The deeply "problematic" spectacle of Batley & Spen (2)

Following on my first set of observations from the ever-worsening disgrace that is the Batley & Spen by-election, Kev suggested BTL: "... the Labour movement (and nearly all left wing institutions) control the agenda..." and I replied that it could be argued differently.  That's very specifically as regards Labour qua political party, but more widely as well.  Let's take the first of these, and start with ...

Caution: pick your words carefully when commenting on this BTL - particularly to the extent you agree with Kev's point above - because (consistent with what he says) Social Meejah are wont to close accounts down these days.

In fact, this is a post I could have written more than a year ago, but have held back from doing so for that very reason.  Why has my "discretion" been shaken off now?  Because B&S provides at least some topcover.

*   *   *   *   *

After their 2019 GE debacle there were several post mortems coming out of Labour, some of them lengthy and produced after much deliberation.  They mostly all said this was no time for taboos / sacred cows / mincing words etc; and they fearlessly (more or less) debated the impact both the personality of Corbyn and the shifting Brexit stances with which they'd tied themselves up in knots.  Antisemitism came up a bit too - although at the time they they were fairly hamstrung by the pending EHRC thing and legal considerations around that.  They even touched on some culture-war aspects, although that wasn't quite the term of art it's become over the past 12 months.

But there was one aspect potentially having some explanatory value, that I didn't see any of them daring to broach (just like me, in fact).  It's been well and truly aired now, however.  How might a party fare with the electorate as a whole, if it was perceived to be The Party of The Muslim Vote? 

Now because the ranks of the Voluble Left are stuffed with very clever, analytic people, it's inconceivable they hadn't mulled this one over: they must therefore have decided it was off-limits.  In many respects it's the same issue as the one that had everyone running for cover when the paramilitary uniforms came out in Brixton last summer, which we discussed along similar lines at the time.  The Labour leadership knows it cannot be even loosely associated with that stuff in the public's mind and will take pains to put great distance between themselves and whatever is out there: an absolute strategic imperative.   

But Batley & Spen has unleashed every sordid aspect of this in 3D technicolour, complete with highly plausible accusations that "Labour is ashamed of these voters": and (from Li'l Owen Jones) that the Labour leadership is willing to "throw [the Muslim community] under a bus" (sic).

Problematic, or what?  And the consequences have also now been explicated by the Left.  In sum: Labour needs the Muslim block vote in seat after seat: but it just can't be seen doing what might be needed in order to retain it.  A dilemma for Labour as acute and as existential as (with different dynamics) Scotland is for them.  I can't imagine the LibDems or the Greens are exactly comfortable right now, either.  

And they're all faced with an opponent - the Tory Party - that needs do nothing but remain silent which, in the rancid circumstances of B&S, looks like the dignified position anyhow.  When they've finished shedding each other's blood (and that might not be for a good while yet) the Left won't be slow to complain loudly about that, too.  Look look: the Tories are not saying anything!

This is an issue of far more import than just the tactical party politics of 2021. Also, to my mind, none of it speaks to the Left having a particularly firm grip on The Agenda, even if there's a strong argument to say they once did - at least up until 2016-ish.  Looks more to me like the bar of soap is squirming in their unsteady hands, fit to shoot out of their grasp.  There's another hot example offering more evidence for this, which I'll float in the next few days.  

Having said that, B&S might continue to be a wholly diverting spectacle for some time to come - for those who don't stay with the altogether healthier option of the footy ...

ND

Footnote after polling day: 

Labour Batley campaign source says: “Basically built a new electoral coalition in six weeks. Lost the conservative Muslim vote over gay rights and Palestine, and won back a lot of 2019 Tory voters” “This result shows we’re reconnecting with the wider electorate again” 

_________

PS: this is a great essay on the overall mess Labour is in.  Some very well-crafted writing within.

Weekend: Those Fearless Labour GE Post Mortems...

Oh, they promised to be fearless, these inquest-holders, to accept no shibboleths or no-go areas or taboos; no stone to be left unturned.  Well, it transpires they were wrong about their mandates, to which we shall return at the end of this post.

There are two out this week.  The big one first:  Ed Miliband + Labour Together's 154 page epic.  The stuff on the Election itself isn't revelatory: their summary is as follows -

• Negative perceptions of our leader were a key reason why Labour lost so many votes in this election
• Labour’s position on Brexit alienated voters on both sides of the 2016 referendum divide 
• The popularity of our policies was undermined by a lack of confidence that we could deliver them 
• In Scotland these issues combined with and were reinforced by national debates and dynamics 
• These issues served as focal points for deeper divisions of values and outlook 
• Value-based analysis of Labour’s vote base reveals a coalition that is crumbling

Well what else could they say?  We all knew that: and the only issue is the ranking of the first two disasters the list.  In the party of Kier "peoples vote" Starmer, unsurprisingly they opt for Corbyn.  Only respectful references to the new Dear Leader here.

What's genuinely worth reading is the numerical stuff (Miliband is a wonk, after all): several commentators reckon to have found some gems there.  No space here to summarise it, but one chilling graph leaves a deep impression.  Forget north vs south / city vs towns / workers vs the bourgeoisie: figure 8 shows with blinding clarity how UK politics has, over the years, become polarised into essentially a generational divide.  Presumably this graphic is prominent on Cummings' wall, too, and explains his current culture-war tactics**.  Sobering stuff indeed.

The conclusions and recommendations are all pro forma, completely anodyne, and unlikely to stir Starmer in any way.  He already knows what he's about.

The second autopsy, published on the same day, is from "Labour for a European Future", which deploys a lot of Ashcroft data (inter alia).  No prizes for guessing their #1 conclusion is -

The election loss was not caused by the second referendum policy

Yeah, right.   That aside, it's altogther punchier and more opinionated than the bigger report, and has been hurriedly but intelligently brought bang up-to-date.  (No chance of nimbleness like that with Miliband's stolid crew, which had to answer to a board of 15 Commissioners, one of which is a collective(!))  One could imagine Starmer finding the shorter one more useful, and not just because of its congenial Euro-bias.

So where are the gaps?  Again, it's the Mili-version that betrays the weakness most glaringly.  As a BTL commenter put it in the Graun today: 

You can blame brexit, 'genius Tories', voters not liking corbyn, but there is another reason, which was only spoken about in hushed tones and behind closed doors that spooked millions of people in former Labour strongholds. It can't be addressed, it won't be addressed and Labour will continue lose those votes.

Now let's tread carefully ourselves here (OK?); and take just one of these *unaddressed* issues.  If (for example) Labour becomes clearly identified as the party of Trans Rights, they will silently haemorrhage votes, even as they refuse to contemplate the matter.  (The rather niche Labour Uncut blog is bravely willing to air the subject, even if nobody else is.)

And so it goes on.  Cummings must be spending this weekend laughing out loud.  Starmer has strategic problems extending far more widely than Scotland, and Wonk Miliband may not be much help to him.

ND 
__________
** Or Munira Mirza's - whomever 

UPDATE: Rawnsley, Graun, today

The report concludes that Labour will only achieve power again by building “a winning coalition of voters that spans generations, geographies and outlooks”. This is so right that it is a truism ... In their vagueness about how this feat is to be achieved, the report’s authors are faithful reflections of the party’s leader. Mr Starmer has had almost nothing to say about policy since he became leader.

Can we focus on the economy now, please?

Thanks to Brexit, the madness of Corbynism, climate change and the emergence of 'woke' identity politics, I can't remember a time when the economy was less important in terms of the national debate than now.

This blog started in 2006, the economy and its impact on politics was a cornerstone of the UK debate, even in the aftermath of the Iraq War. Into 2007 and the beginnings of the financial crisis and it became the all-consuming topic and this lasted into the faux-austerity years right up until the Brexit referendum in 2016.

So the really interesting point is that it is now 3 years with little practical focus on what is going on. In the main this is good news, the economy has ticked along in its new slow growth post-Quantitative easing way. Employment is very high by historical standards and jobs still low paying but improving at the margins.

There has been no major faffing with the tax system since George Osborne changed the stamp duty rates which flattened the housing market in 2015. This year we have changes to IR35 which will cause some dislocation, but a yet to be determined amount and anyway - there are plenty of jobs that need doing so it is likely that this will cause a shift in labour and how it works more than any lasting impact on the economy as a whole.

Of course, we did see a lot of high level macro-economic nonsense in the recent election campaign - stuff about nationalising rail and, er, broadband. All for the birds as it turns out and surely even a crazed Labour party is not going to run on such an extreme position in the future.

So now, with a return to a more normal environment for political discourse, what will we see, after all there are some big challenges to be had:

1 - Climate change is a big issue now, there is scope to change the tax base more radically to address this in the tax system...whilst...

2 - Somehow finding more money for the NHS and Social care, neither of which are going to be funded properly with a greying population. Clearly an extension to the pension system and better tax free private provision will be needed to get more money allocated to this sector

3 - Not forgetting Brexit, where trade negotiations (which lets face it are marginal in the overall scheme of things) will determine whether the Government is brave enough to significantly reduce tariffs to enable a low import cost base and juice the economy that way.

Plenty more to discuss, I look forward to it rather than having silly conversations about tens of billions for magical thinking theories on communism! Happy days ahead.

Weekend Election (2) - What Next

To envision the full potential horror of Momentum - a sophisticated 'ground operation' of decisive effectiveness in the cause of marxist identitarian dictatorship** - is one thing.  To figure out how to neutralise it politically is quite another, whatever parliamentary majority the Conservatives now command.  By 'it', I don't just mean Momentum with a capital 'M': the left is often fairly amorphous & blob-like, and will readily re-form in a different guise: they're good at that.  What's meant here is the determined, disaffacted leftist bedsit 'officer class' we've discussed before which, if Momentum disbanded tomorrow, would still exist as a fully networked 'virtual' revolutionary base.  They've trained together; they've 'fought' together; the camaraderie is there.

There are two 'passive' approaches I don't think it prudent to rely upon; one complacent and lazy, the other honourable and much more demanding.

1. The lazy argument is that Corbyn-style marxism is now proven to be terminally unattractive to the British electorate: ergo, the matter can safely be ignored.  They'll all drift off to get proper jobs and have families.  If they do ever re-surface, they'll be spurned just as surely as they have been this time around - and take down the Labour Party with them (again).

I don't buy either part of that.  We might readily accept that some of them will be pretty disillusioned right now, and may well drift away.  The attention span of da yoof is notoriously short - indeed, one might fairly contend they've already slipped from their 2017 high-water mark. That's helpful, as far as it goes: some of the weaker brethren are, well, weak.  But for a solid core, the grievances are strong, the ideology solid, the narrative compelling.  It's easy to stay networked, ready to be re-mobilised at short notice - even if they aren't actually back in action straight away (see footnote). 

And next time?  Under better generalship in the mainstream Labour Party, the crack Momentum infantry could easily have had far greater impact this time.  The Labour campaign, incompetently conducted by first-timers following Corbyn's purge at the time of Party Conference, was strategically flawed, tactically inept (e.g. pouring resources into Uxbridge, a mere vanity project) - and that's before factoring in the oft-remarked observation that facing almost any other leader than Corbyn, the Tories would have been toast (unprovable; but it's certainly what many Tories think).  Good troops were squandered by Corbyn's Labour like the Commonwealth forces in the fall of Singapore. Who's to say that the infinitely more political McDonnell couldn't have pulled it off?  Complacency about next time isn't good enough.

2. The more strenuous, and altogether honourable 'passive' approach recognises the grievances - the real ones.  It attacks them via a 'One Nation Conservative' strategy, as announced by Boris on Friday, of Actually Redressing the Grievances; and who knows, he may mean it.  Nothing like draining the swamp to flush out the alligators: and it would be wonderful to be able to rely on this alone, to deal with the disaffection and see off the marxists.

The trouble with this laudable mission is several-fold.  (a) Some longstanding problems take an awful lot of turning around: maybe more than one parliament, given the mighty distractions of Brexit, and a probable recession starting soon.  (b) Some of the grievances are outright spurious, but the contrived 'hurt' is real enough in the eyes of the beholders.  (c) Some problems, notably health and old-age provision get bigger, the more successful you are at dealing with the current manifestations.  Demand will always be one step ahead of supply.  (d) Some problems are unlikely to be solved by anything I've seen in anyone's manifesto.

All in all, a realistic best case would be that in 2024 Johnson's government gets a decent amount of credit for demonstrably trying hard - hopefully with a few tangible quick wins that haven't simply been banked and forgotten.  But everything can always be labelled "too little, too late".  It will be a mighty feat of WW2-style Keynsianism - plus supporting propaganda - to leave a large number of people feeling materially and morally better off in a mere five years.  The BBC cannot be relied upon to do anything constructive towards that end, nor (e.g.) the teachers' unions, nor Labour councils ... etc etc.  That's not even to mention the SNP.

Splendid though it would be to rely on manifest Tory success in addressing the nation's intractable problems for Momentum spontaneously to wither on the vine within five years ... but I wouldn't trust to it myself. 

(Part 3 to come)

ND
________
** In case anyone imagines this is overstating the matter, you don't have to go far to find people writing about preparations to wage the Class War starting on Monday.

Weekend Election Thoughts (1): Momentum

Here's an interesting difference between the two main parties.  If you volunteer to go canvassing for the Tories, you are welcomed with open arms and - frequently with little, or even no 'training' - sent straight out onto the streets with a cheery "have you done this before?"  If you're a first-timer, you might be sent out as part of a little team.  If you self-identify as "experienced", or are just cocky, they'll happily send you out alone. 

So how difficult can it be, to ask "can we count on your support?".  Well.  For those who don't know, the old business of just sticking people down on the list as "pledge", "doubtful" or "other" are long since over.  Since the rise of UKIP, Tory canvassers have supposedly been trying to classify people much more finely, e.g. "Brexit-formerly-Labour".  In theory, they'd get a different personalised letter to the person who was "Brexit-formerly-Cons".  (Just once in a while, there's a local operation sufficiently competent to make use of such subtleties.  In truth, it really only makes sense in official target seats or by-elections of national importance, when central resources are available.)

Oh yes: and we're not to call it "canvassing" any more.  It's "listening".  Now where did that come from?  The answer is - Momentum.  And a very stark contrast they present to what us Tories do

As well as having a bit of an inside perspective on Momentum (it's a long story), I first met these chaps in action on the doorstep in 2017.  A 20-something rang the doorbell, and he probably guessed he was on a sticky wicket because we had a poster in the window.  So that's strange, right from the off: received wisdom is not to waste your time with the other side, there's just too many houses to get round.  But evidently it was all in his brief, because he had a string of well-crafted Q&A scripts, designed to actually engage and probe and, yes, maybe even to convince. 

But there isn't one person in ten thousand who can take on that challenge without (a) training and (b) motivation.  Well, we live in a marginal.  But still: that's impressive.  BTW, he had clearly been bussed in because his local knowledge was rudimentary - though not zero - and soon gave out.  Not so his general intelligence: he was an educated, polite, thoughtful person (and I've encountered more of the same in 2019) and gave no outward signs of rabidity, snowflakery, or cult-grooming.  What he had clearly undertaken was extensive political education (might have been self-taught, of course) - and some very purposeful training: which definitely included the importance of "listening".

Two things about this.  First, there is no serious Tory equivalent of such training - some half-hearted measures at best (like making people call it "listening"!), which are pretty-much lost on confident middle-aged activists who just hit the streets with "can we count on ..." as they always have.  And, frankly, few of our youthful activists (yes, there are quite a lot of them in the Tory ranks these days, itself a big change over the last ten years) could hold a candle to this lot.  We have no Doctrine to steep them in! - because "no Doctrine" is half of our raison d'être.

The second thing is this.  Since 2011, as regular C@W-ers will know, I have been much taken with the concept of a capable new officer-class emerging within the ranks of politically-active, educated, disillusioned 20-somethings.  2011?  The year of the riots, of course, when one of our esteemed BTL-ers ('Anon', if I recall) opined that while the nonsense of that summer was pretty much anarchy, frequently of merely the opportunistic-looting kind (albeit with some Blackberry-based 'organisation'), we ain't seen nothing yet.  Just wait until the leftist bedsit officer-class emerges.

Momentum is a pretty fair candidate to be just that.  Its senior ranks (I can assure you if you don't already know) include some really intelligent people.  They are motivated.  They have stamina.  They are strongly inclined towards a Doctrine, though I'm not sure it's fully formed.  They are utterly hostile to what generally gets called neo-liberalism; though again, that's not a wholly coherent doctrinal stance because by some definitions, I am too.  They have a programme of political education and, up to a point, it's pretty practical in its intentions, if not in its outcomes.  And some of them - what proportion, I know not - are outright revolutionary marxists who believe their time has come.

In ones nightmares, Momentum could be truly formidable.  That's certainly its intention!  And it needs to be taken carefully into the reckoning.

More to come

ND

The Potential Significance is Great

... but only 'potential'.  Johnson's crew must use this astonishing opportunity, to wrench the Overton window into a new position in the multi-dimensional political space.  But this needs to be adroit; it needs to be very determined; and it needs not to be distracted by the inevitable EU negotiating morass (which must also receive full attention).

The aim (to caricature it briefly) must be to force 'reasonable' members of the Momentum tendency - yes, they exist - to give up their recent dreams.  A truly vital task.

Wow.  More over the weekend.  Have at it BTL.

ND

Teflon Boris: Gotta Laugh

From today's Graun:  it's Jonathan Freedland, reporting from a focus group of (former) Labour voters:

... But guess what happened when, at the close, the scrupulously neutral moderator asked this group of past Labour voters who they would back on 12 December. All but one opted for Johnson. The same group that had declared him a liar nevertheless planned, quite cheerfully, to put him back into Downing Street. Why? ...  

The group were asked about [Corbyn] too and, in addition to calling him “indecisive”, “arrogant” and “weak”, three people offered that he too was a “liar” and “untrustworthy”. And yet while they forgave the dishonesty of Johnson, they gave no such leeway to Labour. The offer of free broadband was mocked, along with several other Labour manifesto promises. Jamie, who owns a car repair business, reckoned Labour had sat around asking themselves, “‘Who haven’t we given something to yet? I know, let’s do free dental care’. It’ll be free Pot Noodles for migrants next.” That brought laughter – and agreement. 

Another time I might cite some material from hundred-year old academic studies on Leadership.  The Johnson phenomenon is as old as the hills.

ND

You Write The Script

It seems to be widely agreed** that ol' Brillo-Pad eviscerated Corbo last night.  And he gave the fish-woman a good seeing-to earlier in the week, though I'd say she put up a better fight - actually quite competent given the extremely sticky wicket she was batting on as regards the SNP's record in power and general cred / consistency on Devo & IndyRef2.

We're also told that BoJo must submit himself to the same car-crash experience early next month.  So - what questions is Brillo going to hit him with?  What should he ask?

Answers on a BTL poscard, please.

ND
________
** that said, it wouldn't surprise me if some of the snowflake persuasion didn't view the rogering of Corbo as deeply unfair to poor grandad

They're fleeing already

So went Boris Johnson's first commons address, to much merriment and memes.

However, in these unsettling times, this is now also true of our UK utility companies. Even the BBC has had to pick up on what the Energy and Utility companies are up to.

Having viewed with some displeasure the Labour decision to nationalise their entire sector and not being entirely trusting of the goodwill that will be shown towards their shareholders, they have acted.

National Grid has chosen to open a holding company in the EU. No mistaking here that the EU will not allow such government theft as is planned by Labour so the Grid is hoping EU law will still trump UK law (which of course, under Labour it will, when they remain - odd how events work out).

SS&E have chosen Switzerland where there is an Energy law they think they can take to International Arbitration in Geneva now that they have a Swiss Holding company.

Of course, Labour have reacted with some nonsense about billionaires and evil offshore folk. All very serious as ever. 

Very sensible corporate planning by the Utilities though, much as companies nervous about Brexit have set-up already in the EU.

What it shows yet again is how hot air from Politicians have real world impacts. I have some sympathy with those saying our politics is no good when both sides lie. here is a good example of how real costs - that ultimately will be passed to consumers - are incurred by rash statement from politicians.