This morning is not made for cool calm reflection, and yet it must be. Apparently we have a new Cosnervative government. Amidst the euphoria of Labour doing so well let's face the reality that May thinks three things.
The first is that she can remain prime minister.
The second is that she can form an administration.
The third seems to be that with DUP support she can deliver a hard Brexit. I cannot see the DUP accepting anything less, if only to spite Sinn Fein.
Calm analysis of what this means suggests a number of further thoughts.
The first is that May did not give her opponents in the Cionservatives - who must be legion - to act. The Tories are ruthless and she knows it. She has struck first. Wait to see how many refuse cabinet posts.
Second, George Osborne is right (I never though I would say that) in the Evening Standard this morning where an editorial says that May is in office but not in power. That creates a vacuum that will have to be filled, and makes another election almost inevitable.
Third, those who still think that the Tories are acting in the interests of the UK as a whole need to think again, and soon. The DUP deal is about selling Northern Ireland into economic oblivion for deeply partisan reasons. The results will be ugly, and will also make the chance of any deal with Europe - who have made Ireland a priority - remote in the extreme.
Fourth, the neoliberals will fight back. They always do.
Fifth, unless the Tories pull May down in the next few days (and don't rule it out) she will lead them into the next election - and Labour should be jumping for joy about that. Her personality will not change in the meantime.
Sixth, Labour has to exploit this situation to build the widest possible base for support now. That does not mean compromising its manifesto promises: all the evidence has been that these are popular. Austerity has to be consigned to the bin. And Corbyn is very safe. But as I said earlier today, that does mean massive effort has to be expended on its economic credibility.
Seventh, Labour has tio be very clear about its Brexit plans. I remains of the opinion that the best Brexit deal is no Brexit. That is so obviously true that it hardly needs saying, but politically I am still not sure Labiour can commit to that. But tab the same time Hard Brecit is not on the agenda anymore. In that case Labour has to be very clear what is. I think a Norwegian option is by far the best route forward - and in due course is the way back in, of course.
And last? Tell the truth. If there is a message in all this it is that this is what people crave, May lacked, and still lacks, any credibility on this issue. That's why Corbyn won. People believed he means to deliver for them. But three more per cent of the U.K. Have to be persuaded. And then the UK could have the government it really needs.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
If willing I’m sure Jeremy Corbyn would be grateful for your honest and expert advice…. Any chance you might put yourself forward? (I’ve followed you for years and have always admired your straight talking and almost always correct predictions.)
I would not presume to put myself forward
I would be happy to advise
But maybe without it being mentioned by anyone might be best
I can imagine that this would be the best option.
You are right.
Labour has to keep promoting the alternatives to maintain the differentiation with the Tories other wise voters will become confused again.
I think Corbyn needs to distinguish between brexit and an alliance of the Left throughout Europe that changes the economic groupthink of Europe. Personally the issues here are not brexit but about the underlying economic ideology. Corbyn needs to emphasise that- that way Labour could pull in the disgruntled voters who have turned to the Tories because of the Eu issue.
I would like to here Corbyn:
1. Condemn the EU and ECB for its scorched earth neoliberalism and the disasters of greece/Portugal etc.
2. Reaffirm a project to rebuild the Left in Europe and create a REAL Europe with real solidarity in the vision of Monet, Schumann and explain how this vision was lost due to monetarism’s rise in the 80’s.
3. Critique the beggar your neighbour mercantilism of Germany and make sure Schulz establishes a REAL Left Party and not another Left In Name Only party.
The Labour result should resonate around Europe and be a wake up call for the creation of a better Europe.
Last night on TV (Channel 4 News) micro economic ‘expert’ Kirsty Allsopp from Location Location told the nation that she did not believe Corbyn’s macro economic plans were right at all (thank you Jon Snow).
And then on Question Time (which increasingly sounds like a fake news sounding board) we had to put up with the same received wisdom about macro economics from the ‘experts’ in the audience. One obvious Tory boy told us that all of Labour’s economic plans were ‘uncosted’. Instant fakeness. At that point I turned it off.
If the public has been lied to about BREXIT, in terms of economic ideas there has been the equivalent of a frontal lobotomy!
Also rather tellingly they interviewed Chukka Umma last night whose post electoral wisdom consisted of saying ‘We need to understand why the Tory voters do not vote for us’!!!!!
If I knew for certain that Umma was well versed in the real sort of macro economics we discuss on this amazing blog, I would have been encouraged by his words. But all I could see was Tory-lite policies being formulated and Labour losing the clear red water they have put between them and Tories.
The fact remains for me that the public are still being misled by household/business economic thinking masquerading as macro economics.
Imagine what might happen if this bullshit was slain?
That is how you get Tory voters to vote for Labour Chukka you muppet. And you may get the Labour Leave voters that you have lost back too!
PS: I know I spelt Umma’s second name wrongly but my opinion of him as a politician is such that I do not care.
Give me Clive Lewis any day of the week. His air punch at his election result is great to watch.
I have been thinking the same thing for over a year now. I am sure there are many in Europe who think as we do on this blog.
What you are talking about is the prospect of 3% of the electorate doing joined up thinking about the dire implications of thinking the UK can have only ones source of money creation private sector banks and that Brexit will not undermine the UK economy. This is a very tall order. On the former the electorate has been buying into the only one source of money creation myth for nearly five decades now. On the latter they are ignorant that money’s lack of firm value means it can be unscrupulously manipulated for global trading advantage through centralised government exchange control and the British will never buy into to that. I think the future is bleak for the UK at least for the next five years.
The DUP make UKIP look like a bunch of europhile moderates. They however believe in the fantasy of a soft border with the Republic. I tend to keep an eye on the “Slugger O’Toole” blog to measure the pulse in NI. https://sluggerotoole.com/2017/06/09/the-dup-are-in-pole-position-to-remove-the-threats-both-of-a-hard-border-and-a-border-poll/
I’m off to Dublin for the weekend – 40th anniversary of UCD class of ’77 so will be able to take the pulse there.
Enjoy
Back in 2015 the Tories constantly referred to the ‘risk’ of a Lab/SNP alliance that meant Scots ruling in Westminster. Now, for the life of me, I don’t understand why that was supposed to scare anyone but pollsters indicated that it did influence many English voters to go Tory.
So, now, its 2017 & we have a different set of Celts in Westminster. They believe the world was created 6,000 years ago, that homosexuality is sn abomination, that the Pope is a manifestation of the Antichrist & that every word in the Torah is literally true.
Their favourite activity is putting on bowler hats & Union Jacks & walking through the streets of people that don’t want then to be there playing the Fife & Drum.
Well, that;s OK then isn’t it?
Richard, we are both accountants and we both know that the Labour manifesto is un affordable. It contains bribes for all parts of society, with the aim of cynically gaining votes. The Tories attempted some honesty, made mistakes and have sufferred at the balot box.
I applaud Labour for getting the young vote out. But if I had student debt, was about to go to uni or had kids or grandkids in this position, I would vote Labour. The vote gas been bought on the bribe of free uni and debt cancellation.
Similarly with almost everyone else. Pensioners, WASPI women, NHS users, school users.
All were bribed.
I hope TM stays in position and sees Brexit through.
I quite emphatically know the Labour manifesto is affordable
It’s about time you got even a basic grasp of economics. You clearly have none
“The Tories attempted some honesty” No they didn’t. They didn’t even cost their manifesto. The one part that was costed gave 7 pence for each child’s breakfast.
So I find it baffling that you would start with criticising Labour’s costed Manifesto before the Tories uncosted piece of junk.
Who was that aimed at?
I’d be very happy to give you a second opinion on your workings that lead you to the conclusion that the manefesto is affordable.
We both know that if you increase tax rates, the tax take goes down as evasion/avoidance and moving to lower tax regimes takes place.
Go and read The Joy of Tax
It was aimed at the OP Gareth – as I had quoted him in my comment
Ah, I can’t see that when I am moderating…..
Richard,
Is your point that the Labour tax plans would have raised as much as they say? Or that it doesn’t matter because any shortfall can be funded in other ways (presumably by extra borrowing/creating money)?
The “fully costed” manifesto obviously assumed the former, but there seem to me to be some potential holes in the analysis that has been published to date, that no one in the Labour party has tried to answer and I would be interested in your thoughts.
Take the proposed 15% off-shore property levy for example. Given that there are no longer tax benefits in holding UK residential property in offshore vehicles (incidentally as a result of steps taken by the last government), surely the owners would simply bring the property onshore and so no tax would be paid.
Then there’s the tax on high earners and corporates which has been highlighted by the IFS. If you were a bank, facing an increase of your tax rate effectively to 34%, plus a surcharge on your high earners, (plus of course Brexit) why wouldn’t you move those activities to somewhere friendly in the Eurozone where they give tax breaks for expats and have a lower effective rate of CT? So we lose the whole of the corporation tax and the whole of the income tax for those activities. Ditto with corporates deciding whether to invest in the UK or elsewhere. Ditto with high earners deciding when is the right time to change gear and step down from high pressure jobs. These seem like rational commercial responses, and that’s before anyone takes any steps that might be counted as avoidance.
Perhaps we can live without all these people and their tax money, but when the top 4% of people who actually pay income tax pay 40% of it, that seems brave.
My point is that this is the wrong way of thinking
Not a single plan needs to be costed
Government does not tax to spend. It spends and so it can tax. For an explanation read The Joy of Tax
So it is the plan so spend that drives the revenue
Whilst waivers of debt e.g. on student loans are effectively costless as the money will be spent, boosting the economy
This idea that the government can only spend what it can raise is wrong: government can and does spend what it likes. It makes the money. And then it taxes to prevent inflation, and not to pay for anything because that has already happened
Thanks Richard, that’s helpful.
“This idea that the government can only spend what it can raise is wrong: government can and does spend what it likes. It makes the money. And then it taxes to prevent inflation, and not to pay for anything because that has already happened”
I have tried to get this across to so many people during the last few weeks, I almost feel like having it tattooed on my forehead to save myself the effort! Or, perhaps less painfully, printed on little cards to hand out to people.
Why is it that once the penny has dropped, it’s so simple, obvious even, to understand?
And yet, 90% of the time, it’s like banging your head against a brick wall, the neo-liberal brainwashing is so insidiously effective.
How to get this message accepted is going to be a real challenge. Do we just keep plugging away on a personal level, and risk boring all your friends and acquaintances, or appearing like a member of some weird cul or religiont? Or is there the scope for a broader and more authoritative public campaign?
Gareth
I too am an accountant.
But you need to ally some of that to some basic macro economics.
And when you do you’re left wondering why anyone in our profession buys the nonsense peddled by the Tories on anything to do with government finances.
If you’re an accountant whoe believes in the rightwing “balanced budget” drivel, then you haven’t grasped some basic concepts, particularly on money creation.
So what if your an accountant, Gareth?
That silly assertion reinforces the absurd notion that nations are run like businesses or households.
I once ran a business, I still have a household. Neither of those things are sovereign, they don’t have their own central bank, they don’t levy taxes, set interest rates or issue their own currency.
What more do you need to be told?
Its not an assertion, its a fact, i am an accountant. There i’ve said it!
Funnily enough i got a BSc in economics at QMC 72 to 75 when the professor was the late Maurice Peston, Roberts dad and the economics department was a Labour think tank.
But, i could’nt hack economics so i changed to politics at the end of the first year.
Anyway, i admit i do not understand money creation although i do realise that it s no lnger backed by gold and can be created as a book keeping exercise of double entry, which is dangerous.
I should say i am reading david willets the pinch ( before i start of richard’s joy of tax!) and trying to understand how the baby boomers have stolen the wealth of the young.
I guess i am old fashioned and believe it is important to balance spending with revenue, just like a household budget
If you argue otherwise, surely there is a day of reckoning when debts have to be paid???
I really do suggest you read the Joy of Tax
And then realise that the government can make any money it needs and no household can. And that’s precisely why the analogy is so wrong
I hate to say it, but you’re the slave of dead economists
“Fifth, unless the Tories pull May down in the next few days (and don’t rule it out) she will lead them into the next election”
I know making political predictions is something of a mug’s game these days but I would think the chances of Tory MPs letting May fight another election are somewhere between slim and negligible.
Would she even want to?
No chance.
I think that the Tories will let May make a start at negotiating a Brexit deal. They will know it’s a fools errand. They will let her get on with it, bring back the prospect of a crappy deal, vote it down, blame her, and kick her out. Now that they have no mandate they can’t push on regardless for no deal. It just won’t wash.
Surely if there was a time for Sinn Fein to reconsider its long-held position of abstaining in-principle that time would have to be now. They are just standing by as the DUP prepare to make a complete mockery of them.
Hear, hear!
We shall need Sinn Fein, one way or another – and it would be to their advantage to assist this rump of a country to work out its future.
The vote in NI was 100% tribal with SF in favour of No Border and the DUP wishing to Bring It On. The wagons were circled and the moderates simply driven out.
There’s plenty of logic to Sinn Fein’s position. The tradition of elected parliamentarians not taking seats in the parliament of an occupying power is an old and respectable one in Ireland goes back to the foundation of the state. The worse the DUP behave and the harder the border they manage to emplace the sooner it will come to an end.
The old adage of not interrupting your enemy when he’s making a mistake applies. May’s support for hard brexit was counterproductive. Her engagement with the DUP will be worse.
I am aghast at the lack of May’s humility! She gets an alliance with the DUP (ghastly bunch) and then proceeds as if nothing has fundamentally changed and utters pure condescension with a repetition of ‘we will look after you’ as a sop to the fact that her party has been thumped mightily.
People like her shouldn’t be in politics, no magnanimity, no grace, no sense of the reality of the moment, detached from the external world and in a cocooned by asset wealth solipsistic haze, quite incredible. The country has bellowed in her ear and she’s not heard it.
This does not bode well if she stays in place-she should have the wisdom to talk to labour with humility and work out a more collegiate and cross party approach to Brexit -she won’t so I hope others in here damned part have the presence of mind to get her ditched and soon.
The country has screamed ‘we want another type of politics’ and she can’t hear anything with her selective incapacity to hear. Unbelievable, the arrogance and hubris is cosmic.
Bloated Johnson and his cosmic ego revealed the same trashy condescension on giving his speech to his electorate-he said ‘we must listen more’-a bizarre bathetic statement of someone who arrogantly drops a crumb or holds out a sop. Wow, it takes Eton and a classical education to come out with insights like that -if that’s the best Eton can do get it in special measures soon! I hope that arrogant narcissist never climbs further than he has.
The real lesson to emerge from the UK’s general election result is that Western style democracy as currently practiced together with Communism and Fascism don’t make electorates do joined up thinking!
What? Am I hallucinating through tiredness? Here’s an extract from May’s speech in fron of Number 10:
‘Cracking down on the ideology of Islamist extremism and all those who support it and giving the police and the authorities the powers they need to keep our country safe.
The government I lead will put fairness and opportunity at the heart of everything we do so that we will fulfil the promise of Brexit together, and over the next five years build a country in which no one and no community is left behind, a country in which prosperity and opportunity are shared across this United Kingdom.’
Notice anything?
She uses this phrase: ‘build a country in which no one and no community is left behind’
This is EXACTLY the wording Corbyn has been using over the last two years: see: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gic-gazmZr8
This is incredible, she has literally half-inched the phrase without any acknowledgement-why isn’t the MSM pointing this out! Good grief-incredible.
Tories always lie a lot so a resort to plagiarism shouldn’t surprise you!
Seriously Simon, are you surprised by this shameless plagiarism from May? Remember Milliband’s energy cap (Marxist madness 2 years ago), now Tory policy. She’s desperately trying to cling onto power.
Yes , but to use the EXACT words which formed a ‘slogan’ of the opposition leader who has just effectively drubbed your party in an election-it’s a bit like Corbyn using ‘there is no alternative.’ It wasn’t even used ironically, just a plain insertion of the oppositions ‘meme.’ I’ve never come across the straight theft of campaign phrasing, policies, yes, but not campaign phrasing.
Doesn’t seem to have been picked up by anyone yet, so i sent it in to the Labour press office and phoned a press agency connected to the Daily Mirror.
It’s VERY odd.
It’s very May
I think if the Tories have any sense they need to recognise that they must find a way of appealing to the young, to London, and to keep any appeal they have in Scotland. Machiavellianly, they will also want to postpone any election until after the boundary changes take place. Delivering Brexit is a no-win task, so I suspect they will let TM and the odious Liam Fox do the dirty work before kicking them out, replacing them with Ruth Davison in 2019/2020 (they will find a way and may put Stephen Crabb on the ticket as a nice Christian boy to balance a – hush – lesbian) and then holding an election with a leader who at least appears authentic and of this century.
As for Labour, it is an interesting one. Corbyn looks to me hopeless in opposition, but excellent as a campaigner. Back in opposition, will he keep his Mojo?
Also, I always assumed that part of TM’s decision to call the election was the belief that the economy is about to hit the buffers. The Tories may well want to blame everything on her before re-inventing themselves with a much younger team. But one thing for sure is that they need to change the narrative and offer something to the voters, because Corbyn has shown that voters want their politicians to offer them hope. May offered very thin gruel, accompanied with a weird grimace.
“I think if the Tories have any sense they need to recognise that they must find a way of appealing to the young, to London, and to keep any appeal they have in Scotland.”
That’s not going to happen, Roger. In its terminal phase neoliberalism has become hopelessly reliant on QE and pathetic attempts at re-pumping the housing bubble
(which is centred in London). The Tories will never do anything to make housing more affordable and the young resent this seemingly endless prospect of low real wages and unaffordable housing.
The party of austerity, parasitic speculators and middle-aged landlords has no hope of appealing to the young. Long-term, the Tories are locked into demographic decline. Further down the track they could abandon neoliberalism via some odd Keynesian, alt-right/ centre left shift. That’s what the US Republicans are pretending to do. But the Tories won’t lead the way on anything like that. The vested interests won’t have it. They would have to wait for Labour to shift the paradigm and move the centre ground of politics, then they could follow. In the meantime the Tories are stuffed as far as the young vote is concerned.
As for Scotland, historically, Tory gains there have never been long-term. Nearly all of the Conservative strongholds are in England for obvious imperialist reasons. That won’t change, its part of the Tory identity. Right now they are relying on the relics at the DUP for survival. That should tell you all you need to know about the Tories appeal outside of England..
As long as Conservatives fail to court the votes of the young then eventually they’ll be irrelevant. 9Let’s hope they don’t realise it!)
Because the young are not getting the opportunities of their parents and with austerity never will, they are unlikely ever to turn into new Tories. So the youth have to be persuaded to vote progressive/Labour every single time. Then, as the the Tory base gets older and pop their clogs, progressives are bound to win.
I heard an election vox pop say that Tories have money and brains and all the time that this thought is prevalent Tories are seen as ‘successful’. That idea has to be scuppered by pointing out that Conservatism is an old people’s home, learning that money is a promise, learning where it comes from and learning why we can pay tax only in Sterling.
“…replacing them with Ruth Davison in 2019/2020 (they will find a way and may put Stephen Crabb on the ticket as a nice Christian boy to balance a — hush — lesbian)”
Good luck with that. Stephen Crabb’s majority went from well over 5,000 to 750 on Thursday. Not sure he’ll be around too much longer!
I have a different take on things. Despite austerity, the victimisation of the disabled, pay freezes and many other things, The Tories still managed to increase their vote share by just over 5%.
A turnout of below 70% was, to me personally shameful, especially when you consider how many people were affected by Tory policies. If another election is called, with a different Tory leader, their majority may return.
I am just in the middle of calculating how many votes right wing parties achieved compared to left wing parties, I fear it will again show that more voted for the right wing.
I also wonder if another Labour leader with the same manifesto as Corbyn would have had more votes.
Interesting times ahead.
Jim Round. It’s quite incredible how often this idea surfaces, that somehow the same Labour policies without Corbyn would lead to a better result. I think this is an idea peddled by the press, and regularly by those on the right of the Labour Party. However it totally misses the point. Corbyn has rallied huge numbers of non-voters who fail to see the difference between the right wing of the Labour Party, and the Tories. I am one, but I am clearly not alone.
You talk about DUP and Sinn Fein and political solutions and possibilities, none of you mention the elephant. We have a much reduced intelligence gathering service, a hugely reduced police force, a military with a cut budget, we could not deal with Muslim terrorism, we got no hope if the IRA take to bombing again, unfortunately this looks a possibility and that people is one huge elephant I remember the “troubles” ………………….do you?
Yes
Hi Richard,
Please tell us more about governments not taxing to spend! If I were a Tory, I’d accuse you of DoubleSpeak, or spin it like that.
I’m guessing the argument goes something like this:
Since the government can create whatever amount of money it wants through the Bank of England, therefore it doesn’t need to tax individuals or companies before it can build roads, schools and hospitals etc.
It only taxes us subsequently as a way of controlling inflation i.e. taxing us removes money from our pockets and thus the economy to stop it over heating. Saving us from ourselves as it were.
If that’s more or less right, then managing the economy is “simply” a matter of the government deciding how much money to create (or borrow) at any given time for a given purpose. Then they tax us in proportion to the rate at which inflation is rising.
But does the tax they collect pay off the cost of creating the money and or pay off (or down) the interest of any loans the government took out on our behalf?
Co-opting the “economy is like a house” analogy then, this means that a household’s income isn’t set in stone. We can earn (create) more money over time if we want to, just like real life. I can get a higher paying job if I work hard and smart.
We can also remortgage (borrow more) as is needed to improve the utility and value of our house, but only on the understanding that we have to pay down (not necessarily pay off) the mortgage (via tax).
Is this anywhere close to what you’re getting at?
You’re right until you get to the ‘pay off’ bit
Tax does not pay off the cost of creating the money
It cancels the money. Just as a loan repayment cancels money so does tax cancel the money created by government spending
Interest is a government spend like any other: don’t make a special case for it
Why pay it? Because providing a safe place for saving is a government role
And the price paid means the government can set interest rates
And there is no mortgage – because that is a debt with security. There is just a promise to pay. That’s it
Goodness, i must be incredibly thick
I still do not understand what you are saying
Are you saying the money created does not need to be repaid?
If you are, then as Lee says, why ever tax people?
Tax is what takes the money created out of circulation again
Please read The Joy of Tax. It’s probably even tax deductible in your case
Thanks Richard. Much appreciated.
I don’t quite get the “why pay it? ” part though. Why pay tax? Or why pay interest?
I will order a copy of the JoT too if it answers all these kinds of questions.
Interest is the interesting question
It is now decidedly optional – but remember real interest rates are also now negative on government borrowing
And why pay tax – there’s a whole chapter on that in the JoT
Direct rule in Northern Ireland by a Tory/DUP government is a recipe for disaster.
The ultra sectarian DUP with links to para-military groups will inflame nationalist feelings and will bring the Good Friday agreement to a standstill and re-ignite sectarian violence. The DUP is still implicated in possible corruption scandal over funding of a suspect renewable energy scheme and refuses to try and resolve this so prolonging direct rule in the absence of a Stormont government.
Richard
If ever you get around to producing that book or a public information pamphlet on how money really works, if you need anyone else to read a draft I’d be happy to help as others have offered if it would help.
M.
Thanks
I bit hard to indulge in “calm reflection”, given the nature of May’s new bedfellows, the 17th century DUP.
Here’s a flavour of the DUP’s views, taken from this Petition site: https://www.change.org/p/winston-no-coalition-with-the-dup-may-out?
Theresa May said there will NOT be a coalition of CHAOS.
She is now forming a minority government with the DUP.
Here is a list of DUP stances, in case you need a reminder:
The DUP want to make it legal to discriminate against anyone from the LGBT community.
The DUP want children to be taught creationism as scientific fact.
The DUP want no woman to have access to any type of abortion, and furthermore criminalise anyone offering or seeking that service.
The DUP want to bring back the death penalty
Theresa May should RESIGN. This is a disgusting, desperate attempt to stay in power.
IN addition to all the above, cosying up to the DUP will seriously endanger the “Good Friday Agreement”. Who is the REAL threat to our security?
I am appalled by any idea of bringing the DUP anywhere near power
Absolutely, Andrew-and what an irony after the Tories and media have banged on about Corbyn’s supposed ‘sympathy’ with the IRA that May then thinks of cosying up to this group – I hope, if it happens that the public protest vigorously. May I know see as a dangerous and deluded individual who was so inept she couldn’t function without be told what to think by two advisers who had lost touch with reality . The Tory Party always closes ranks and stifles what it thinks at time like this to give a false sense of unity using gross dissembling. She need to go or get some humility fast -but then that would shatter the bossy matron image, the facade that has diddley squat behind it.
DUP:
Democratically
Undermining
Progressives
They are a foul lot to be honest. No wonder even Jeremy Vine said that May was in untenable position last night – on the BBC!
I worry what this foul concoction will do to politics in Ireland. Honestly – this could do lots of damage to inter-Irish relations if it is not handled with caution.
And whatever happened to ‘British votes for British politics’ Mrs May – a recent Tory mantra?
May is playing with explosive forces here in order to form some form of Government. She should resign to be honest.
The worst of it is though (Andrew) is that Corbyn cannot afford to be too hard on the DUP who may end up playing silly buggers if there are later attempts to get peaceful democratic rule back at Stormont. It’s a gaping hole that must be mended – and we all should remember why.
“But three more per cent of the U.K. Have to be persuaded. And then the UK could have the government it really needs.”
Better is perhaps to unify the majority of progressives that already exists
CON 42.4
UKIP 01.8
44.2
LAB 40.0
LibDem 07.4
GRN 01.6
48.0
I’ve excluded the nationalists above but they arguably make things better, especially the SNP, who still more than outweigh the DUP. Although to be free of the need for coalition with nationalists would help nullify one line of attack.
SNP 03.0
PC 00.5
SDLP 00.3
UUP 00.3
ALL 00.2
DUP 00.9
For as long as we have first past the post, it is attractive to try to divide people into progressive and Conservative, though I have my doubts it is meaningful.
For example, as shown in the referendum, a large number of labour voters are closer to UKIP than to Green policies, so I don’t find the term helpful. Is it progressive, for example, to want to reduce immigration in order to prevent downward pressure on wages? What about stamp duty on higher end property? The Tories have increased it to a level that has paralysed the housing market in the south of England such that the number of houses on the market has decreased for 15 months in a row. Progressive? Regressive? Plain barmy?
I have a fear that “progressive” is synonomous for “my opinion” and is otherwise meaningless. What I would prefer are parties who would try to simplify their policies so that they can be judged on them. And as someone who has recently moved to the UK and can’t understand the tax system at all, scrapping NI, Income Tax and CGT and coming up with a single tax (not at a flat rate, but just a single tax) that treats all equally would be a good start.
“Progressive” for me would mean a system where the government is answerable to the people and all of its policies are as transparent as possible.
Progressive implies a commitment to equality
Redistribution of income and wealth
A government willing to correct market failure
And to create a level playing field for honest business
To ensure capital is available where is needed
And that all have an opportunity to achieve
And which provides for those who can’t
It’s not hard
And your view seems a long way short of it
Hi Roger,
I used progressive merely as an opposite to conservative. To signify those who want to change society for the betterment of the vast majority. I think it serves as a better descriptor than liberal for the reasons you allude to. Most ‘progressives’ believe in curtailing some freedoms where that has benefit for the overall system. The freedom to exploit the poor, while it may be literally liberal is not a freedom worth fighting for in the eyes of many.
On tax, others here are far more knowledgeable and no doubt some simplification would be a good thing. However inheritance tax or land value tax could be useful tools in the arsenal of social justice, so I see no reason not to use whatever methods we have available.
Try reading The Joy of Tax
Do any of the above take account of tactical voting? How much of Labour’s vote was ‘borrowed’? Any discussion of this seems missing from the media analysis.
Cathy,
Certainly in Scotland the Labour vote shifted to the Tories. Their ( Labour) vote increased by only 10k to @ 720k, which is only a fraction of the Labour success elsewhere and that increase came from Corbyn’s policies, not Scottish Labour single campaign policy of ‘Stop the SNP and a second Indyref’ with whom they joined forces with the Tories and Lib Dems.
To me it looks clear that those 13 Tory seats that came from Scotland were delivered by the Labour and Lib Dem voters moving to back Tories aided with TV appearances from the Scottish Labour leader, Kezia Dugdale telling Scottish voters to vote tactically and if necessary, Tory.
The Tories were in line up here to take a couple of seats, instead they got an unimaginable 13. This is what has kept May in power (so far). While ”borrowed’ votes is something to look at ‘down south’ it’s not even a question to ask in Scotland as it was blatantly obvious.
Maybe the real newspaper headlines should be on how Scottish Labour’s tactical voting strategy has actually kept Theresa May in power and completely undermined Corbyn (whom Scottish Labour detest.)
I would suggest that the most urgent thing any Labour supporter outside of Scotland does it search online for Kezia Dugdale’s news interviews on ‘voting tactically’ and if their is to be another General Election in the coming months that they tell Corbyn et al to get a grip on Scottish Labour, because they have just cost UK Labour victory.
I agree with Nick (apologies) – an excellent summary of what happened in Scotland. I’d just add that what little success Labour had here was due to Corbyn. As Nick said, the “Scottish Labour party” leader teamed up with the other “Scottish party” leaders to scweam and scweam about a potential second independence referendum. There are very few in the Scottish Labour branch who have ever supported Corbyn, and little was said about him until it became clear he was doing very well.
The revived “better together” team were ably assisted in this, and in focussing on the SNP record in Scotland, by the Scottish media, including the BBC.
The SNP, in my view, could have defended their position much better by being stronger on their anti-Brexit policy and by using Angus Robertson to attack the Tory record in Westminster – a task you may be aware he is very good at. He did appear in one debate and performed well. Nicola Sturgeon should have stood back from all the debates held in Scotland and used Angus.
I think Angus Roberston us a very real loss at Westminster
Alex Salmomd less so
“That’s why Corbyn won”
Won? May is P.M. the Conservatives are in government. Add Labour M.P.’s to those of the SNP and Liberals and that is still fewer than the Tories. For the third election in a row, Labour came second.
“Corbyn won”?
I am curious. You do know how elections are decided in the UK?
I think I do
My day job is as Professor of Practice in International Political Economy, City, University of London
And if you think you do know I suggest you think again
Jason sounds like another of those literalist one-dimensional thinkers – of course Corbyn ‘won’ in the sense that he shook the Tory Party’s arrogance to its roots adn defied the juggernaut of corporate media and showed that 40 years of one economic ideology can be challenged.
‘Winning’ is very much defined by what is being fought -this was a real David and Goliath Job: a man vilified daily by the press and most of the media with two thirds of his own Party stabbing him in the back being mocked by arrogant, bullying Tories in the House of Commons and then led into an election with May crowing arrogantly about a victory on a huge scale and not even being bothered to produce a professional manifesto, so cock-sure was she of crushing Corbyn.
On that basis I’d say Corbyn ‘won’ – your basis seems to be similar to May’s: ignore the reality in front of you.
David and Goliath is an interesting analogy. Had Goliath killed David after a better fight from David than expected then it would be appropriate to use it. But in the bible David won. And in the election Corbyn lost. Losing 2-3 in football when everyone predicted you’d lose 0-4 Is still losing.
As for pompously trotting out a vainglorious job title, handed to you as a favour by chums supposedly for a teaching job you no longer do. Oh dear. I wonder if a genuine Quaker would do that. Quakers don’t even use Mr or Mrs. They think titles are elitest establishment adornments designed to puff up the ego and unnecessary. So no Richard. If the only thing you can do to support a ludicrous argument is use a ludicrous title it just shows the weakness of your argument
You clearly have no clue about modern Quakers
Nor politics
But you certainly know how to troll
And that is not acceptable here
Jason
In straight forward first past the post terms Corbyn did not win this election.
But there are nuances that cannot be ignored and to which others here are quite rightly picking up on.
This election was meant to be the end of the Labour Party and Corbyn. But that has not happened. They gained seats (they lost too, but overall they gained).
The Tories also gained but lost more overall seats than they did before the election. That is bad for them. Very bad. In fact Jason it is embarrassing – as bad as Tory boasts about the BREXIT referendum.
Remember that May went into this election certain of increasing her majority but has now a reduced majority and no real mandate to negotiate with the EU over a hard BREXIT.
So from a numbers/competition point of view, the Tories won. But politically the result is not as clear. If you think relying on such a slim majority that is propped up by the DUP is a fantastic result then I’d say think again. It isn’t.
And make no mistake Jason: the turnout has been better than many an election recently; the youth vote has certainly been invigorated which is fantastic.
But Labour and Corbyn deserve to be congratulated. They had less donations than the Tories. They took a huge risk with a manifesto that many sneered at (including within their own party). They have been derided and insulted. But what Corbyn has done is instead of Labour mirroring Tory policy (like New Labour did) he just turned away from it and gave a REAL alternative to the people. And their use of social media to counteract the opposition’s use of negative campaigning was inspired.
This is no longer a single party state that we live in. And Corbyn has succeeded in stopping that whether you like it or not. There has at last been some form of bifurcation in British politics on the 8th June that should remind any politician that this country is made up of many peoples with many opinions whose views must be taken into account. Our politicians need to be reminded that they should rule for all and not just for a narrow band of self interest.
So Labour’s campaign has been successful on many levels Jason.
This result makes me feel that our democracy can work (at least until we get PR).
Not getting your head around these different levels of truth makes you come across as a bad loser. Are you?
@Jason Nesmith
Corbyn may have lost this particular battle in the mathematical sense, i.e. bums on parliamentary seats. But I don’t think that’s what’s being alluded to here. More likely that he’s lost a particular battle but is on course to win the war – as so often happens in history. The tide has turned and the GE result represents a critical change of direction. Whether or not the LP can capitalise on its current strategic advantage in the longer term depends on many variable factors – including quality of leadership, Tory reaction and the mood of the public. Only history will tell. But right now it’s looking good for Labour comapared to where they were just a few weeks ago.
While Richard needs no apologists, on a personal note I’d like to say that it’s inappropriate to resort to offensive and personal insults here. Richard stimulates constructive debate on a wide range of social, political and economic issues from many different perspectives. He makes an important (and tireless) contribution to the national debate on these issues.
Jason will not be returning: I do not have time to moderate abuse. He is now on the automatically deleted list that WordPress software permits
Jason
“Labour lost. losing 2-3…”
Jason since you alluded to football it is only half time, it is still all to play for. JC has destroyed the myth that he is unelectable – just wait for the second half.
And your personal attacks on Richard are not appreciated. Here we don’t do personal attacks.