A new approach to politics

Please submit any comments - either on this blog - or directly to me at washminster@me.com

Why Owen Smith deserves a close look

The leadership election is on - and Labour Party members and supporters have the opportunity to reflect on the future of the party - and consider which path to take. There are serious decisions to make - and as a Labour Party member for over 40 years, I want to see ideas which will lead to a Labour Government.

Owen Smith has set out his vision - and I invite you to consider his ideas. I welcome any comments.

 
The MP says he will tackle inequality and transform the tax system if he becomes leader of the Labour Party

Owen Smith today sets out bold plans to overhaul the tax system and give workers a pay rise.

The Labour leadership contender ­promised to bring back wage councils to stop greedy bosses exploiting staff.

And he pledged to ­transform the tax system to end the “ballooning” inequality in Britain.

In an interview with the Daily Mirror, Mr Smith also reached out to supporters of Jeremy Corbyn by claiming he would be just as “radical” as the left-wing Labour chief.

He said: “My offer is that in me you have someone just as radical as Jeremy. I will bow to no one in terms of my socialist belief, my heroes are Nye Bevan and Keir Hardie, great Labour titans.

“I will take their legacy forward but communicate to people and give people faith we can do it.” Setting out his stall, the Pontypridd MP pledged plans for a £200billion investment fund to build schools, transport links and hospitals and kick start the economy.

He also wants to rewrite Clause Four – Labour’s defining mission statement – to include a duty to tackle inequality.

At the heart of this will be the reintroduction of wage councils – a forum for bosses, unions, workers and the Government – to agree pay, terms and conditions. Wage councils were set up in the 1930s but the majority were phased out by the Tories in the 1980s and 1990s. The last to go was the Agricultural Wages Board, which was axed in England under David Cameron.

Mr Smith said he fought for Wales to keep its own Agricultural Wages Board and, as a result, farm workers there are now paid 6% more than their equivalents in England.

He continued: “That’s a model we should be thinking about right across our economy.

“I think there’s a real case for re-inventing modern wage councils, operating sector by sector, looking at the specific terms and conditions in individual sectors and arguing for better terms and wages for workers in those sectors.

“They were a brilliant way in which we gave working people a bulwark against employers eroding wages and it was a way in which people could bind together and argue for better terms and conditions.

"I would start with retail and hospitality where so many workers, in particular women, are often working in insecure circumstances on low wages and often on zero hours contracts.

“Other countries have these still, Germany has them, Sweden has them.

“They are very powerful way in which you have an independent debate about the right wage levels and argue in that forum for better terms and conditions.”

The Welsh MP, who has pledged to bring back the 50p tax rate for high earners, also said he would transform the way people are taxed. He added: “We need to go further than that [the 50p higher rate]. We need to ­overhaul our tax system.

“The last Labour government was too timid in looking at taxation – we haven’t had a major overhaul of tax in this country for many, many generations.”

On the current Leader -

“[Jeremy]  left Labour sidelined in the debate. We are not thought of as being a government in waiting. We are not thought of as being a credible government and that is a dereliction of duty on his behalf because we have to be about winning power in order to put our principles and values into practices.”

Mr Smith insisted he could continue carrying Mr Corbyn’s torch of fighting for social justice and economic reform while also being able to “heal the party.”

And in a dig at the Tony Blair and Gordon Brown years, Mr Smith said there would be none of the “nuance and timidity” of recent Labour governments.

He said: “We can’t just say we are anti-austerity, what does it mean to be pro-prosperity? For me that means a Labour government doing traditional Labour things: investing in our communities, investing in public services, investing in the infrastructure we need – schools, hospitals, new roads.

“It’s not rocket science, it’s a traditional Labour platform I am standing on. If we can get back to that without some of the nuance and timidity we have seen in the Labour Party, the managerialism that has held us back from being radical in the past, then we can have a new Labour offer to the country that people would realise is properly Labour but fit for the 21st century.”

What now for Labour?

The Conservatives have a new Prime Minister - who could remain in power until (and beyond?) a General Election in May 2020. She could also engineer an early General Election. Most ministerial posts are now filled - and Parliament is about to head off the summer.

Labour faces a less certain future. Their current leader has lost the confidence of almost 80% of the Parliamentary Labour Party. Opinion polls suggest that he commands the confidence of only a small part of the electorate. An election for the party leadership is now underway.

MPs will meet to put nominations, as Constituency Labour Parties - either have done, or will do in the next few days.

You will have access to many opinions and news stories in the coming days. I will happily share my views with you - and my reasons. But today I want to street something that is often overlooked.

The value of looking at history - 

No leader of ANY political party has had an easy time of leading their party. I've heard many friends in the Labour Party wish that we could return to the days when leaders could command the support of all members of the parliamentary party. Those days NEVER existed. Attlee had to manage conflicting egos (and boy were some of those huge - Bevin, Bevan, Morrison, Cripps - to name just a few) and very different policy preferences during his premiership. Wilson was a skilled operator, but his ability to manage was severely tested. Callaghan struggled (and he was a very skilled operator!) with a fractious party and a majority that disappeared. Blair and Brown faced rebellions from the very start of their premierships. They could all describe their challenges - in fact they have. We have a wealth of Prime Ministerial and ministerial memoirs and diaries. If nothing else is to be gained from reading these, we can at least begin to appreciate the extraordinary skills demanded of anyone who hopes to lead the main Opposition party; or to be Prime Minister.

No one can please all the people, all of the time. But to step into Downing Street as Prime Minister requires that the party leader can enthuse sufficient people to vote for their party. If Labour want to take power - and have the opportunity to fulfil their manifesto promises - they must win 13 million votes. That means appealing to a wide range of views. There are detailed election studies showing what attracted and what repealed voters. A study of those can be useful.

The Lords

As employers (and employees) have known down the centuries - job security enhances independence. This also applies to the House of Lords. There's no de-selection if a Peer speaks his or her mind - upsetting the party hierarchy. As a result the House of Lords is harder to manage - and questions can be direct and embarrassing, especially for the Government. There are a number of progressive peers - and they are ACTIVE.

The full business for this week can be found on the parliamentary website - www.parliament.uk but I'd like to highlight some matters which will be coming up.

Today, in the 30 minutes of oral questions - subjects relevant to my home city of Milton Keynes come up. One is about continuing the centuries old practice of printing master copies of Acts of Parliament on vellum. This is done in Newport Pagnell. The other question concerns when the Government can terminate a rail franchise where it has failed to provide the service required. This is about Southern Railway - which used to provide a service through west London onto Croydon from Milton Keynes.

Tomorrow a question will be put by Lord Roberts of Llandudno about how the government intends to fulfill its promise to accept 20,000 refugees from Syria by 2020.

On Wednesday Lord McKenzie of Luton will ask how the government intends "to address the causes of the increase in the number of council tenants in receipt of Universal Credit who are in rent arrears"

Thursday will see a debate on the case for tackling the causes of poverty in the UK.

The Investigatory Powers Bill will be considered in Committee (of the whole House) today and on Wednesday

Action REQUIRED

What do the findings of the Chilcot Inquiry and the current post-Brexit mess that we are in have In common?

They reveal that the structure of institutions and safeguards against the abuse - and failings in the use of - power in this country are inadequate. We can blame individuals - and should do so - but our Constitutional structure has proved sadly lacking.

I have been putting forward the following thesis for all of my political and academic life - but please bear with me - I believe it has merit, and relevance.

Lord Acton highlighted that "Power tends to corrupt, absolute power corrupts absolutely". Our Constitution addressed that final point in The 17th Century. It is the undeniable truth of the first phrase which demands that adequate "checks and balances" are built into the Constitutional structure of any State. The convention which led to the US Constitution discussed methods of doing that. Our checks and balances arose in response to particular events - have been moderately useful - but are now clearly not up to the job. "Conventions" - in the British constitutional sense of "non-legally binding principles, which Constitutional actors REGARD as binding on them" are not enough. In the lead-up to the Iraq War - and before and after the Brexit referendum - there were insufficient constraints - or guidance - for key politicians. Chilcot is scathing about how the system allowed Decisions and Policy to be made without proper control from other parts of the System. Brexit shows that fears of the 'tyranny of the Majority' have not been properly addressed, and that the conflicting ideas of Parliamentary and Popular Sovereignty have not been resolved. In Our current constitutional crisis, we are essentially "making it up as we go along."

We need clearer principles - and checks & balances which are useful. How are Rights to be protected if a referendum can be effectively binding, on the basis of a bare, perhaps even a challenged threadbare majority which doesn't even enjoy the support of half the country? A "super-majority" threshold could address that issue. Binding only if a proposition changing the Constitutional settlement gets the support of a set percentage (and we should debate the figure - not too high to make change practically impossible, but not too low that a minority turning out could impose their will on the rest of us). Scrutiny of decision making - be it by other members of Cabinet, or through Parliamentary committees, or external review needs to be CENTRAL to Our Constitutional structure, and not developed as ad-hoc responses to events. The Media can - and does - play a role in not allowing claims made in an election or referendum to go unchallenged - but I certainly feel some sections of Our Media played a disgraceful role in spreading untruths - or gave demonstrably untrue assertions of fact equal weighting with arguments backed by evidence.

We have come a long way in recent years - but as this month has shown, not far enough.

Revolution!

A happy Independence Day to all our friends from the USA. To celebrate the day the text of the Declaration is set out below - it's always worth reading and reflecting on - because it is founded on so many important ideas - which remain important today.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.--Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.
He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.
He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. 
He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. 
He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.
He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.
He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.
He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.
He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.
He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance.
He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures.
He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.
He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:
For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: 
For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences
For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.
He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.
He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. 
He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.
He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. 
He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

The Paranoid Style

In the 1950s and 60s, an historian called Richard Hofstadter wrote a number of essays, which included "The Paranoid Syle in American Politics". It was a response to the McCarthyite hysteria and the rise of the (then - sadly not by today's standards) extreme conservatism of Barry Goldwater. It's an interesting book for all students of American history and politics.

Sometimes we Brits are amazed by the crazy things that go on in the States. Honestly - Donald Trump as the Republican candidate for the Presidency?????

But this book describes a phenomenon which we are now seeing in the UK. I heard some really weird conspiracy theories aired in the EU Referendum. It's been reported that some voters were taking pens to the polling stations as the pencils were provided so that inconvenient votes could be rubbed out if they weren't what "the authorities" wanted.

And some of the tweets and Facebook postings that I've seen - in the debate about the Labour leadership are unbelievable - this appeared in one comment that appeared on my Facebook feed

"....Especially, the amount of corrupted councillors and MP's who are associated with the Bilderberg group, free mason etc. And the links of this labour party has with Bilderberg group and the back handers it's getting from elite and the filthy rich to manipulate governments to their own advantages."

and lots of other comments have been made suggesting international conspiracies by sinister forces.

I would encourage you to read this excellent book - it is both a history and exposer of the tactics - powerful tactics - that exploit fear. We need to consider how to respond to this rising tide of fear-mongering.