Fool’s Choice?

So here we go again. And an even worse line up than 2017.

Corbyn’s gone from a career high point — the only Labour leader since Michael Foot who could conceivably have lost to Theresa May — to being a demonstrably divisive and intransigent leader, failing to either gain political capital or even hold his party together in the face of easily the worst government in my living memory.

The Tories have become that parody, banishing all last vestiges of moderation and competence from their ranks, whilst the Liberal Democrats, usually the most balanced of the lot, have sought redemption from their tuition fees debacle in a one policy fanaticism to rival only the Brexit Party.

This is a particularly difficult election to vote in, and not just because of the logistics of getting my ballot into a box from the other side of Europe. There are a couple of exceptional factors this time:

Brexit

Obviously, has fucked everything up.

As much as I hate the idea, the pain has become less about the impact of leaving and more on what the debate has done to the country.

As appealing as the idea of simply revoking Article 50 may be, and if the Lib Dems actually win a majority there would be some democratic legitimacy to it, I am deeply uncomfortable about telling 52% of the population to crawl back into their hole, shut up and do what they’re told because they are too stupid to know what’s best for them.

A second referendum sends that message, one without No Deal on the paper even more so. Politics should not be winner takes all. Democracy is a compromise; if we all agreed it would be redundant. The beauty of a soft Brexit is in the fact that it isn’t what anyone wanted.

The problem, for me, is that the Tories are the only ones potentially offering that without another referendum to deepen our wounds, but the rest of their package is weak, to say the least.

So, do I ignore Brexit… or everything else?

Boris

I deplore tactical voting; I want to endorse something positive and have written before how I’d rather cross the Conservative box than cast for those with nothing more to their ideals than just not being Tories. I don’t need other people to define the scope of my vote and resent those that try.

I long ago abandoned voting on personality too because, basically, I don’t trust any of them.

But is Boris worth voting against? He’s been an absolute disaster so far in his basic contempt for parliament and that, in turn, has lowered the bar on what other’s think they can get away with under the guise of not trusting him — I’m impressed how certain people are of the long-term agenda of this unprincipled political chancer, who’ll do anything to stay in power. So, if I vote for Corbyn, what do I get?

The Manifestos

Labour’s is the densest, most detailed (and only one that’s been proof read!) of the four I’ve studied, but the Tories have the advantage of cheerleading how great we’re doing, instead of focusing on the mounting injustices in society. For the casual reader, with a certain opinion of the EU, it is far more optimistic, all about releasing potential and be freed from our bonds, most of which is, of course, nonsense. I did chuckle at the line, on building environmentally friendly homes, that they “will expect all new streets to be lined with trees”, but it really isn’t funny. No mention of closing the 5-week benefits gap on Universal Credit roll out and, despite claims to the contrary, child poverty is expected to rise in the next term, should they win.

There are the occasional digs at Corbyn and McDonnell but they feel like asides, Labour is very clear on who’s fault everything is — the Lib Dems were the worst, feeling the need to slag off both major parties on every policy point, whereas the Greens managed, for the most part, to just champion their own ideas, which was really refreshing.

If the Blue Book of Boris was characteristically airy, then Labour’s manifesto aimed equally to reflect its leader’s seriousness and self-belief.

After four years of claiming to be radical, without the policies to back that up, they have been freed from fighting a rear-guard against austerity and can offer the investment and social programme this country badly needs.

They are very strong on the environment, especially in costing inaction into policy decisions, plus everything else you’ll have heard about in the news: health funding, schools, child care, infrastructure. I am surprised that, having been a “government in waiting” for two and a half years now, they don’t know what they are doing with Universal Credit yet, but at least they’ll plug the gaps in payments while they think about it. At least, at last, they look prepared to put some serious money into it.

I have some reservations around employment policies: why ban zero-hour contracts? No one was ever helped by having their options restricted. In-work poverty and wage slavery are a massive problem, so we need to create better jobs, as Labour are already pledging to do, and a benefit system that empowers the employee to choose.

It often feels, with Corbyn, that nationalisation (which I’ll come to) and unionisation are some magic, fix-all solutions, in the way that deregulation might be for a Tory. That it’s a zero-sum game; if business is strong then the worker must be weak, applying 19th century solutions to 21st century problems. So, I am wary of how often he defers to the unions, not just in the workplace but in the Sustainable Investment Board, Development Banks and even establishing an enquiry into ‘fake news’ — at least the Tories had the good sense not to start every section with “the banks want us to…”, or “Business demands…”.

Although revoking the Trade Union Act 2016 makes a mockery of claims to put the power back in the hands of the worker — how does reducing the democratic accountability of unions help its members? — he’s left room for moderation. Let’s not get into a situation like France or Italy, where youth unemployment is more than twice our level, because firms can’t make people redundant. For now, I’ll tentatively give him the benefit of the doubt on this one.

However…

Me My Mine

Corbyn’s first policy on becoming leader was re-nationalisation of the railways. I’ve always been sceptical, as they seem a lot better now than I remember in the past, with obvious investment in rolling stock at a time when public services are being ravaged by austerity, but it was never anything I really cared very much about.

Water even less so, didn’t give it any serious thought. The debate had always centred on who would run them better, and would they be cheaper, but when Labour started talking about commandeering parts of BT, and then the “Big Six” energy companies, I realised there’s a key concept in there that I am very uncomfortable with: compulsory purchase.

The world was a very different place in the late 1940’s; we’d just won the war, there was, I imagine, a real bond within the country, the Dunkirk Spirit and trust in government, and whoever owned the mines and railways etc. at the time was probably British.

Not so now.

There is a philosophical level on which I can agree that all property is theft, but should property rights be discarded so easily, right now? May that not have some pretty severe consequences on levels of investment in the country, given so many people are employed by foreign firms?

Maybe you argued against Brexit because major companies, employing thousands, would relocate?

If I were Jingye, all poised to bail out British Steel, I’d be having serious second thoughts right now.

Where’s the justification? The energy market is one of the successes: the UK is one of the few countries in which you can buy 100% renewable energy. What if Bulb, Ecotricity and co. decide this isn’t a safe sector to invest in anymore?

If you want to provide free fibre, do so. I have no issue with the government filling gaps left by the market, but not by stealing the assets of others. Yes, they compensate, not in cash but government bonds, but that would have to be at a grossly inflated prices or against the owner’s will.

No one seems to be talking about this, have I got it wrong? But this is a big problem for me, especially as I like their social programme this time, believe in the investment, and am happy, for the most part, with their taxes.

It’s all too controlling, public sector investment should be in addition to, not at the expense of private. I’m just too sceptical a liberal to buy into it.

The Middle Way?

The Liberal Democrats are also offering massive investment in social services, the NHS, green energy and infrastructure. They will provide a £10k life-learning fund, build houses and reinvest in schools. They aren’t as generous as Labour, there’s no 5% public sector pay rise, and, to be honest, they need to sort their taxes out, but they do get a lot right.

Relying on a £50bn Brexit bonus ignores other factors that affect the economy, and I’m uninspired by the 1p on income tax until they introduce a separate Health Tax. We already have NI, maybe rebrand it and remove the upper limit, but simplification would make more sense. I’d also like to see that 1p top-loaded in the way that Labour’s 5p only hits the top 5%. (I’d extend that to the top 10%, but I’ve been quite surprised how much backlash I’ve already seen against a tax people aren’t going to have to pay personally.)

In some ways both parties are suffering from the same kind of denial: we can’t pretend that the Referendum or Privatisation didn’t happen and just turn back the clock. Neither are very admirable points of view, and are the main flaws in each manifesto, but both of parties have a lot of good policies, and will go a long way to reversing austerity.

But, rather than seize assets and renationalise everything on ideological grounds, the Lib Dems will, in contrast:

• Create a new Railways Agency to oversee the operations of the railway network, removing the Department for Transport from day-to-day decision-making
• Establish an independent body of education experts who will use the most up-to-date educational evidence to oversee any future curriculum changes. It would take these decisions out of the hands of politicians and put an end to unnecessary and often politically motivated changes
• Establish a cross-party health and social care convention
• Introduce a statutory independent budget monitoring body for health and care, similar to the Office for Budget Responsibility

I’m not so naïve to believe that anyone is totally independent of those paying their salary but, on the recent performance of politicians, let’s give the experts a chance.

Strategy over tactics?

Apparently, there was an advert in early 2000’s where the Lib Dem’s said that, when asked, over half the voting populace would vote Liberal Democrat if they thought they’d win the next election. I don’t know if that’s ever really been true, but I do know a lot of people think that it’s only a 2-horse race, which, of course, is a self-fulfilling belief.

The Green Party has, for a while now, been the real party of the people, redistributive socialists without the union ties, but when I voted for them in 2015 people assumed it was in protest. They are looking strong again this year, with a sensible drug policy, incremental roll out of Universal Basic Income and massive simplification of Income Tax, consolidating it with NI, Capital Gains, Dividends etc., taking the baby steps proposed by Labour and the Lib Dems to their natural conclusion. Maybe that’s a luxury of not being seriously considered for government, they haven’t specified what the non-remain option on their second referendum would be, a reflection on the limits of their ambition perhaps, but it’s possible that their investment and UBI combination are the answers to the wage slavery and child poverty issues that the more conventional parties are struggling with . (To be fair, Labour have said they would run some trials on Basic Income.)

Maybe it’s the freedom of not being bankrolled by Big Business or the Unions.

These parties need more representation. For many people, every election boils down to a binary selection, voting out of fear of the other. Boris and Corbyn couldn’t be more divisive figures, ideologically and practically: they’ve both run up a pretty convincing track record of incompetence, but still they’ll get most of the votes.

If you believe in them, of course, vote for them, I wish I did. But if we choose out of fear, we’re making the situation worse, and raising the stakes for the next time around.

In the long run we have to vote for what we believe in, or we’ll never get it, but what is the short-term price we’re prepared to pay to get there?

And me?

I am, as yet, undecided; the Lib Dems are the most rounded, apart from the only thing they care about: reversing Brexit. I was impressed by the Greens and am struggling with Labour; greater extremes of good and bad, and all the more real for their proximity to power.

[All three threaten to implement Leveson 2 and effectively end freedom of the press and, by extension, democracy, but I doubt anyone will notice that.]

I should be voting for my MP, in a swing Lab / Lib seat the incumbent, Neil Coyle, should go for ignoring my petition to help child refugees and voting to bomb Syria. The other candidates are unknown and probably not canvassing in Istanbul, so it’s a tough one this time: no one’s got it quite right, all three have major policies that I hate amongst a general platform I could support.

A bewildering end to a year of desperate politics.

Appendix

In anticipation of some of the same objections to considering the Liberal Democrats I’ve already seen on fb, here’s a graph showing how poverty levels fell when they were part of government, lifted from FullFact.org:

…and another showing how income inequality reduced in the same period, from EqualityTrust.org: