Can Boris Johnson's proposed suspension of parliament be described as a coup? No. But is it a very serious matter? Yes.
Effectively what the government are trying to do is extend the parliamentary recess for conference season. Which has the added bonus of reducing sitting time and the possibility the honourable members will throw a spanner into the Brexit works. Which, at the moment, is looking like we're odds on for the idiocy of a no deal exit.
This is a response to the widely-reported success of Jeremy Corbyn's meeting yesterday with other opposition parties. After a summer of posturing, bad faith demands, and mind-boggling weirdness, everyone involved came round to a common position of looking at legislative means of preventing a no deal Brexit. Readers will recall from the indicative votes early on in the year that there is a majority in the Commons against no deal, but not for any other flavour of Brexit. However, the two proposals that came the nearest to succeeding, which were permutations of a deal keeping the UK in a customs union with the EU, only fell because the remain ultras of what was then Change UK voted against, Vince Cable and Tim Farron were absent doing other things, and the usual Labour suspects rebelled. This time with all the parties on board the danger is for Johnson and his schemes that they will succeed and his hands would be tied. He knows full well, given how he's painted himself into a corner, extending Article 50 and not leaving the EU on 31st October is curtains for him and curtains for the Tories.
Hence reducing the amount of time the Commons can sit chokes off this possibility. As Tory "rebel" Dominic Grieve observes, this makes a vote of no confidence in Johnson more likely. Indeed it does, but he's chill with the prospect. Again, after a summer of wrangling and the public display of Corbynphobia from recalcitrant Tory MPs and all the opposition parties save the SNP Johnson thinks he has more chance of surviving this than seeing off legislative assaults on Brexit. And he has a point. A no confidence multiplies the chances of a general election, and the likes of the various independents and pro-EU Tories aren't about to vote themselves out of existence.
This is the game Johnson is playing. It's not without risks. Again, it is not a coup and is well within the bounds of constitutionalism, but it does smack of desperation and shows the government is spooked by its opponents. He's provided a rallying point for all the forces arrayed against him. As Stephen Bush notes though, by putting all his opponents in one place he can go for an election in which his Tories are the voice of the people vs elite MPs riding roughshod all over the referendum's democratic will. And with no Brexit Party breathing down his neck, as per Nigel Farage's comments yesterday, if the opposition is divided he can win big. That is, assuming, Labour and the SNP support his attempts to call an election. In all other circumstances, they would, but at this hour and in a situation in which Johnson appears to be going for one from a position with every advantage? Who can say.
Hold on to your hats. Politics is getting interesting again.
Image credit
One of the key points this blog has hammered time and again is how the Conservative Party is in long-term decline, and many of its pathologies, from extreme short-termism to the predominance of unprincipled, incompetent chancers are symptoms of a slow burning crisis now coming to a head. I say slow burning because the argument the party is in long-term decline was first ventured by John Ross in his 1983 book, Thatcher and Friends: The Anatomy of the Tory Party. And as might readers know, I'm working on a book on the very same topic. What then does a book a stone's throw from 40 years of age reveal about the Tory party today? Quite a bit as it turns out.
The main thrust of John's argument is based on the declining votes of the Tories since their peak in 1931. Prior to then, between 1859 and 1931 the party was in a long term ascendency, and assumed a dominant position from 1886. Of course there were peaks and troughs in both periods, but vote proportions plotted in a graph demonstrate a rise and fall tendency. More specifically, between 1931 and 1983 John observes that with the single exception of 1955, the Tories won elections with a decreasing portion of the overall vote compared to their previous outing. For instance, Ted Heath's Tories won in 1970 with 46.4%, and Thatcher in 1979 and 1983 with 43.9% and 42.4%. How did this trend stand up after the book was published? 1987 saw 42.2%, and 1992 41.9%. Leaving out the trough years of opposition, the Tories returned to government in the 2010 hung parliament with 36.1%, but won a majority in 2015 with 36.9%, and lost its majority on the basis of 42.4% in 2017. Therefore the pattern John identified was broken between 2010 and 2015. Indeed, writing in 2013 John forecast the Tories would get 30.3% at the following election, a prediction that unfortunately turned out not to be the case.
Does this mean the long-term decline thesis is bunk? If we rely on the vote proportion argument, not necessarily. It is quite possible, indeed likely, the Tories at the next election won't be able to repeat Theresa May's feat. Partly because Boris Johnson's entirely transparent strategy is to repeat what she managed in 2017, and the problem with that is this particular voter coalition itself is in long-term decline and not renewing itself. And the possibility the Brexit Party could still menace the Tories from the right, which is what Annunziata Rees-Mogg suggests regardless of political circumstances. Therefore the downward trend can easily reassert itself, and probably would.
Can't we make similar observations about Labour? Rising from 1900 to 1945 and 1950 where Labour polled 47.7% and then losing the election the following year on 48.8% (despite getting 200,000 more votes than the Tories), haven't we seen decline since? When it next won office in 1964 it got 44.1%, then 48% in 1966, and declining to 37.2% at its next victory in February 1974 and 39.2% in the year's Autumn election. Then it was 43.2% in 1997, 40.7% in 2001, and lastly 35.2% in 2005. Therefore not as neat a pattern, but the same overall direction is evident. Meanwhile the combined vote share of the two main parties has also suffered. From 96.8% in 1951 it declined to an all-time low of 65.1% in 2010 before rebounding slightly in 2015 with 67.3% and then very strongly at the last election with 82.4% - the best performance since 1970. Is it the case that as more options have presented themselves at the polls, the duopoly has found it increasingly difficult to hold on and that Tory decline isn't Tory decline as such but a consequence of politics fragmenting thanks an increasingly complex society?
Thatcher and Friends suggests not. In fact, John contests the very notion the party system can be considered a duopoly. Since the eclipse of the Liberals in 1918 the last century is characterised by a unipolar political system in which the Tories were in power much longer than the rest put together. It has won general elections, defined here as having the most seats, on 18 out of 27 occasions and has been in government 61 out of the last 101 years. He argues by virtue of the party's long history, it being the preferred party of British capital, its weight in the institutions and wider culture, and overweening material resources, it is the chief prop of our party system. A crisis of the Tories therefore impacts on the rest of the system and portends its end. This, he argues, is part of a pattern of cycles that have characterised British politics since the 17th century, and these cycles are conditioned by the developments of types of capital. From 1688 to 1783, the domination of parliament by the Whigs coincided with the accumulation of landed, mercantile and banking capital. This was followed by a period of Tory dominance lasting until 1832, and proceeded alongside the industrial revolution and the rise of manufacturing capital. Following their crisis and split, the newly-formed Liberals fused with the Whigs and commanded politics up until 1885 and coincided with laissez-faire capitalism, before getting overtaken by a new Tory supremacy from 1886 based on imperialism and overseas investment, which persisted to when John was writing and, arguably, to the present day. Toward the end of each period of dominance, the commanding party enters into crisis and something else takes over, with the next period being a period of convalescence and recomposition.
John's argument in 1983 was that the decline of Tory electoral performance and the emergence of the SDP/Liberal Alliance as a viable third party suggested the crisis was at hand. And yet they went on to win another two elections and saw its opponents adopt the mainstays of the Thatcherite settlement. Nevertheless, despite forming a coalition in 2010, bouncing back and winning a majority in 2015, and getting 42% at the last election the party is currently and obviously in its worst crisis since 1836. May left the party on the brink, and Johnson's pitch to no deal and reckless brinkmanship is a means of forestalling the party's existential crisis. This year's EU elections offer Tories a glimpse of what could happen to their party if it does not placate its voter coalition. Given the choice between avoiding permanent damage to the British economy and preserving the Tory party, because it is the primary instrument by which bourgeois interests are articulated and served the viability of the latter will trump the former every single time. But this only averts an immediate crisis. Should Johnson get through Brexit, call a general election and win it, which is possible, the party does not escape the challenge of long-term decline: the non-replacement of its core voters, its toxicity, its being out-of-step with the values, experiences, and interests of the rising generation.
The book also makes a number of other interesting and valuable observations: that the Tories were formed as and remained the party of landed, mercantile, and finance capital, and how it actively stymied the industrial development of the British economy after the 1830s and encouraged investment overseas because it foresaw the rapid emergence of a numerically dominant working class as a political challenge it'd rather not deal with. In this sense, Thatcher's attack on the post-war consensus by breaking up the labour movement was entirely in line with the politics of her 19th century forebears. And also, John warns how making anti-Toryism the baselines of your politics can disarm the labour movement, which we saw with the triumph of New Labour and the occasional appeal, to some, by the Liberal Democrats.
In short, plenty of material for me to chew on with relation to my own project. But truly, it should not be a book left to gather dust on charity shop shelves. The historical argument about the periodisation of political cycles, and of the class alliances comprising the Tory party remain as relevant now as they were first written. A forgotten but important contribution to the Marxist analysis of ruling class politics, and one worth seeking out.
Image credit
Writing last October, I argued that a chunk of the so-called People's Vote campaign were motivated less by the case for a second referendum and reversing Brexit and more about driving a wedge between Jeremy Corbyn and the (mostly) pro-EU base of Corbynism. And this argument has been conclusively proven over the last few days. Not only have the Liberal Democrats so thoroughly exposed their opportunism and posturing to their newly-won layer of voters, so Chuka Umunna and his former ex-Labour colleagues grouped in whatever the two sides of Change UK are calling themselves today have also shown their opposition to Brexit is subordinate to their (failed) factional aim of deposing Corbyn. Pathetic.
What's the root of this? After all, think about it for a moment. In his open letter to other parties, independents, and "rebel" Tories, Jeremy Corbyn proposed a temporary caretaker government. This wouldn't implement any Labour policy, and be limited to requesting an extension to Article 50 (which the PM can do without a Commons vote) and organising a general election. What. Then. Is. The. Problem? Dismissing idiot suggestions Corbyn's sojourn in Downing Street would end in the Russians parading down The Mall, and the violent overthrow of the capitalist class, their reasons for preferring a no deal Brexit are as self-interested and tawdry as you'd expect.
First off, there is normalisation. As Chris Dillow suggests, having Corbyn in position automatically makes him Prime Ministerial. The great taboo is broken and as the sky won't fall in, his stature grows. It gets people used to the idea of Corbz in the top job, even if he's there for a few weeks and sticks by his word, and that is a weapon Labour must never be allowed to wield.
Again, why? Looking at Labour's 2017 manifesto, while it was a welcome departure from the programmes of preceding decades it didn't portend the liquidation of private property. Nevertheless, it marked a change in political climate by offering a strategy aimed at rebalancing capitalism. Forget the nonsense Osborne used to trot out about public/private, London/the regions, manufacturing/finance, the only balance that truly matters is between labour and capital. If implemented the whip hand employers have enjoyed over employees would be reversed. The looting of public property stopped. The subordination of all to market logics ended. Add to this the Corbynist programme of renationalising the utilities and the rail on the basis of mass participation, and you can grasp the horror this presents capital and its satraps. In order to save and rejuvenate British capitalism, not only is making inroads to prevailing class relations necessary, Labour's institutional blueprint presents a launch pad for the further erosion of bourgeois class power. You don't get to be the longest lived capitalist class in the world without instinctively having a feel for existential threats, even if you can't articulate it in anything but the crudest, red-baiting, Cold War-nostalgic terms.
How is this sense of threat sublimated through the rest of the mainstream body politic? For the Tories, it's obvious. It's a direct attack on their interests (literally so, seeing as most of the parliamentary party have business and rentier interests of their own) and creates a political economy they'd have a hard time adapting to. Hence the likes of Dominic Grieve and Oliver Letwin saying no to a caretaker government. A pro-EU Tory is still a Tory, after all. But others? Considering the sole service Gordon Brown's photocopier rendered to the labour movement is his summation of centrist/liberal thought it's hard to see where these enthusiasts for cutting social security and privatising public assets would have in a world after Corbyn. Because their careers were handed to them on a plate, they lack the wherewithal and the will to make a political argument and organise accordingly - as the muppet show of Change UK attested. To save their wretched niche in the political ecology, opposition to Corbynism comes first, even if it means a no deal Brexit. Saving their own skin and "ideology-free" ideology is a reactionary medium that serves as well as any type of Toryism.
It was always going to be like this. For the bulk of centrism and liberalism, class interests trump all other considerations. It's their narrow, minority concerns determining their Corbynphobia. A no deal Brexit would be a catastrophe for British capitalism and an international humiliation greater than even the Suez crisis, but is a price these frauds are happy to pay because, well, you're going to pay it. To the contrary the Corbynist programme would transform the country and lift the living standards and life chances of millions of people, but it would be at the expense of the Tories and their centrist mini-mes giving up their overweening power and influence. We can't very well have that, can we?
Image Credit
It's not been a good day for the Liberal Democrat leader, Jo Swinson. Still on a high after snatching a seat at the Brecon by-election, chillaxing in the after glow of picking up another recruit from the much-missed Change UK, and making uncomfortable waves for Labour with her Tom Watson chum-in, I expect she arose this morning felling quite chuffed.
And then that utter bastard Jeremy Corbyn went and ruined everything.
In his letter to the leaders of opposition parties, and the smattering of independents and disgruntled Tories, he holds out the hand of friendship. To stop no deal, in the event of a successful no confidence in Boris Johnson's government JCorbz proposes a Labour-led caretaker government that would apply for an Article 50 extension and call a general election in which Labour would campaign on the basis of a second referendum with the option of remaining. Surely the Liberal Democrats, the self-styled party of remain would applaud Labour's move to stop no deal. After all, this disastrous outcome must be avoided at all costs, yes?
Not on your nelly. Throughout the day the LibDems have doubled down on their refusal to back Labour's plan. This is despite a positive reception from Caroline Lucas (partly making up for the weekend's nonsense), a cautious welcome from pro-EU Tories, and pressure from centrist Labour MPs. Awkwardly, even Sarah Wollaston, the newest LibDem MP, has shown a flash of pragmatism. And so watching LibDems, FBPE weirdos, the remnants of Change UK, and Z-list celebrities lose the plot on Twitter this afternoon was the most fun I've had on that blasted platform for many a year. Because for all their bluster, Labour's plan against no deal is the LibDems' worst nightmare.
First off, name me a single LibDem policy that isn't punting for a second referendum. Unless you're a real nerd or the LibDem spox for something or another, you can't name one. Just as Nigel Farage cornered Brexit in the dog days of Theresa May's premiership, the LibDems under Uncle Vince and Jo Swinson believed, not unreasonably, that they could do the same by positioning their party as the remain party. And what do you know, it worked for this year's EU elections. In a second order election given to the venting of frustrations, they took moderate pro-EU voters off the Tories and remainy Labour voters (and not a few members) impatient at its refusal to simply become an outright remain party. In the victory flush, the party calculated they could carry on and repair the damage inflicted on them by their near-death coalition experience years ahead of the most optimistic forecasts of recovery. They didn't pay attention to the pivoting toward a second referendum by Labour's leadership and, well, the small matter of repeatedly trooping the PLP through the voting lobbies against May's deal and no deal. The notion Corbyn is a secret Brexiteer around whom Stalinoid pig iron and tractor fetishists enforced the leader's will with a chain link lash meant there was absolutely no chance he'd seize the initiative back from the LibDems. Hubris and Nemesis, when will they ever learn.
By refusing Labour's offer, Swinson and co. are left with a rump of hard remainers and very little else. And by accepting Corbyn's proposal, their strategy collapses and they lose some of the voters they've recently won over anyway. Sucks to be them, but also sucks to be us if they are prepared to kamikaze and throw away the opportunity of thwarting no deal - the position they've staked everything on. Oh yes, and there is another matter of self-interest the LibDems won't declare that has a bearing on their decision-making. Polling consistently shows the SNP are surging in Scotland thanks to the ongoing Brexit nonsense and the distinctly English nationalist tone pushed by Johnson and friends. We're not talking 2015 tsunami here, but certainly enough to knock back the 2017 Tory, Labour and LibDem recovery. Would Swinson's East Dunbartonshire seat be one of those to fall? Ordinarily, a 6,000-strong majority is a comfortable cushion to have, and she shouldn't have anything to worry about. Ordinarily.
Once again, Corbyn's opponents have grossly underestimated the Labour leader and believed their own hype about their genius and savvy. They've got caught out, and are getting rinsed. We now have a clear road map about what can be done. Will it work? Who can say, but all of a sudden it's Labour who are offering a solution out of the Brexit impasse. The choice is now clear: no deal and all that entails with Boris Johnson, or a deal or no Brexit with Jeremy Corbyn. What's it to be?
A short while ago we were discussing the imploding thought processes of our centrist friends, and just today a great new fancy has emerged, born fully formed from their Jupiterean heads. The grand wheeze? Well, why not go one better than the 'Remain Alliance' that helped the Liberal Democrats over the line in the Brecon by-election and go for a Government of National Unity (or the funny haha acronym, GNU). No one liberal hero is pushing it. The proposal is entirely crowd sourced and has welled up from the Follow Back Pro Europe Twitter crowd like a tumescent zit.
The idea goes something like this. Following the government's hard ball brinkmanship over Brexit, the opportunities for derailing no deal are slim to negligible, depending on who you decide to ask. With a one week window between recess and the start of party conference season, opportunities for putting motions down etc. are fraught with risk. The only sure fire way of thwarting Johnson's foolhardy scheme then is to, well, throw him out of office. You see, having spotted that the Prime Minister's working majority is one a national government could come together comprised of Labour, the LibDems, sundry indies, Caroline Lucas, the SNP and Plaid Cymru, and disgruntled Tories. The back-of-a-burgundy-passport calculations stack up, so why not? Yes, Jeremy Corbyn is an obstacle but getting shot of him won't be a problem, especially as plenty of centrist Labour MPs could fill the Prime Minister's role. Johnson is then no confidenced, the coalition form a government, and they oversee a second referendum while extending/revoking Article 50 (only a proper referendum you understand, no lies nor Russians allowed this time). Once the will of the people is delivered we have a general election and live happily ever after because politics returns to normal.
Yes, more barking than Battersea Dogs' Home and as cringe as the fantasy cabinets your Rafael Behrs and Polly Townbees proffer at early evening drinks. For one, how do they affect Jeremy Corbyn's removal? The latest, low-intensity efforts can't pretend stellar success, so how does a bunch of yellow diamond Verhofstadt stans who put the clueless into, well, clueless think our man JCorbz can be eased out to pasture where Labour MPs have previously failed? Unfortunately, they don't say - though if they have any special insight I'm sure the Labour right are happy to listen.
And we have the stupid empiricism, oh yes. This putative GNU has an on-paper majority, and that is where it would stay. Why do they suppose all Labour MPs and their wayward independent progeny would go along with the scheme? We had goodness knows how many indicative votes and votes against Theresa May's Brexit deal. In the last Parliamentary session, Labour whipped against no deal no less than three times, and still there were Labour people prepared to defy party discipline. And our liberal chums might remember some more MPs recently indicating that they would vote for any Tory deal, and some concede no deal if it means Brexit happens. In short, their GNU cannot command a majority.
Then there are the wider politics. If you are a leave voter of any political persuasion, how would a backroom deal cooked up by MPs look to them? And then there are the ramifications of replacing the government without a general election. The transition from one Prime Minister to another PM from the same party is something most people can live with. There was hardly a popular clamour for a general election in 2017, and as much as we might like one to happen yesterday there isn't much of a desire out there in real land for one now either. But turfing one government out and replacing it with another of a different complexion entirely, that certainly brings up big legitimation issues - even if its remit is limited to the delivering a second referendum (which isn't in the bag by the way, remain fans). Shall we talk about the political situation after a GNU? Who do you think would benefit? Certainly not the parties to the stitch up. Johnson's strategy is already about trying to monopolise the leave vote and hoping this would be enough to win versus a divided opposition. A temporary GNU alliance would strap rocket boosters under the Tories: there is no political credit for thwarting Brexit in so brazen a manner, and it would be Labour- as the biggest party - that would pay the heaviest price.
A good job then this is but a fever dream, a spasm of delusional palpitations as fast-fading liberalism continues its downward spiral. If our centrist friends are serious about stopping no deal, then they might reflect on whether their silly beggar's posturing - being for a remain alliance the one minute, but ruling out SNP participation and having nothing to do with Labour unless Corbyn goes the next - isn't the best way of building bridges. Instead, I'd recommend putting the sauce away and considering the real option open after recess: Labour will table a no confidence motion in the government, and its up to the other parties to back it. If it passes, we're in election territory and everything is up for grabs. The question is are the LibDems and their online cheerleaders going to grasp the real opportunity, or does talking a good fight matter more?
Good to see someone else thinking and writing about the decline of Conservatism on both sides of the Atlantic. In this episode of Politics Theory Other, Alex interviews Andy Beckett about his recent Graun article on this very topic. Of particular interest, Andy alights upon the studied refusal of conservative governments to be competent administrators.
As always, Politics Theory Other needs your support. Please consider doing so here.
Just when you thought it was safe to enter the water, it appears. The sea empties with panicked bathers scrambling as far away from the waves they can. They turn and what do they see rising from the foam? Not the jaws and fins of a Great White, no. For bobbing out of the waves is that wretched beast, much-hyped, defeated, and now split into three. Undaunted it keeps coming back, no matter how many times Roy Schneider dynamites the bleeder. It can only be one thing: your friend and mine, another centrist party fantasy.
Following hot on the heels of, um, Gavin Shuker's call for a new party, Kate Maltby the sometime Tory is demanding Labour MPs jump ship. "We're not far off a general election", she wails, "and time is running out to stop Jeremy Corbyn and Boris Johnson!" She does at least acknowledge one aspect of political reality: the Labour leader has the confidence of the party membership and is not going anywhere this side of Brexit. She says MPs spending time shoring themselves up against the possibility of deselection are "wasting their time" (easy to say when you're not a Labour MP wanting to carry on being a Labour MP) because the time for a new centrist party, or a strengthened Liberal Democrats, is now.
Maltby goes on to say how "wonderful" it is to see Heidi Allen and Luciana Berger "liberated" from their parties. Yes, it's nice to be responsible for the sum total of sod all without any expectations or accountability to the members, the activists, and the party who put you there. But, suddenly remembering Change UK actually launched and justly failed, this adventure was "premature". The "social democrats" failed to turn up to the party. Now, however, the time is right. If Labour people leave the party and set up shop independently or prefer shacking up with the LibDems, then some Tories will follow their lead. And ... and ... and ...? Well, that's it.
As a media "personality" I imagine Maltby got more than the standard £75 for this drivel, but for what? This article says nothing, and doesn't even try making a case. Why should rebellious Labour MPs pitch their tent in another camp? What has changed since the formation of Change UK to necessitate this outburst? Well, we have seen some developments. The previous tenant at Number 10 has moved on and Boris Johnson is the Prime Minister. But apart from this, the situation is broadly the same despite earnest efforts to present the contrary. The parliamentary arithmetic has shifted against Johnson and the no deal fanatics thanks to the Brecon by-election, and that has only added to the majority against exiting minus an arrangement with the EU. The polling since his assumption of office have mostly moved in his favour, but the overall flow is away from the four-party politics sundry pundits were getting excited about a few short weeks ago and back toward the big two. And so early August is looking looking like mid-February: two-party politics, a Brexit impasse, and no deal weighing on Westminster brains like a nightmare. And just as there was neither rhyme nor reason for cack-handedly launching a centrist party then, there's no reason for one now.
Finding bourgeois politics commentators who understand politics is expecting too much these days, and so Maltby isn't a one off. She's by no means the worst this mildew-reeking stable has to offer either. Her strata, the polite society of establishment media has seen their world implode. Thanks to social media, they are abused (challenged) for writing guff, and their status as opinion formers is shot. They make bank selling words to The Graun and reviewing papers for the BBC (commentators commenting on comment), but they're nothing special. Seeing their political analogues easily brushed aside by a left wing membership in Labour, and their remainer soulmates on the Tory benches routed by a party on a suicide run, it's all a rude reminder that their world is on its way out. They don't understand and certainly don't like what the fates have ushered in in its place, even more so because it doesn't afford them the same privileged role as entitled opinion formers. And in their consequent state of anomie they have nothing left but bad faith, like Dan Hodges, the same article regurgitated time and again, as per Nick Cohen, and piss and wind, such as Kate Maltby and co. The mine for centrist bellyaching and clueless takes might be profitable for now, but it's by no means inexhaustible. So enjoy, if that's the right word, this sub-genre of political writing while it lasts. It's not long for this world.
It's easy to be pessimistic. Since 1979 the key industrial battles have all been lost by the left, resulting in the imposition of the economic settlement we now groan under. And while it looked like social liberalism was all-conquering and irreversible, the appointment of Boris Johnson, the Windrush scandal, the cynical manipulation of Labour's anti-semitism wars by the right, and the rising hate crime figures against women, ethnic minorities, and sexual minorities underline how we can never be complacent about such things. We're in a bit of a funk because the world is looking gloomy. To find some reasons to be cheerful would be nice.
Cheerfulness is the cornerstone of Johnsonism, if we can now speak about such an abomination. His first appearance at the dispatch box as Prime Minister was pretty terrible, all told. Jeremy Corbyn's statement fired no less than 10 questions, to which Johnson replied that he didn't hear a single one. This then is how it's going to be. As we've already seen, Johnson's first day in the job was geared around the impression of getting to grips with things, but all done with a smile and a thumbs up. The Commons performance was part of the same piece. As the otherwise guileless Jeremy Hunt observed in his first leadership debate with Johnson, while you're chuckling away at his response you've forgot that he didn't answer your question. The Johnson fans lapped it up, but not everyone was convinced. As an inveterate crowd pleaser, that more than a few Tory MPs were sitting there wrapped in scowls and frowns should give his team pause for thought.
But Johnson is on to something. You don't need to pretend Number 10 has read Gramsci to observe that the new Prime Minister and friends have read the country's mood, and are responding accordingly. Looking back at Theresa May's first few months in office, she was able to speak vaguely about a better future with her remarks about tackling injustice and poverty. At the spectacular level she made a break with Dave's grim vision of austerity forever, while appearing to be the best figure to consolidate any post-Brexit national renewal. We know how that turned out. And then in 2017 we saw the unexpected happen. You will recall how, as soon as the election was called, Labour's polling inexorably rose which gave the party its second best vote tally for 50 years. According to recent rewrites of history, this was because many mistook Labour for a remain party. In fact, as actual polling at the time indicated Brexit was not the primary concern of the bulk of Labour voters. Corbyn's message of a different future, of, again, a break with the tired status quo and actually holding out the possibility of hope and how things could get better resonated.
And now? Johnson and co know people are fed up of Brexit, are sick to the back teeth of hearing about Brexit, and can't wait for Brexit to be over. Alas, if you're one of these people I've got some unwelcome news for you ... So the public don't want to know or would prefer it gone sooner rather than later. Therefore the huge stress, some might say overemphasis, Johnson has placed on the 31st October deadline. There is more to it than placating the kamikaze base - he thinks the done and dusted approach has a wider purchase beyond the Leave-committed. The second is, well, folks are pretty teed off more generally. In the months to come Johnson will tediously talk about the record numbers of people in jobs yadda yadda, but behind the scenes Dominic Cummings and some of the smarter Tories know that low wages, low prospects, high debt, unaffordable housing prices and rising rents, and substandard services are stirring up real trouble for the Tories, especially for voters under 50. i.e. The majority of the working population. The immediate sticking plaster is to talk up the eye-catching items, like 20k more police (pinched from Labour's manifesto) and a bit of money to improve rail links between Manchester and Leeds, and wax lyrical about how these are going to help catapult a "global" Britain into a new golden age with a new economics. That and all the bluster about industries of the future and high-paying jobs. Well, some who should know better have fallen for it.
By talking things up all the time and unveiling a set piece improvement here and there, Johnson's hope is this will be enough to distract attention, or at least soften awareness of the difficulties arising from a likely no deal Brexit. Because, in early November, if we leave without a deal the sun will still rise the next day and the apocalyptic predictions of no flights and no medicine won't come to pass, Johnson can claim the absence of cataclysm as proof of the power of can-do. And this is how it will be until his ejection from Number 10. However, when you look at the people he's appointed to his cabinet - easily the most right wing ever - you've got to ask how Johnson hopes to square his everything-is-fine messaging with his coterie of arch-neoliberals, cutters, privatisers, corporate welfare enthusiasts, and the rest. Because when the axe starts to fall, no amount of bluster and funny haha hi-jinks will save Johnson from the political fall out of this idiocy.
If you're reading this, you've survived the first day of Boris Johnson as Prime Minister. Well done. With a bit of luck and fortuitous politics, there won't be many of these we'll have to endure. There are two notable things the Johnson administration accomplished in its opening hours: a speech outside Downing Street (with a new lectern, no less), and controversial new appointments - but what do they say about the government Johnson's leading?
When Theresa May stood on the Downing Street steps for the first time, she made an audacious pitch that sounded like a real break with Dave's government. No more demented deficit determinism, a planned approach to economic policy, a commitment to (nebulously defined) social justice, and a one nation community in which everybody had their place. Not my cup of tea nor I suspect yours, but it resonated and awarded the Tories a seemingly unassailable lead over Labour. Even worse, it suggested we could look forward to a new authoritarian consensus. Thankfully, we avoided that fate and all of May's objectives remained aspirations. What of Johnson's first address?
Unlike May, whose speech was peppered with generalities, Johnson's pitched a set of promises. More money for schools (a 0.1% spending increase), more coppers "forthwith", and a social care plan were among the more eye-catching pledges (more here, but overall and as you would expect, Johnson inflected his speech with sunlit uplands optimism. He talked about Britain as a beacon of democracy, and how leaving the EU by 31st October is the best way of affirming this most British of values. He talked up the potential of the country by unleashing the productive power of the regions, and waxed lyrical about science and technology (gene therapies for blindness, world leading battery power research, more satellites). This was a polemic against "the doubters, the doomsters, the gloomsters" which does characterise continuity remain, and set out to strike a settling tone with unbounded optimism. Whether we'll see these pledges realised, it is clear the tone of government is enforced cheerfulness with the less ebullient cabinet members required to paint on their rictus grins.
And those appointments, what can we say? The headlines were fixated by the greatest round of sackings of government by a sitting party, ever. The night of the blond knives, as The Sun predictably put it, saw practically all the remaining, er, remainers sent packing to the back benches. Jeremy Hunt said no to the defence brief and tried clinging on to the Foreign Office, but his vote share in the leadership contest was such that his disposal was a formality. As for the rest, hints of past impropriety didn't imperil the returns of Priti Patel and blog favourite, Gavin Williamson. They're back with big jobs - Home Secretary and Education Secretary, respectively. Sajid Javid gets the Treasury, a position he's long coveted, and Dominic Raab was appointed Foreign Secretary to ensure the Prime Minister doesn't go down in history as the UK's worst chief diplomat, among everything else. Gove gets the Duchy of Lancaster non-brief, where he will overlook Brexit preparations, Liz Truss replaces disgraced former minister Liam Fox at International Trade while Andrea Leadsom, another firm favourite of ours, goes to Business. After her public selling out of Never Johnson-ism, Amber Rudd stays at the DWP, and Nicky Morgan - another so-called hard remainer (and proof there's really no such a thing as a Tory rebel) - heads over to Culture. Jacob Rees-Mogg gets Leader of the House, where he'll no doubt look forward to tangling and wrangling with the Speaker over procedural matters - especially as the latter proved to be a frustrating opponent of May's. And Grant Shapps makes a come back too, replacing Failing Grayling at Transport. Alas, there were no spare positions for his stable of aliases so he had to make do with the one. And perhaps the most interesting appointment is Dominic Cummings as Chief of Staff. Needless to say, he hasn't been hired to sort out HR issues.
As many have observed, this is a Leave cabinet. Well, yes, would you have expected anything else? Cummings is a bruiser whose legend was amplified by victory in the EU referendum, the Machiavellian casting of him by "Shippers" in his popular and compulsive gossipy tell-alls, and getting played by Benedict Cumberbatch in Brexit: The Uncivil War. This suggests a number of things. That Johnson has brought him in to give the faint hearted the hair dryer treatment should they deviate from the true path of Brexit, that Johnson (eventually) wants to take an axe to the civil service, that Johnson needs someone to strategise his premiership and appeal to the same bundle of frustrations Cummings tapped into in 2016, and that sooner or later Johnson is planning an election. Good job we have a good idea what this could look like.
A good first day for Johnson? The optics, they say, look good. A bombastic speech followed by a norovirus-level clear out of government confers the impression of someone urgently wanting to get on with the job. Johnson promised decisive leadership, and his first actions in office confer the right impression. But might he have already made his first missteps with such brutality? His cabinet is overwhelmingly composed of the hard right and leave ultra-tilting wings of the party, but has pushed out most of the remainers May had hanging around as well as leavers who didn't display the requisite gushing sycophancy - like Penny Mordaunt. Johnson, never known for having much nous, thinks a cabinet of true believers and loyal bandwagon chasers can ram his will through the Commons where Theresa May failed. But his situation, while not as precarious as hers was, is still tricky. The would-be leaders aren't circling for the moment, but the parliamentary arithmetic is still against him and his majority is pitiful. Getting no deal across the line is tricky, and his preferred option - expertly burst by Andrew Neil during the campaign - is not credible nor available. The only other option is a return of May's deal with a lick of paint. That might satisfy the backbench remain grumblers whose ranks Johnson swelled yesterday and a few lily-livered Labour MPs, but even with Rees-Mogg on board the ERG are going to have a hard time swallowing it, as well as the members (remember them?), and Nigel Farage's Brexit Party. When Johnson proves to be as fixated as keeping the party together as his predecessor, he's going to be hit with a great stonking headache.
For the brief moment of right now, Johnson's government are looking confident and assured. We'll see how long that lasts as it faces up to the hard realities of a deeply sceptical Commons and a not-at-all-amused European Union. Johnson is about to find out his mindless boosterism can only carry him so far.
According to Marx, history repeats itself twice: first time as tragedy, second time as farce. News reaches us that Labour peers are are considering a no confidence vote against Jeremy Corbyn. Because the last one worked so well. This follows the sacking of Baroness Hayter for likening the leader's office to Hitler's bunker, and an advert in The Graun taken out by Labour lords criticising the leadership for its lack of action over anti-semitism. As has been commented, one of the signatories was one Iain McNicol, the man more than any other responsible for delays to the complaint process and, as it turns out, the author of the Non-Disclosure Agreements signed by party staff that have excited the press recently. Imagine the chutzpah and dishonesty of signing a letter condemning your own inaction and, some might say, intentional tardiness. Incredible.
If the peers decide to proceed, they'll probably pass their motion but what will it achieve? I ask, because in the lead up to trigger ballots they serve to remind the membership that the party needs MPs who will actually deliver for our people instead of their bank balances, social standing, and self-importance. Of course, our lords are not spontaneously reacting to the sacking of a popular peer: it has to be placed in the context of long-term plotting and destabilisation, at the heart of which is Tom Watson. And as it happens, Isabel Hardman has an interesting piece in the latest Spectator looking at the Labour right's strategy in more depth.
I've expended many words on their plight over the last few years, and especially their strategies and stunts. Driving a wedge between Corbyn and Corbyn supporters on the issue of a second referendum was and is one such ploy. Talking up and amplifying anti-semitism as a means of damaging the leadership instead of working to resolve the issue is another. And while this probably won a few people here and there away from the left, the real direction of travel has been the dissolution of the right. Before the first coup after the EU referendum, the parliamentary party majority behaved like such entitled, spoiled brats that it turned a layer of Corbyn sceptics against them. I was one of them. And since, their efforts at making out Labour is "confused" about Brexit and is uniquely anti-semitic has had the consequence of demobilising their own support. You win faction fights by gaining numbers, not shedding them all over the place. The resignations from Labour of sundry MPs - the CHUKists, Iain Austin, John Woodcock - were also self-inflicted wounds. How then to wrestle the party back from the membership, cause as much disruption as possible, but actually grow your support? This is the right's strategic dilemma.
According to the Speccie piece, Tom Watson and friends scent an opportunity. Corbynism, apparently, is in crisis and a symptom of this are divisions over Brexit and anti-semitism and, if you spend five minutes peering at left Twitter, ostensible comrades are denouncing ostensible comrades and falling out over these and other issues. And after months of difficulties (not least, those awful results) there is a sense of siege and paranoia at the top of the party. In this context Watson's criticisms and denunciations should be taken as calculated interventions. This ratcheting up of tensions amount to a cold coup, of attempts "to surround and destabilise Corbyn and his lieutenants, until they resign of their own accord". Meanwhile, Watson tries cutting a shop steward-style figure among his colleagues, someone armed with tea and a sympathetic ear who channels discontent and tries keeping disaffected MPs on board. The piece credits him with preventing six or so from jumping ship, but it must rankle that former close ally Ian Austin was among the departures.
Helping keep the right wing show together at Westminster is one thing, but out in the wilds of the party membership? We are told that Future Britain, the supposedly innocuous ideas factory launched by Watson back in March, is going to expand and become a centrist Momentum with the clear object of removing Corbyn. And one way it will go about its business is "that this voice will become so deafening and destabilising, with a blizzard of angry letters and protests against the leadership, that it makes it impossible for Corbyn to continue." Please, try not to laugh. Angry letters. Unfortunately for Watson and friends, time is not on the plotters' side. As Hardman notes, an election is very likely in the Autumn and the worst outcome could happen: not a Boris Johnson-led government, but Jeremy in Number 10. Their Herculean task is not only to manoeuvre Corbyn into resignation, but ensure there is a soft left replacement - albeit one Watson can control - in place to take over. Angel Rayner and Rebecca Long-Bailey are touted as possible replacements, though you get the sense no one's asked them if they fancy themselves the pawns of absurdist right wing fantasies.
Because we are talking absurdism here. The moment for a centrist Momentum with any chance of getting a hearing was during the second leadership election. Look how Labour First and Progress have thrived these last three years, despite relaunches and a rebrand. How might another bland, say-nothing group succeed where they have miserably failed? And as for the tactics, good grief, a letter writing campaign? Is this the best Watson's celebrated tactical genius can come up with? And how do they think they're going to unseat Corbyn when the left are incomparably stronger than in 2016? This is truly desperate stuff, and what Isabel Hardman has produced here is a feel good piece for the Labour right, a rosy picture of their dire situation. Because for all their clever-clever politics, they assume no one to their left can see what they're doing. Indeed, what kind of factional operator telegraphs their intentions to a mass market politics publication? Some facts. As much a load of MPs would like to see Corbyn gone, few are in the mood to pick a fight. The summer is here and their energy and morale has already been sapped by the exhaustion of the Brexit process - they haven't got the will or time to mount the sort of energetic challenge any serious attempt at toppling Corbyn requires. Why do you think the peers are flying the kite instead of PLP dissidents? And, yes, there is the small matter of MPs attending to their own constituency organisations in advance of the coming trigger ballots. A move against Corbyn in the summer months would galvanise members as we have seen before, recruit new activists, and create a more challenging environment for anyone part of a putative coup hoping to be reselected. In all, it's a dose of wishful thinking.
The truth of the matter is in four years the Labour right do not understand, or seemingly want to even comprehend what has happened to the party and what Jeremy Corbyn is. People don't support him because he's a kindly chap who's done a bit of activism, but because of the politics he represents. Corbyn is the lightning rod for a current of opinion fed up with dog-eat-dog nothing will ever get better, the grey miserablism of the rich getting richer while basic services fall apart, hate crime is on the up, wages and jobs are crap, housing is in short supply, the climate emergency is virtually ignored, and the future is filled with uncertainty and despair. They cannot grasp that the electorate has changed and new groups are moving into politics in large numbers - and want their needs and concerns addressed. Corbynism isn't a thing because new arms are getting twisted by old hands, as Watson once put it, but because its politics are the most appropriate form of working class politics at the moment. The gruel the Labour right offer in contrast is straight up anti-Corbynism and nothing else. There is no strategy for keeping the party's coalition together, no diagnosis of the challenges we face, and no clue how to take the Tories on and win. Like old school Trots of decades past for whom matters like sexual equality and racism were to be addressed after the revolution, so one's eyes cannot be lifted to the political horizon until Corbyn is pushed into retirement.
When you read about this stuff, when your social media feeds are cluttered with whingeing, stupidity and dishonesty about the Labour Party, it can be dispiriting. You can understand why some people throw their hands up and find other things to do. But the situation we're in, and why the Labour right are reduced to having untouchable proxies do their work for them is because they're pitifully weak - perhaps the weakest they've ever been. And their failure to realistically consider their capacity vs the rest of the party merely underlines this point. Whom the Gods wish to destroy they first make mad, and as they shrivel and decompose their collective imagination is befogged by delusion and make believe. And even better if you are, like me, exasperated by their antics and want to see something done you don't have to wait it out. You can take action. The best way to put a stop to this nonsense is by getting involved and recruiting people. Make sure you attend your CLP and branch meetings. And make sure you vote to open reselections when the trigger ballot is held.
Just finished reading Ralph Miliband's (AKA Best Miliband) classic work, The State in Capitalist Society. Partly on the occasion of 50 years since its publication, partly because Alex recently had a show on it, and lastly because of some additional reading concerning the old book on the decline and fall of the Tories. The book plan is coming along nicely and can't wait to start writing properly, though if you've been following my commentary on the Tories since returning to blogging in 2012 you will have a good impression of the lines of argument.
Anyway, reading always partially involves quote mining, so here is what he had to say about conservative parties.
... conservatism, however pronounced, does not entail the rejection of all measures of reform, but lives on the contrary by the endorsement and promulgation of reform at the least possible cost to the existing structure of power and privilege ... conservative parties ... remain primarily the defence organisations, in the political field, of business and property. What they really 'aggregate' are the different interests of the dominant classes. Precisely because the latter are not solid, congealed economic and social blocs, they require political formations which reconcile, coordinate, and fuse their interests, and which express their common purposes as well as their separate interests. These purposes and interests also require ideological clothing suitable for political competition in the age of 'mass politics'; one of the special functions of conservative political parties is to provide that necessary clothing. (The State in Capitalist Society 1969, p.168)
If I get a bit of time, I might write more about Miliband's book at the weekend. Needless to say, it comes highly recommended.
Polls can be confusing. Let's consider two from the end of this week. According to the latest from YouGov, the Tories lead on 24%, the Brexit Party on 21%, Labour on 20% and the LibDems 19%. We're still very much in four-party territory and the crisis of the two-party system we entered into after the EU elections hasn't gone away. But if you look at Survation's latest, we find a different story. Here, Labour is on 29%, the Tories 23%, BXP 20%, and the LibDems on 19%. Who's right, and who should we take with a pinch of salt?
There are two ways of looking at this. We can compare the polling with recent findings from other companies, and we can look at the methodologies employed. Looking at the mood music coming from other pollsters, only one other has been out out recently and that was from BMG Research. It had the Tories on 28%, Labour 27%, LibDems 18%, and BXP 14%, and its fieldwork was done the week before last. Not much to go with then. One might suppose a drift away from four-party politics over time since the EU election lies a month or so behind us, and the underlying political economy that gave us the 2017 election result hasn't gone away, but equally one could counter that the tedious Tory leadership election and the total dominance of everything by Brexit ensures the parties defined by the referendum - the LibDems and BXP - remain viable options. The fact two polls support the first proposition while another provides succour for the second mean neither position can be affirmed with any confidence on the basis of numbers alone.
We're going to have to look at methodology then. The case for YouGov is of all the polling outfits, in the run up to the EU elections they were consistently the outliers. For instance, in the last round before polling day YouGov had Labour on 13%, the Tories 7%, LibDems 19% and BXP 37%. In the event they massively overestimated Nigel Farage's party (it got 30.5%) but were the closest on the other parties. Compare this to Survation (23%, 14%, 12%, and 31% respectively) and BMG (18%, 12%, 17%, and 35%). YouGov come away smelling of roses and proved outliers aren't always wrong. And yet, if we wind time back a little bit, in GB-only polling for the 2017 General Election YouGov tanked with a 42% Con, 35% Labour eve-of-poll forecast, BMG 46% vs 33%, and Survation 41% vs 40%. BMG was nowhere, YouGov closer on the Tories, but crucially Survation was almost on the nose for Labour's vote.
To make sense of this we need to remember that the EU elections are second order elections. In political science terms, these tend not to matter so much to voters vs first order elections: i.e. ones that determine the government, a general election. And so we see a number of effects: turnout is usually depressed, and punters are more likely to stray from their normal voting behaviour and vote as a protest or go for a party closer to their political heart's desire. It's something we see in every by-election, be it parliamentary or for the local council, and certainly helped explain the result in Peterborough. There is also another oft unremarked effect. We know older people generally speaking are more likely to turn out than the young, with pensioners the most likely of all. This is doubly the case when it comes to second order elections, so it tends to skew toward their proclivities. YouGov polling weights its results to recognise this differential turnout by age, hence we find their massive overestimation of BXP's vote but an accurate forecast of Labour's support. Survation tend not to weight theirs in the same way, which meant they were more sensitive to the movements of younger voters in 2017 and more or less on the money.
What does this mean for Westminster intention polling now? Well, it all depends on what the next general election is going to be like. As Boris Johnson is odd on to win the Tory leadership, we know what his strategy is: ramp up the Brexit rhetoric, dribble some drivel about patriotism, and try and remake the coalition of voters Theresa May pulled together by squeezing the Brexit Party. This is not without difficulties and, if you want to be mischievous, it more or less amounts to a 35% strategy - just enough to get over the line in the context of a split electorate. But by pursuing a polarising electoral strategy, despite the usual tricks, Johnson runs the risk of uniting voters behind Jeremy Corbyn which, among other reasons, is what happened last time. When turn out is up, the differential age effect is depressed, which favours Survation. If the public look disengaged and nonplussed, then YouGov's methodology and polling has more chance of being right. Our job then is to mobilise, mobilise, and mobilise. An election could only be a couple of months away, and Johnson is both a known quantity and completely beatable.
Who tuned in tonight to watch Andrew Neil grill Jeremy Hunt? Not me. As he's not going to win, there's little point dwelling upon his interview. Tonight then was all about Boris Johnson. Did we learn anything new, or were all our preconceptions reconfirmed?
We know from decades of suffering this oaf how he elbows his way into the centre of attention, and through a series of studied ruses not only monopolises it but manipulates the situation. As Hunt observed in a rare moment of insight during the ITV debates earlier this week, Boris Johnson will make you smile and while you're laughing you've forgotten how he didn't answer the question. That might work with the less experienced interviewer, or a one shot questioner in a press conference, but in a half hour sit down with the country's fiercest politics inquisitor?
Andrew Neil started off softly, asking Johnson about his character and whether he could be trusted. Perhaps expecting something a bit tougher, Johnson rejoined that there were no trust issues. He has fantastic conservative policies, which he will deliver - this is the judge of character that matters most. It was here Johnson floated one of his favourite policy themes - policing. The Tories think they have Labour on the run thanks to the increase in violent crime in London, something they (and Donald Trump, of course) are keen to hang on Sadiq Khan. Neil gave Johnson space to discuss how crime fell during his tenure as Mayor, and thus the trap was sprung. While crime fell by a fifth in the capital between 2008 and 2016, Brillo observed that it fell by 26% in the rest of the country, so why was the Johnson administration less effective in getting the figures down? Not surprisingly, there wasn't an answer. The man who would be Prime Minister lost his balance and never recovered.
Returning to the theme of character, Brillo asked why he didn't stand up for the UK's Ambassador to the US, Kim Darroch, whose withering diplomatic cables on the Mickey Mouse White House were published this week, and whose leaks are now subject of a police investigation. Indeed, returning to the ITV Debate Neil drew attention to the fact he was asked four times to offer Darroch his support and failed to do so. Johnson tried his damnedest to weasel his way out by saying "I support the principle of civil servants saying what they need to", which of course, is a manner of evading the question. Neil then put it to Johnson that he was actually happy to see the ambassador out because he had previously berated Jeremy Hunt for backing Darroch. Asked if he accepted the argument Johnson's refusal to back him contributed to Darroch's resignation, he had the chutzpah to claim the "job of politicians to stick up for civil servants", and that it was not right to drag someone's career into the public domain. The evasion of responsibility continued when quizzed about Nazanin Zaghari-Ratcliffe. Readers will recall how, because he hadn't read his briefing notes prior to a stint in front of the foreign affairs committee, his claim she was teaching journalism rather than simply holidaying, which was actually the case, has cost her an extra five years in prison. Johnson did his typical "you're exculpating the Iranian regime, it's all them" and rejected any suggestion he had any kind of responsibility for her fate. Needless to say, Neil berated him for making a bad situation worse.
Moving on to Brexit, Brillo asked if there was a deal in the offing prior to the Hallowe'en deadline and needed a few days over to finalise it, surely he - Johnson - would not walk away. His reply, which was unconvincing, went "we definitely come out", but we'll definitely have a deal by then anyway. Asked about his opposition to May's deal, Neil asked if Johnson would back it if all that was done was a change to the Irish backstop. Cue the full majesty of Johnson's Brexit fantasy. He said he would argue for the future of the border getting remitted to the free trade agreement he wants to negotiate with the EU. But, as Neil observed, the backstop is a fallback, a precondition for negotiations, a determination of what the UK/Ireland/EU relationship would be in the event of trade negotiations failing, an insurance policy. Damningly, it appears Johnson hasn't got his head around this very basic fact of Brexit. Which is why, by way of a miserable response, he said Neil was offering "defeatism and negativity" and what the negotiations need is "new optimism". And you thought Theresa May was bad.
One of the big fears of a Johnson government is his closing parliament to get a no deal Brexit through, something Rory Stewart (remember him?) warned could lead ot a civil war situation(!). So Brillo asked Johnson why he won't rule out shutting the doors. "I don't want to do that" snapped back Johnson, and besides, we shouldn't fear no deal. Not only are the preparations in hand, we can leave the EU without a deal and carry on as normal. A deft sidestep away from a tricky issue, but into another sticky one. Trying to look as if he knew what he is talking about, Johnson cited paragraph 5B of Article 24 of the 1994 GATT agreement which allows for the present relationship to remain in place for a decade. This then is Johnson's magic bullet, and assumes the EU would consent because it's in both parties interests. Be that as it may, Neil blind-sided Johnson by citing paragraph 5C, which he didn't know about. Under GATT rules 5B is only possible if there is some form of declaration about a future agreement and a timetable for talks. One would also assume in this relationship the UK becomes a rule taker, and cannot enter into separate arrangements with countries already covered by EU treaties (for instance, the Canadian, Japanese, and recent South American deals), and also it might be challenged by a third party - all good fun for the lawyers no doubt. While Neil didn't raise these complications, to the discovery of paragraph 5C all Johnson could do was mumble incoherently about "BBC-generated gloom and negativity", as if the national broadcaster had a hand in defining the global rules of trade.
Moving to Johnson's spending commitments, Neil observed that Philip Hammond's £26bn "fiscal headroom" for no deal planning isn't money set aside for a rainy day, but cash that can be borrowed according to the government's spending rules. Johnson replied his government would "continue to bear down on national debt, and setting out our plans." This money would be invested in education and the police, and amounts to significantly less than the money the Treasury is prepared to set aside, Johnson smugly retorted. And another trap was sprung. Neil flagged up the £9bn worth of tax cuts he'd promised the wealthiest tax payers by raising the threshold of the top rate, and the £13bn for taking the lowest paid out of National Insurance. It was almost as if Johnson doesn't think tax cuts are spending commitments too.
In all, this was the most dismal performance I've seen from a politician in some years, and it says everything about the state of the Tory party that this poltroon is odds on to be the next Prime Minister. This seat-of-the-pants, half-arsed, drivel-pedalling incompetence should damn his chances. Instead, for the unhinged faithful at home they'll think Johnson did a good job against an interviewer who browbeat him and didn't give him a proper chance to explain himself. The Tory membership might be easily fooled, but thankfully the electorate are not so gullible.
In the latest episode of Politics Theory Other, Alex interviews noted socialist thinker Leo Panitch about the work of Ralph Miliband. As always, it's well worth a listen.
As always, the podcast needs you support to keep it going. Please consider donating.
Here's the state of play in early July. We have a Tory leadership contest seemingly careening toward no deal which, to be blunt, will be the biggest preventable peace time disaster in British political history. Yet scrutiny of the candidates is superficial and interest in the contest is warned off thanks to its being mind-crushingly dull. It hasn't captured the public's imagination, and even when you tune in to 24 hour rolling coverage you get the sense of a story featured out of obligation than "newsworthiness". Even those habituated to the plod and grind of everyday bourgeois politics would find more jollies in a mini-fridge instruction manual.
Politics is institutionally boring, and its marrying to arcane ceremony works to make it unappealing. It's almost as if it's a deliberate ruse designed to exclude, alienate, and ward off mass participation. Politics however shouldn't be more entertaining. After all, fascism, among other things, is said to be the aestheticisation of politics, and its reduction to celebrity over the course of the last decade gifted us the hilarity of Boris Johnson and the you-can't-say-that conceit of Nigel Farage. But as the stakes in politics have intensified and the issues have sharpened, so establishment politics has become even more boring. Which the Tory party contest exemplifies.
Consider earlier, happier, less fraught times. How does the leadership campaign now compare to this century's contests? The first contest for the Tory party crown was, on paper, an interesting one. It featured Ian Duncan Smith, Michael Portillo, Ken Clarke, David Davis and Michael Ancram, all of whom variously represented different wings of the Tory party. In a bit of a shocker, IDS beat Portillo by a single vote into the final round, which he then went on to win by a country mile over cuddly Uncle Ken. Nevertheless there was some consideration of what the party should be: an explicit europhobic outfit (under IDS) replete with all the nasty stuff the Tories are associated with, or something a bit more liberal and centre facing. The party membership then weren't as psychopathic as today but the temptation of embracing euroscepticism and the perception it was a real vote winner proved too much for some. Come 2003, IDS as the most ineffective Tory leader then seen was out and Michael Howard was effectively appointed unopposed as his replacement to lead the party into the 2005 election. Following a fairly dismal showing on the second worst turnout for a century, the next contest, between David Davis and Dave, was interesting from the standpoint of Tory strategic thinking. At this point Dave was at pains to paint himself as a liberal, light touch Tory chillaxed with modern Britain and a seeming determination to turn the party away from its Europe obsessions. Meanwhile, DD promised little beyond the red meat offering of IDS, except with added bastardry. On this occasion, the shrinking membership went with pragmatism. After all, a centrist makeover did Labour no end of good, so why not the Tories? Ken Clarke and the disgraced Liam Fox were eliminated in short order and Dave romped home with a two-thirds landslide.
Then came Labour's turn. In 2007 Tony Blair made good on his long-announced departure and vacated the leadership. However, Gordon Brown believed the big job was his by right and moved heaven and earth to ensure no one stood against him, and that virtually the entire PLP nominated him as Blair's successor. John McDonnell, who announced an abortive challenge never had a chance of getting on the ballot paper, while Brown completely disingenuously welcomed the opportunity of a proper election he knew was not going to happen. Then in 2010 we had a summer-long contest with David and Ed Miliband, Andy Burnham, Ed Balls, and Diane Abbott (there was some behind the scenes jiggery-pokery between John McDonnell and Michael Meacher, which meant neither stood). While it didn't set the world alight, Diane's programme and Ed Ball's technocratic anti-austerity platform arguably ensured Ed Miliband's campaign positioned itself in soft social democracy territory to scoop up these votes. And, for the headline writers, there was a rich vein in the sibling rivalry angle. Nevertheless, not spotted by anyone at the time (ahem), Diane actually came third in numbers of raw votes cast suggesting the left were not quite as dead as was supposed. Skipping five years forward Labour crashed and burned, and the next leadership contest was gearing itself up to be the worst in Labour Party history. That was until Jeremy Corbyn got on the ballot and, very quickly, all hell broke loose. The same was true of the following summer. Unreconciled (and still unreconciled), the PLP majority's cold coup went hot and we had an entertaining summer of socialist politics vs nob gags. Meanwhile, the collapse of Dave's premiership was accompanied by the spectacular implosion of Boris Johnson and Michael Gove, the death-by-media car wreck of Andrea Leadsom's campaign and Theresa May's seemingly effortless coronation. How the Tories then amused themselves at Labour's expense, not at all realising there was a ticking time bomb of incompetence and inflexibility at the heart of their creaking operation.
When these leadership elections weren't entertaining, in the narrowest sense of the word, they did at least allow politics to come out into the open. The two Tory leadership elections of the 00s covered strategic issues and wrestled with how to overcome an unpopularity that was almost a structural feature of British politics. For Labour, 2010 was about how to rebuild an electoral coalition after an extended but bruising period of government, and 2015 and 16 about what kind of party it should be. With the Brexit stakes incomparably higher than these considerations, which, you'll remember, is simultaneously an existential crisis for the Conservatives, it's almost as if efforts to keep the Tory party leadership election a boring non-event that downplays the urgency of the moment. Even when Johnson and Hunt flag up and, for party selectoralist reasons, talk up the possibility of no deal it comes with a shrug of the shoulders. What would be a disaster, which in his honest moments Hunt acknowledges, is smoothed over with nods to managerialist preparation and patriotic boosterism.
Therefore Brexit is suppressed not so much as an issue but as a danger. Talking it down as a brewing crisis is a deliberate strategy on the part of both leadership contenders to allow themselves to shine. Despite the rather colourful beginnings of the campaign, Johnson has allowed the much-aired revelations about his private life, political (racist) opinions, and total incompetence bounce off by being simply boring and not doing anything. While not saying much of substance while touring the home county tea rooms, and avoiding as much scrutiny as possible until most ballot papers have been returned, it has allowed his outriders to cop the flak and make the case (he's funny! He can win!). And Hunt too is complicit in this. He has flip-flopped all over the place when it comes to Brexit, moving within a fortnight from a pragmatic consideration of the Hallowe'en deadline in light of a renegotiated deal to hard ultra Brexit, and the annexation of the Irish Republic to solve the backstop issue. At one point he might have looked vaguely threatening to Johnson's chances, but as the contest wore on and with the weary inevitably of the latter's victory growing ever more obvious, Hunt has been forced into making hysterical pronouncements about Brexit while pulling his punches. He doesn't want to damage Johnson too much or criticise him too harshly because, well, he has a career to think about. And he knows, he feels it in his gut, that strong words can easily float over to the other side of the Commons and be weaponised against the Tories in the event of an election. Pathetic really that the Tories have a thing or two to teach certain Labour MPs and their hangers on about how you do solidarity.
Why then is the Tory leadership contest more snore than cor or phwoar? Because both contenders are reluctant to face up to the seriousness of Brexit, particularly Johnson, and so downplay it without having to account for their lackadaisical attitude. Because as prep up until the moment Johnson crosses Number 10's threshold he's playing a super cautious game without saying much - something we'll probably see again if/when he takes the Tories to the country. And because for self-interested reasons, Hunt isn't about to rock the boat. Given the gravity of the situation, the politics of the Tory leadership election, its coverage, and its manipulation by both candidates fall far short of addressing the serious hole the country is in, let alone offering ways out. It's a failure that may damn them in the history books, but leave the likes of you and me having to pay the price.
