assembly polls.

In London, we are bestowed with the awesome privilege of choosing between two leading candidates for mayor – Zac Goldsmith and Sadiq Khan – neither of whom have any meaningful executive experience and both of whom fail the first test of competence and political courage by failing to support the immediate expansion of Heathrow Airport. For this dismal failure alone I cannot bring myself to vote for either man.

Depressingly, the only remotely praiseworthy recent act of English localism – the introduction of Police and Crime Commissioners – has been badly administered and (with a few honourable exceptions) increasingly captured by the same mindless party line approach to voting seen elsewhere. And the scheme does not even apply to London – here, the mayor holds the powers of police commissioner, meaning there is no possibility of a New York style Giuliani-Bratton double-act to crack down on crime. Nobody in London specifically responsible for crime can be removed at the ballot box.

Granted, “Super” Thursday carries a little more weight if one is hugely invested in how aggregate tallies of local council seats reflect on the leadership of the main political parties. But with all the parties committed to campaigning for Britain to remain in the European Union (save UKIP, who often may as well be fighting for the Remain camp) again there is little incentive to specially reward or unduly punish one of the parties currently engaged in the process of selling out our democracy more than any other.

Besides, if you are choosing the person to represent your local ward or district because of something that David Cameron or Jeremy Corbyn said on TV or because everyone in your family/workplace/pub votes a certain way out of tribal loyalty, then you probably don’t understand how local politics is supposed to work. But then I cannot really fault those who do so, for in nearly all cases local authorities have so little real power in over-centralised Britain that it doesn’t much matter who controls the council anyway.

So, if you are a hardcore Sadiq Khan or Zac Goldsmith supporter (assuming that a human watercolour painting like Zac Goldsmith actually has any hardcore fans) – good luck today. May your man win, and may you dance in the street in celebration.

To those pundits waiting to pounce on the results as they come in, and speculate feverishly about whether significant council seat losses for Labour will bring forward the much-anticipated coup against Jeremy Corbyn – knock yourselves out.

To my bloggers-in-arms, fighting the good fight to make the thinking person’s case for Brexit and the restoration of our democracy – keep doing what you are doing. Working alongside you is an honour and a privilege.

…and may all your Super Thursdays be bright.

 

Zac Goldsmith - Sadiq Khan - London Mayoral Election

Bottom Image: The Guardian

Agree with this article? Violently disagree? Scroll down to leave a comment.

Follow Semi-Partisan Politics on TwitterFacebook and Medium.