Left and Right

This a longer response to what I believe is a wrong view of Left and Right outlined by Christopher Hitchens. He seems to believe that radicalism equates to the left and conservatism to the right. I believe this is wrong and that there are radical and conservatives on the left and right.

The French Revolutionary origins of the left, right division could lead you to Hitchens view but as politics has changed a more generalised view is more appropriate. My definition reaches back to what I believe is a fundamental conflict in humans between the needs of the individual versus the needs of the group. In modern times this is often characterised in economic terms as public versus private.


So I see the left as biased towards collective action over individual action and the right as biased the other way. The centre ground is then the perfect balance between the two. In modern politics I assume most see themselves as perfect, evidence based centrists and from there the centre right have a bias toward the private sector in the absence of sufficient evidence and the centre left have a bias toward public sector solutions. The left and hard left would then be those that prefer public solutions in spite of evidence and the right likewise.

On social issues it might be assumed that the right would take a more libertarian view, allowing individuals to decide their own lives and the left in contrast would seek collective control over the individual. What has happened in practice is that individuals on the right seek to impose their world view on others where on the left collective strength allows individuals to express themselves.

Left and right is sometimes characterised as a battle between inequality and equality, but I just don’t see it in this way. Certainly on the right I see a greater pessimism about what is achievable but I don’t believe those on the centre right are really looking to deliberately create misery so the rich can prosper.  Although there are some on the right that believe that inequality is natural and right, and some on the left believe that equality is a goal in itself.

So I find myself on the left because I have a bias toward collective, state intervention when I can’t see clear evidence of the best way forward. In the words of Liz Kendall “what matters is what works”. On social issues I am definitely a Libertarian, believing what people do is there own business as far as it has no direct impact on others. On equality and distribution of wealth I seek to maximise our collective potential, and to prevent the powerful from inhibiting the weak.

On the issue of conservative versus radical I certainly lean toward the radical. I view conservatives as against the natural order, which is change. The danger of radicalism is to lose what matters before we realise its importance. Inevitably a steady mix of forward movement followed by static reflection and course correction is the best way forward, but I don’t see that as essentially left wing.

Labour Leadership Contest

The first thing I noticed about the Labour leadership contest is the way people chose their candidates either on the basis of who they believed could win and election or who they thought best represented their views. Given how the process has gone its seems pretty clear that none of the candidates are likely to win in 2020 barring a self inflicted catastrophe for the Tories.

Having looked at the electorate I don’t think it will be enough to win back UKIP, Green and SNP votes alongside bringing in non-voters. I think it will be essential to encourage current Tory voters to switch to Labour and that is a very complex balance of appeal.

Before deciding how to vote I feel I need to take a positive view of the candidates, but also be realistic about how they will fare in front of the electorate. It’s worth noting at this point that the leadership election process is fundamentally flawed. All political parties have to be aware that their membership is not representative of the electorate, and will inevitably be more extreme in their views. For this reason I think the Tory method of allowing the MPs to select two candidates to put before the members is the best way of finding a leader than has the backing of the party and can appeal to the wider electorate.


Andy Burnham
In the polls he often performs best, but I can’t get past his constant flip flopping, I’ve seen him contradict himself within a sentence. It’s possible that the electorate will like his sincerity and he will be able to be all things to all people, but I can’t believe his constant contradictions will survive the scrutiny of a general election.

Yvette Cooper
For many years she has had a problem of fence sitting, and she certainly started this election quietly and uncommitted. Lately she is starting to take a position and is looking more positive. She has also been strongest in defending the last Labour government and still wanting to move forward.

Jeremy Corbyn
I find most of his critics to be deliberately obtuse when finding faults. Equally he and his supporters are too naive in understanding how the communication of ideas works in a general election. As an old leftie I can’t disagree with his general principals, but the point is there are many methods to reach those goals and a leader has to find a path to power to implement them. Corbyn simply does not convince as many of the electorate as his supporters would like to believe, he may energise the Labour heartlands, bringing good majorities when Labour win a seat, but he will not win the number of seats required. Overall I am disappointed with the lack of original or radical ideas, he is able to articulate faults without bringing forward the practical steps to fix them. He is in the end a natural for opposition.

Liz Kendall
Liz got off to a good start amongst the media commentators, but none of that has translated to the public or the Labour membership. I have found her to be brave and radical but unable to sustain enthusiasm for the length of the campaign.


Overall I have to favour Yvette Cooper, as she is the only one for me with the intelligence and stamina to survive a full election. I’m not convinced she can win, but it's still early and I remain optimistic as I think she will grow once she has the authority of leadership. If Corbyn does win then I can at least take solace in the idea that he will shift the centre of the debate forcing the Tories to move to the left again.

The Frustration Of The Left

Reading this article I had a few thoughts.


The Iraq War showed the power of the state, how much power can be deployed when everyone joins together. The aftermath too showed how much the state was needed. Those on the right thought that having deployed the might of the state to destroy Iraq that private enterprise was the best agent to restore Iraq, that argument was also left destroyed.

From the eighties onwards the state withdrew from its command and control extremes and in its place left private enterprise to take care of itself and the voters as much as possible. As we turned in to the new century it was becoming clear that something was out of control, that inequalities and imbalances where on the rise. When the crash came it was once again clear that the state did have a stronger role to play, that unrestrained extreme wealth was a danger to the well being of the majority.

These two lines of thought confirmed to the left the serious failings of the right, and the assumption was that this would be clear to all and left wing governments would become the norm.

They misunderstood one crucial point, when the public are most threatened they vote most selfishly and that means they lean to the individualism of the right. Only when the left can offer hope for the future, a guarantee that the majority will not just be protected but actually have their life improved, only then will they be able to govern.

Did Labour Spend Too Much?

The repeated question on former spending to Labour leadership and deputy leadership contenders has never been well answered. After some thought I will attempt my own.

The quick answer is “Yes”; the economic textbooks will tell you that we should have been in surplus at that stage of the cycle, just as the economic textbooks will tell you that the economic conditions required a fiscal stimulus in 2010. But I question the assumptions implicit in the question, it implies Labour is not to be trusted on the economy, but consider that George Osborne wanted to match Labour’s spending, and nobody at the time was suggesting it was out of control. Then consider how George Osborne has delivered one of the worst recoveries in history, far more in defiance of textbooks and damaging to the economy than anything Labour has done.

It’s also worth making another point about the deficit and spending. A deficit is the difference between revenue and expenditure, so it is just as valid to ask if we should have been taxing more to reduce the deficit, and of course the merits of taxes and spending depend on their effect on the economy as a whole and without a detailed examination of the GDP effect of each policy it’s a bit pointless to discuss if we spent too much.

Looking to 2020

What I'm looking for from the next five years, all measures adjusted for inflation:

Disposable income to rise (NNDI)

Median income to rise and the difference from Mean income reduced

House prices and rents to fall.

Employment rates to rise.

The economists are warning about the fall in productivity and increase in the current account deficit, neither of which have had much attention in this election.

The above were written before the result but are independant of it. The following are my concerns now a Tory government has won.

Leaving the EU 

Driving the Scots towards Independance

The rise of English nationalism.

Irish Referendum

It was very sad to see the negative comments from the Vatican after the Irish Marriage vote. This is what I think a Christian Church should be saying:

We welcome the result of the referendum and rejoice in the joy and peace of mind that so many gay couples will now enjoy. Opponents of these marriage proposals must remember that this was a state referendum, for state laws, and not a referendum on the Church or our religious marriage. The state had a duty to protect its citizens within the law and must now extend the legal union of marriage to gay couples.

Opponents of this referendum must also reflect on the Churches teachings, and consider the many troubles the world has and show compassion to those that find love outside of the Church.

Why I'm Voting Labour

Summary

I will be voting Labour, not because I am enthusiastic supporter nor because I see them as the lesser of two evils. I see the choice as between the imperfect and the wrong. Labour are scarred by the disappointments of their years in office, but after five years of the Conservatives we are sharply reminded of the deceit and damage they bring. I see Labour under Miliband as unlovable but pointing at the right problems. Their solutions are sometimes wrong and often insufficient but broadly they are working on the right areas. The Conservatives, particularly George Osborne, are deceitful about what is happening, what they’ve done and what they will do next. I don’t doubt David Cameron’s sincerity but he’s not in control of his team and doesn’t understand the impact of their policies.
http://blogs.channel4.com/factcheck/factcheck-camerons-broken-promises/20429

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/governments-reorganisation-of-the-nhs-was-its-biggest-mistake-say-senior-tories-9790247.html

The Economy

Consider the economy, floored by the banking crisis, and as it got to its feet Osborne came along and put his foot firmly on its throat for two years. When he eventually loosened the pressure the economy started to get back to its feet and now Osborne has the audacity to claim himself a miracle worker, a healer.

An election must always focus on the economy, it’s the basis of all other policy decisions. The Tories are promising, yes promising, more cuts. Having presided over the worst recovery in modern history thanks to their economically illiterate austerity, they haven’t finished with the pain. Osborne likes to pretend that the economy is in great shape thanks to the the current growth, but let’s put that into perspective.

We had a financial disaster on Labour’s watch, so the Tories try to pretend it wouldn’t have happened with them. They pretend it was Labour’s spending, yet at the time it was so bad they agreed to match it. We know that the real cause was lax regulation, but there is surely no one that thinks the Tories would have introduced tougher regulation. After the recession we had a recovery under way, but when Osborne got in control his austerity plan killed it, only when he switched to plan B did recovery begin again.

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2013/09/what-osborne-wont-admit-growth-has-increased-because-slower-cuts

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/osbornes-plan-b.html

http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/disaster.html

http://www.niesr.ac.uk/blog/recessions-and-recoveries-historical-perspective-updated-april-9-2013#.VRe09VyiVUR

http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/britain-has-taken-longer-to-recover-from-recession-than-at-any-time-since-the-south-sea-bubble-9645218.html

http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/01/worst-recovery-in-history-british-gdp-shrinks-by-0-3-per-cent/

http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/austerity-past-present-and-future/

We still haven’t got the economy back to where it was before the crash with Real GDP per capita still below its peak and household disposable income only just recovering with a helping hand from oil prices drops.

http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/household-incomes-to-grow-steadily-next-year-but-full-recovery-not-expected-until-early-2016/

The only good news for the Tories are the job numbers, but even this has a dark side due to the poor productivity. If they want to claim they caused the high employment rate then they are admitting they caused poor productivity.
http://mainlymacro.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/why-strong-uk-employment-growth-could.html

There is also the much discussed quality of available work, with underemployment being a real problem for many.
https://www.tuc.org.uk/economic-issues/labour-market/record-number-people-are-looking-extra-hours-top-their-wages


Discussion of the deficit always focusses on the cuts, but a deficit is the difference between income and spending, why don’t we discuss how to invest in the economy so that it grows and the government can increase its income? Austerity is like a shop keeper who stops putting stock on the shelves because it costs money. Austerity is like a worker, faced with rising commuting costs, stops going to work to save money.

Welfare

This is a huge area of deceit, with the government pretending that all welfare is scrounging. Leaving aside the crucial argument of the economic benefits of insurance against temporary loss of income, let me first concentrate on what they say is welfare and what it isn’t.

Pensions are a huge part of government described welfare, and unless they plan to cut pensions or have a radical plan for stopping people getting old this cost is going up.

The actual amount that goes to people who don’t work is a few percent of the total. Far more goes to people who are working, in effect this is corporate welfare for employers not employees and is used to offset the declining income workers.

Housing benefit is another source of benefit described as scrounging, but is actual a welfare payment to wealthy amateur landlords. This payment is not used by the tenants, and highlights the dysfunctional housing market.

The final, large part of welfare covers health, care and family support. All can be discussed in terms of relevance or cost, but to cut them under the guise of cutting off scroungers is shameful.

Housing

The rise of house prices was the facilitator for the private debt that fed the banking crisis. With the decline of incomes families used housing backed debt to cover their spending gap. As more houses became unaffordable the rental sector expands, but with no social housing from local governments the only option is a private market backed by housing benefits. The next government needs to restore the idea that housing is for homes not for profiteering.

Local councils need to be allowed to raise money to build homes for rent as a control against rising private rents. Taking steps to reduce the profitability of buy to let will also take the steam out of the housing market. Ultimately a government should ensure that house price rises don’t go above income rises.

NHS

No top down reorganisation was promised but then it came anyway because Cameron didn’t understand what was happening.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/governments-reorganisation-of-the-nhs-was-its-biggest-mistake-say-senior-tories-9790247.html

The Tories initially promised to not cut the spending, but with inflation and an ageing population costs will not stay still, so the NHS will be cut further. In the last few days they claim they will fill the funding gaps, but the detail of the policy looks like a political gamble rather than a plan.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election-2015-32260220

With more dogma driven privatisation like the calamitous Hinchingbrooke contract, where even failure is not a bar to future contracts. Privatisation creates monopolies for the successful business with a transfer of funds to the bonuses of executives who only know how to cut costs by cutting wages and staff.

Election Calculations

Election Calculations

My basic assumptions based on extensive polling reports are that the Conservatives will be the party with the most seats but the “Tory Bloc” will have less seats than the “Labour Bloc”.

The changes needed to move this on election day are, firstly small party voters in a marginal seat switching to a main party. Secondly private Tories, those that support other parties publicly but always switch to a Tory vote. In Scotland there is expected to be an equivalent private Labour voter, who claim to support SNP in public but will vote Labour. Finally a high turnout amongst young voters will likely favour Labour.


The maths and the risks
Life will be simpler if David Cameron resigns immediately and allows Ed Miliband to form a minority government, but I don’t see the Tories giving up so easily. Without any deals Labour could expect to pass most bills, but the Tories could only pass bills via an explicit deal with the SNP.

The danger for Labour is using the “Labour Bloc” superior seat numbers to remove David Cameron in a no confidence vote if they have less actual votes in their “Bloc”. The Tories will use this to talk up a coup, and it will probably be very politically damaging to Labour. e.g.
Conservative > 35%
Labour+SNP < 35%

It’s possible and perhaps likely that the Liberal Democrats won’t form a Tory coalition again, but probably will agree to support the Tories in a no confidence vote. e.g.
Conservative + Liberal Democrat + others > 58% of votes
Labour + SNP + others < 42% of votes

In these circumstances I think Labour can vote against bills put forward by the government but abstain on a no confidence vote.

Therefore I believe Labour will be hoping to gain enough votes, not just enough seats, to secure a period in government. Whoever you vote for this time, regardless of it’s impact in your constituency, will have an impact on Government.

How can Labour say it didn't crash the economy

My comment on How can Labour say it didn't crash the economy


If I were Miliband my reply would be:
Yes we were in power but the public needs to understand that the if the Tories were in power then they would have mismanaged the economy just have they have now. They like to portray the cause as out of control spending, but this was spending they agreed to match. The real cause of the crisis was a poorly regulated financial sector, and everyone and their dog knows that the Tories would be softer on bankers, lighter on regulation, and the crash would have been far worse.
Now you can argue we didn't get enough for our money from the bailout, but the way the Tories dithered and doubted about the bailout could have caused a complete failure in the banking system. After the election we handed them a recovery, which they squandered on an ecomically illiterate policy of austerity. They  damaged the economy and our standard of living so badly in those first few years they have only just got the back to the position they inherited. Now they proudly promise to repeat the disaster.

Krugman: A Game of Chicken

Nice summary of the Greek problem.


"Like all too many crises, the new Greek crisis stems, ultimately, from political pandering. It's the kind of thing that happens when politicians tell voters what they want to hear, make promises that can't be fulfilled, and then can't bring themselves to face reality and make the hard choices they've been pretending can be avoided.
I am, of course, talking about Angela Merkel, the German chancellor, and her colleagues."

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/06/opinion/a-game-of-chicken.html

Free Speech

Free speech, we know, means being free to say what we like, but it also means being free to say what we don't like. It also means being free to not say things we could say. This means I am free to argue that somebody shouldn't say something I don't like, and I would like them to choose not to say it, but it doesn't mean that I can stop them saying it. On the other hand, if I'm saying something that others don't like, I can stop saying it even if I think it's right but nobody should be able to stop me. Free speech also allows me to say things that aren't true, including things I know aren't true. The only limit  is when what we say can cause harm, but what harm is and what causes it are not clear cut, but we should be free to debate it.