5 tests for Brexit

Yesterday, in a style oddly reminiscent of Gordon Brown, Prime Minister Theresa May set out five tests for a Brexit deal:

  1. It must respect the referendum result.
  2. It must be a lasting accord.
  3. It must protect jobs and security.
  4. It must be “consistent with the type of country we want to be as we leave: a modern, open, outward-looking, tolerant European democracy”.
  5. It must strengthen “our union of our nations and our people”.

 

Here are the tests she should have set (with thanks to Sam Lowe @SamuelMarcLowe):

  1. Does it keep the Irish border invisible?
  2. Does it leave us better off, or worse off, than if we had remained?
  3. Does it strengthen, or weaken, our international standing?
  4. Does it leave people free to work and live where they like across a continent?
  5. Does it fix the problems we face?

 

Cameron’s Conference Speech: One Nation Misdirection

My reaction to Cameron’s speech to the Conservative Party Conference, 2015, for Independent Voices.

Independent Voices

In case the link expires, text below.

David Cameron, in his first conference as leader of a majority Tory government, just gave a speech which could have been delivered by Tony Blair.

He launched “an all-out assault on poverty”. He bemoaned the impossibility of “true opportunity” without meaningful equality. He berated our woeful record on social mobility. The incapacity of our justice system to rehabilitate. And of course the inability of a whole generation to get on the property ladder.

The BBC’s Political Editor, Laura Kuenssberg, took to the airwaves excitedly to report that Cameron had driven the Tory tanks right across Labour’s lawn.

Twitter went all a-giddy with #HeirToBlair hashtags and reminders that Cameron’s exit song, Don’t Stop Thinking About The Future, was Clinton’s in ’92.

But there is no chance of Cameron delivering on his rhetoric. The imminent removal of tax credits (not remotely compensated for by a ‘living wage’ down the line) is an assault not on poverty, but on the working poor.

Judging from her chilling, old-school speech to Conference yesterday, Theresa May’s new Immigration Bill will not be a pretty sight. The chances of Blairite centrism there, if you’ll forgive the paraphrasing, are “at best, close to zero”.

Ian Duncan Smith “welcomes” food banks, which is just as well because his government has presided over a dramatic rise in their use. Nothing Blairite there, either. And as for the heartlessness of Atos and incapacity benefit, it would have been funny if it hadn’t so often been tragic. Atos staff had to be equipped with panic buttons, so dreadful was their work. Is the new Atos, American outfit Maximus, suddenly going to go all cuddly under a Tory majority government? Don’t hold your breath.

And the idea that this administration, with its out-of-the-ark ideas like Right To Buy 2.0, will succeed where every recent government has failed, and actually make headway on housebuilding, is, frankly, laughable.

No. These are politicians who may talk centre, or even centre-left, but who deliver right, or even far-right.

So what’s going on? When Cameron talks his One Nation talk, is he deluding himself, or is he dissembling?

His delivery is such that the former explanation is credible. To hear him is to believe him. He seems really to think he’s a One Nation “modern” Tory. The guy who, for example, pushed through gay marriage. It is tempting to think of Cameron as a decent chap struggling to wrangle – and front – an unruly and hard-hearted right. Heroically dragging them into the centre for their own and our country’s good. One Twitter commentator felt that Cameron’s speech was as much a sell to his own right wing as it was to centrist voters. On this reading, Cameron is not so much lying about moving his party into the “common” ground, as hoping.

Could be. But step away from the charming, plausible delivery – mute the speech and just think about the big picture, just see the man talking – and the well-meaning interpretation seems the less likely of the two.

Cameron is a smart man, a First-in-PPE man. He is a consummate politician. And just because his government no longer enjoys the fig-leaf of the LibDems, it doesn’t mean that he and Osborne have not learnt the political lessons forced on them by coalition.

What they did in the last Parliament was genius. Squeezing the pips out of the working poor? Confuse debate with a promise to raise the tax threshold to £10k “benefiting everyone” (but not, in fact, the poorest 10%). Whacking up tuition fees? Confuse debate with an improved deal for the very poorest students. In this Parliament, it continues. Hammering the tax credits of the working poor? Confuse debate with a living wage which in no way plugs the gap.

In this sense, the One Nation rhetoric serves a purpose once achieved by sops (apparent or real) to the Tories’ coalition partners. It diverts attention away from harsh truths. It dilutes headlines and ruins sound-bites. It drowns regressive policy in progressive noise. It is a magician’s hand, waving here, waving here – so that we don’t look there.

It doesn’t just impair clear-sightedness about the actual policies. The Blairite rhetoric hurts Labour by pushing it further to the left as it seeks to differentiate itself. We know that it has been a favourite ploy of Cameron and Osborne for a while now to try and force Labour to choose between endorsing Conservative policy, and opposing it and shifting further and further left; the Tories win in either event. (The recent failure of Labour under Harriet Harman to oppose welfare reforms being a classic example.) These modern Tories are nothing if not master tacticians.

Better still, the rhetoric of compassion gives the Tory heartland something to feel good about. If their fiscal and social instincts are hard-nosed, they are nevertheless people who want to feel their underlying motivations are just. Their medicine may be bitter, but it is because (sometimes at least) they genuinely think that a smaller state, and the individualism that goes alongside it, will produce a happier, wealthier society. A Prime Minister who can help them to feel good about their faith, who can help them to rebrand mean-spiritedness as greater-good generosity… that’s a Prime Minister who deserves a two-minute standing ovation.

As the curtain closes on #CPC15, delegates can go home safe in the knowledge that the policies which their leader’s rhetoric entails are never going to transpire. There is nothing but steel in the men and women standing behind Cameron. There will be no woolly-minded Blairism from May or Duncan Smith or Gove or Nicky Morgan – and certainly not from Osborne.

The true legislative agenda – and the in-government track record – is protected behind smoke and mirrors. Labour is pushed into a corner. And Conference’s conscience is absolved by the soft, centrist, hug-a-gay-British-muslim words of their front man.

The Prime Minister would have us believe the future is a great British take-off. Others may fear his rhetorical stroll in the centre ground is nothing but One Nation Misdirection.

Either way, the party faithful will sleep well in their beds tonight.

Recent Tragic Misrepresentation of the Human Rights Act

Our legal system is broken. It’s been messed up by those meddlesome Europeans and do-gooders who want to give rights to criminals, instead of punishing them.  Our system needs the Tories to knock some sense back into it, by sending Europe, and its silly conventions, back where they came from.

NickyMorganMP

So they want us to believe.

But is there some truth to it?

Well if the case quoted today is the best example of the failings of the Human Rights Act, I guess not.

Nicky Morgan MP, Secretary of State for Education, graduate in Jurisprudence of St Hugh’s College, Oxford and former corporate lawyer, discussed the issue on Radio 4’s “World at One” this lunchtime.

Asked if she supported leaving the European Convention on Human Rights, she answered as follows:

Well, I support getting some sense back into the way that the human rights legislation is applied in this country. An example that was given today… people who have committed terrible crimes… I think we’ve seen the coverage of a recent tragic case where a young girl was knocked down and then because it took so long to come to court, at that point the man was able to plead “right to family life”.
Well what about the right to the family life of the parents who lost their young daughter? And that’s the sort of thing that I think people want to see – we’ve made a clear manifesto commitment….”

She didn’t mention names, but the only case I can find which fits her description is the one of Aso Mohammed Ibrahim, an immigrant who ran down a girl, Amy Houston, while driving illegally in 2003. Not exactly ‘recent’, but there you go.

More here.

It is an appalling story. Ibrahim ran away from the scene, leaving Amy for dead under his car. She died later in hospital. Your heart has to go out to Amy and her family.

But Ibrahim didn’t get away with it. It didn’t “take so long to come to court”.

Ibrahim was prosecuted and served a prison term for his crimes. (It wasn’t a particularly long term, but that’s good old home-grown British law for you; no one is suggesting the HRA had any bearing on his punishment.)

He was prosecuted, he was convicted, he was punished.

But the father of Amy Houston campaigned for Ibrahim to be deported. Here the HRA did make a difference: it helped Ibrahim fight deportation under Article 8 (the ‘family life’ bit) because he had two children in the UK. But he had already been tried, punished and served his sentence. Deportation was not part of his punishment. The HRA had no bearing on his punishment.

But if you heard Nicky Morgan on the radio today, telling her story unchallenged, you’d think otherwise.

You’d think this was a recent case.

You’d think Ibrahim got off scot-free, all because of the Human Rights Act.

You’d think he was never prosecuted, or found guilty, or punished.

You would want the HRA taken out and shot.

Your blood would be boiling in exactly the way Tory scaremongers like Nicky Morgan want it to boil.

And let’s be candid: you’d be believing a bogus story about the Human Rights Act, told by a lawyer and Secretary of State.

A story so bogus as to be little short of a lie.

 

UK residents: you can hear the BBC interview here, at 17 minutes in.

P.S.
There’s a pattern in the way politicians are using phoney “commonsense arguments” to try to undermine things they don’t like, whilst covering up their genuine reasons and intent. A similar strategy is being deployed in the current attack on the BBC’s licence fee – see my take here.

Labour’s message on the economy

I’m a Labour supporter.  But Labour’s message on the economy is unclear.

Ed Balls is today saying he’s written to his would-be cabinet colleagues to warn them that their departments will face cuts every year until Labour fulfils its promise to eliminate the deficit.

And yet, since the Autumn Statement, Ed has been denouncing the Tory spending plans as unworkable, dishonest and ‘colossal’.  A return to the 1930s.  A country you wouldn’t want to live in.

In short, Labour wants to appear as determined as the Tories to eliminate deficit, whilst branding Tory cuts as ‘extreme’.

This is not an illogical position.  With growth (and more tax receipts) the deficit can be reduced with less harsh cuts.  Securing growth is, and always has been, the issue.

I prefer centre-left thinking on this, because the Tories are dogmatic in their focus on the supply side, and the supply side can push us out of recession the same way pushing a dog through a cat-flap by its tail works: not at all.  We need pounds-in-pockets demand in our economy before any right-minded investor will invest, and supply-side efficiencies cut demand rather than stimulating it.

But that is too complex to explain.  So meanwhile the broad messaging needs to be clearer.  At the moment it comes across as, “We are as brutal as them on the deficit – but they are wild-eyed extremists.”

That’s as clear as mud.  In a game where clarity is all.