GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: ‘Catch-Up Tsar’ or ‘Level-Up PM’ show Rhetoric and Reality are the new Jekyll and Hyde

10/06/2021, 10:08:11 AM

by Jack Lesgrin

Eventually, the two opposing forces of rhetoric and reality will collide. They always do with Tory governments. For most of the 20th and 21st-centuries, the Tories have been better at creating and owning the narrative, at opportunistic and sometimes vicious campaigning, and some might say, for short periods, at governing too.

As with all parties, they look upon the social, political and economic consensus of the day, that was moulded by governments of different colours over decades, and adapt accordingly, seeking to shift the dreaded ‘dial’ up, down, right or left-wards. The Tories accepted the NHS and welfare state, and Labour came to accept reform of trade unions and a greater role for private enterprise. In seeking election, parties sometimes seek an armed annexation of opponents’ territory, as with Blair’s “tough on crime, tough on the causes of crime”, or indeed Cameron’s 2006 embrace of environmentalism and oft mis-quoted literal embrace of “hoodies”.

But no amount of spinning, campaigning, Johnson-esque ‘hope-for-the-bestery’ can prevent the clash between a hardwired mentality among most Conservatives that lower spending is more important than higher achievement. This is because, ultimately, despite a few admirable exceptions such as Rory Stewart, or Jeremy Hunt, most Tories, in their heart of hearts do not believe that it is the state’s responsibility to seek to make society fairer, or safer. They will try everything under the sun to avoid admitting the obvious truth that the state is the only actor capable of affecting genuine change, hence Tory governments’ default position of seeking ‘consultation with industry’, or attempting a ‘voluntary code’ to do X,Y or Z.’ Usually, about a decade later, they have to concede that only the state, and law, can sort the issue out. Sugar tax is a good example. Perhaps the most egregious recent example is cigarette advertising. It’s no surprise that it was a Labour government, believing in the role of the state, that banned indoor smoking.

We should beware the illusory effects of the pandemic on British politics. As noted in last week’s column, the clouds parted long enough for the Magic Money Tree to be glimpsed, but the tree is already being hidden away, protected by heavily armed Conservative policy boffins. The government is to be praised for the largesse the state bestowed on people needing support during this crisis. But it would be foolish of the British people, especially the vulnerable, to infer that this is a government of an epoch changing nature akin to that of Atlee, or elements of Blair/Brown.

The Tories’ messaging, and campaigning efficiency in 2010, 15, 17 and 19, conveniently combined with their facing an ineffectual opposition, can convince large enough numbers of voters that compassionate conservatism is on the rise, as Cameron’s environmentalism, or May’s rousing initial emphasis on meritocracy and “fighting against the burning injustice” attests.

Mr Johnson won in 2019 largely on the back of his “Get Brexit Done” mantra, but no one can doubt that the “levelling up” and “Build Back Better” agenda was part of the allure. All rational voters would agree that alongside enjoying apple pie, it would be better to lift-up poorer areas and people to the level of those doing better and it would be good to build a more prosperous and fairer society post-pandemic.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: Turns out there is a Magic Money Tree

02/06/2021, 08:49:54 AM

by Jack Lesgrin

Back during Theresa May’s ill-fated 2017 general election campaign, she told a nurse who had complained about low wages that “there isn’t a magic money tree that we can shake that suddenly provides for everything that people want.” Standard fare of political and economic discourse, you might think.

Yet listening to BBC economics correspondent Andy Verity’s Today Programme news item last Tuesday helped those of us who have been trying to locate the ephemeral Magic Money Tree. Regarding recent government financial figures, he noted that while “borrowing £300 billion may sound a frightening number”, this is a much smaller amount than the figures for both world wars, and smaller than the Office for Budget Responsibility predicted last November. But the killer line was the last one of the report: “…and almost all the money borrowed is owed to the Bank of England, which created the money to purchase that debt from nothing.”

It seems the government borrowed money from itself (in the quasi-independent form of the Bank of England) to spend during a crisis, and now owes itself this sum. It begs the question why must the government owe itself money and therefore, presumably, go through the painful process of either cutting expenditure or raising taxes to repay itself this money?

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: An overload of political double-talk on Covid restrictions

25/05/2021, 11:31:21 PM

By Jack Lesgrin

Clearly unclear euphemisms 

At PMQs last week, while clearing up the lack of clarity on whether the government’s guidelines about travel to ‘amber list’ countries was clear, the Prime Minister was clear: “it is very, very clear: you should not be going to an amber list country except for some extreme circumstance”. Tory backbencher Huw Merriman MP, who chairs the Transport Select Committee, noted in a later Radio 4 interview that this didn’t clear things up: “No I’m not clear at all. I thought I was clear…it’s completely unclear.” Clear? The government’s chaotic updates to local guidance for areas worst hit by the Indian variant has seen more of the same clarity from government politicians across the airwaves.

When it comes to political euphemisms, it’s worth looking out for words that don’t just evade or distort meaning, but invert meaning. These are the ‘Jimmy Saviles’ of language; they hide in plain site wearing shell suits and gold. The speaker uses words like “clear”, like someone who wears a gold medallion. It’s bold, it’s blunt and it’s deployed because the opposite is true, but that cannot be admitted. This is nothing new: Orwell wrote about this in the 1930s and 40s in the context of the Spanish Civil War.

Another more recent classic of the genre is “what we are saying is”, or “what I am saying is”, uttered by hapless British politicians doing media rounds. They use the phrase to convey to the audience that there is an agreed, confident and coherent position. The rhetorical flourish is done without thinking, but actually hints that they are reading from a “lines to take” briefing note. Readers should listen out for the phrase and ask themselves whether the spokesperson sounds convinced of the message or has any clue about the issue themselves. The truth is nearer to “What I am saying is…that I don’t understand what I am saying, that we don’t really know what we should say, and someone has written these words for me to say so it sounds like I know what to say.”

The evidence says don’t wait for the evidence 

Professor Neil Ferguson, he of “Professor Lockdown” fame, was interviewed by the Today programme last week on the Indian variant. Regarding the virulence and transmissibility of the variant, the professor quite rightly said: “it will take more time for us to be definitive about that [a possible slight flattening of the curve]. As a scientist, the professor is of course seeking evidence to substantiate a hypothesis. The government has of course taken action to mitigate the risk of the Indian variant, although many claim its actions were too late and too little. As the future public inquiry may show, there seems to be an Achilles heel in how what is known as the scientific method, applies to pandemic management.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: What if Labour was level pegging with the Tories in the polls? Adjust for the vaccine bounce and its all a lot closer than today’s headlines

19/05/2021, 10:33:16 PM

by Atul Hatwal

It sounds absurd, how can Labour be level pegging with the Tories? The government has just smashed Labour at the May elections and regularly registers double digit leads in opinion polls. All true but we are also emerging from the long dark tunnel of the pandemic and if we look at the bounce in polling that governments have received in the past, as the country exits’ crises, there are reasonable grounds to believe Labour’s underlying position is a lot stronger than the current polls.

Rewind to the financial crash of 2008; in the year preceding the crisis the Labour government’s polling was abysmal – for the three months before the collapse of Lehman Brothers in mid-September 2008, the average Tory lead was 19.5%.

By December, as the various global bailouts and interventions appeared to be working with the prospect of normality, or at least stability, beckoning, the average deficit for the Labour government through the month was 4.6%, an improvement of almost 15% on their pre-crash performance. In terms of a parallel, the country is in a similar phase at the moment – optimism and relief that whatever the government has done is having an impact with Britain on a path out of the darkness.

As we know, Labour’s poll improvement at the end of 2008 was not sustained, in the first six months of 2009, the average Tory poll lead was 14.2%, a rise of 9.6% on the position in December.

When trying to quantify the vaccine bounce, this is the key figure. This increase in opposition polling, a rise in the Tory lead over the government of 9.6% quantifies the shift in public opinion from the optimism of seeing the back of the crisis, from focusing so heavily on what the government is doing, to returning to everyday life.

Applied to today, depending on your pollster of choice, a 9.6% boost for the opposition would see Labour either narrowly ahead or narrowly behind the government. This probably better represents the underlying state of play than a snapshot of polls in a phase when the crisis bounce is at its highest for the government.

Not convinced?

Let’s wind the clock further back, almost 40 years to the Falklands war. From a contemporary perspective, a faraway dispute with Argentina over some small rocks in the South Atlantic might not seem comparable to the financial crash or the pandemic, but in the context of the time, it was a huge, all-consuming crisis which cut to the core of Britain’s identity and Mrs.Thatcher’s leadership.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: Labour’s big beasts on manoeuvres

18/05/2021, 03:45:43 PM

by Jack Lesgrin

Even Labourites could support paying former PMs for this…

Last week Tony Blair and Gordon Brown, independently of one another, entered the fray. Labour supporters normally condemn former PMs benefitting financially from the knowledge they gained in office. But how about Tony and Gordon joining together to provide a masterclass to Labour frontbenchers on how to frame a narrative, develop relevant policies to appeal to a winning coalition of voters, and communicate the above? Surely Labour members would happily contribute to the kitty so that everyone’s a winner!

New New Labour?

Tony Blair was on manoeuvres at the end of the week. His New Statesman article identified the urgent need for new thinking and action, given the dire straits Labour is in. Blair is usually very cautious in his interventions as regards the future of the Labour Party. He resiled from direct calls for Corbyn’s resignation and was careful not to be seen to be backing leadership challengers. He was also under or not even on the radar amid the rather lackadaisical and ultimately doomed discussions between ‘players’ from the Blair years and those who backed the Independent Group (TIG)/Change UK, and other attempts at creating a new political force such as United For Change, whose early briefing meetings were impressive, yet which faded quickly.

Although many prefer to comfort themselves with the caricature of Blair as all style, no substance, he has always been as good at the act of politicking and governing as at the art of communication. The tone of his recent writing, and indeed that of other big hitters of his era such as Peter Mandelson, show that (t)he(y) perhaps can no longer resist the lure of active participation.

Lord Andrew Adonis seems to think so, with his almost hourly tweets that it’s “Time for Blair”. It’s one of those down the (re-opened) pub conversations that goes: “I didn’t like what he did on Iraq, but I bet he would wipe the floor with Johnson in a general election.” Like so much pub talk, there is truth in the bluntness. Hitherto, the received wisdom was that Blair was too toxic, that Labour wouldn’t elect him leader again, that this kind of thing ‘just doesn’t happen’ and that he wouldn’t want it anyway.

Taking these in turn: 1) he won a 66-seat majority in 2005, despite the alleged toxicity of Iraq; 2) while this is probably true, his statement last week that Labour “needs total deconstruction and reconstruction” shows his keenness for radical change; 3) as noted in this column, Boris Johnson has shown repeatedly that conventions do not apply anymore; and 4) see 2)!

Northern Rocky Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

UNCUT: The poisonous McCluskey era thankfully draws to a close

16/05/2021, 09:33:31 PM

by Rob Marchant

It’s not really been a good week for Len McCluskey, has it? A mere three months away from stepping down, it does seem the once-irresistible grip of him and his Unite faction on the Labour Party is fading fast.

First there was the Anna Turley libel case, whereby the union is now forced to pay its portion of an astonishing £1.3m to the former Redcar MP, for an article published on the Unite-backed Squawkbox blog (and one imagines that the piece’s writer, Steve Walker, will not be able to contribute very much to the sum, if anything).

And who should be in charge of legal affairs at Unite, responsible for keeping it out of such legal trouble?

Why, the person who looks like McCluskey’s clear preference to succeed him as General Secretary, Howard Beckett, of course.

Yes, that Howard Beckett, demonstrably the most militant of the candidates, who has just been suspended from the Labour Party for a deeply unpleasant tweet about Home Secretary Priti Patel.

Good. Neither should we shed any tears for Beckett – and for clear reasons of decency, rather than because we dislike the political views he is perfectly entitled to hold. Beckett was – not unlike his parliamentary counterpart, former Party Chair Ian Lavery – embroiled in a scandal over the misuse of compensation payments to sick miners.

For that reason alone, frankly, neither man should ever have been allowed to rise in the ranks of the labour movement. But, in the strange and twisted world that was 2010s Labour politics, they were.

And last but emphatically not least on the list of McCluskey’s woes is the ongoing political meltdown in Liverpool, slowly dragging McCluskey’s name further and further into the mire.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: Reflections on the elections and social meania

10/05/2021, 10:32:55 PM

By Jack Lesgrin

Three election reflections 

One: a full list of candidates is available in…this interview

In the interests of all underdogs and Count Binface, electoral law should be changed so that the media, when talking to one candidate, are required to list the names and parties of all candidates. Currently, they get out of it with the “a full list of candidates is available on our website” disclaimer. Mr A Rose, of the Labour Party and Mr T Ree, of the Conservatives lap up their prime time local or national media exposure, but what about the minnow parties, the independents, the Monster Raving Loonies and Binfaces? In an election, all candidates should be equal.

Two: pop the balloon to expose an inverse emperor’s new clothes

Last week a huge Prime Ministerial head filled purely with hot air floated above Hartlepool. Stage-managed photos followed on the front pages the following day of the corporeal Prime Ministerial head with the balloon above. Can you imagine if any other PM had tried such a stunt? It’s doubtful that the media would have run the photos and they would certainly have penned scathing stories about narcissistic personality disorder. This new abnormal is an inverse emperor’s new clothes. Rather than the observing masses staying schtum for fear of the opprobrium of calling out the leader’s nakedness, past leaders must now be realising that all those ‘good chap’ rules, PR rules, or indeed rules rules, didn’t actually exist. Just think what they could have got away with, or more importantly, achieved, had they ignored the rules.

Three: out of the mouths of vox pops

The best moment of post-election analysis was on the BBC Radio 4’s Today Programme when Lord Mandelson recounted what a Hartlepool voter had told him. “Sort yourselves out. You picked the wrong brother and you ended up with Corbyn, so that’s goodbye to you. When you’ve sorted yourselves out, we’ll look at you again.” It had a certain simplicity and was entirely correct. It reminded me of those moments when the man or woman on the street captures the public’s mood. Remember Brenda from Bristol back in April 2017, whose exasperation on hearing that Theresa May had called an election went viral. “You’re joking? Not another one. Oh for God’s sake, honestly, I can’t stand this. There’s too much politics going on at the moment.” Bearing in mind what came afterwards, she had a point.

Social ‘meania’   Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: No one ever forgets a gaffe

05/05/2021, 11:24:47 PM

By Jack Lesgrin

No one forgets, even if you regret (the crap)

It’s hardly up there with “do you remember where you were when Kennedy was assassinated/for the moon landing/on 9-11”, but readers of a certain vintage will recall their shock, perhaps sprinkled with a pinch of ‘there but for the grace of God go I’ voyeurism at jewellery retailer Gerald Ratner’s infamous 1991 speech to the Institute of Directors in which he uttered the immortal line that led to the collapse of his company: “We also do cut-glass sherry decanters complete with six glasses on a silver-plated tray that your butler can serve you drinks on, all for £4.95. People say, ‘How can you sell this for such a low price?’, I say, ‘because it’s total crap’”.

Last week, Mr Ratner issued a rather moving tweet, writing “It is 30 years today when I made ‘that’ speech. It seems like yesterday. I wish it was tomorrow. I would cancel it.” What is it about certain gaffes that capture the public’s attention and persist for years, or even decades, while others that might be regarded as worse by any objective analysis, are overlooked? The 30th anniversary of the Ratner speech fell during the week of the tenth anniversary of ‘Ed Balls Day’ (28 April), in which thousands of Twitter users re-enact how the then Shadow Chancellor accidentally tweeted his own name while reportedly attempting to search for an article about himself. It caught the popular imagination, for comedic reasons, and this year’s ‘day’ was even reported by The New York Times no less.

While we’re on the subject of gaffes by Labour politicians that linger on in the public’s imagination, I’m reminded of the cringe-making letter that Labour’s then Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne left on his desk for his successor after the 2010 general election, stating simply “I’m afraid there is no money.” David Cameron carried a facsimile of the letter around with him for years to come to twist the knife about alleged Labour profligacy.

Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s week: Johnson won’t have broken any rules of conduct because there aren’t any. That’s life without a written constitution

27/04/2021, 01:34:56 PM

by Jack Lesgrin

Johnson won’t have broken any rules of conduct because there aren’t any. That’s life without a written constitution

I wrote last August that nothing matters as regards the #DailyOutrages of this government. I was being a little facetious; I do care about poor governance and worse. My argument is that our system has almost no checks and balances on a prime minister and government with a large majority; the only check is the general election.

It’s not a very popular view, because it sounds defeatist, seems to indicate complacency and to demean the righteous anger of others. I actually respect those getting cross about the #DailyOutrages. However, I can’t help feeling that transgressors are having the last laugh, for the ultimate complacency lies in imagining that whipping up a Twitter storm, asking Parliamentary questions, writing columns, or calling for Parliamentary inquiries, will have much effect.

Yes, the opposition highlighting government sleaze can contribute to eventual election victory, but what is needed far more is an alternative vision of optimism and the ability to win elections. Given that #DailyOutrages are becoming #HourlyOutrages, readers should bear the following in mind. All that follows is only “by convention” – see the 2010 Cabinet Manual that describes brilliantly our non-constitution.

It’s simple: the prime minister is appointed by the Queen on the basis that he or she commands the confidence of the Commons. The roles of the Prime Minister and Cabinet are “governed largely by convention” so I imagine, ultimately, he can do pretty much what he pleases. Parliamentary select committees have no prosecutorial powers. There is nothing in this document stating that the Queen must enter the fray and dismiss a PM who falls below certain standards, firstly because the PM alone arbitrates on ministers’ fitness for office (presumably also his own fitness as he is the “Sovereign’s Principal Adviser”) and writes the Ministerial Code, which has no legal authority anyway. And if any onerous rules were written into a new edition of the Cabinet Manual, they’d have no legal effect, since everything in our system is “by convention”, and we all know that not all PMs are conventional.

Sturgeon is a success even at failure Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon

GRASSROOTS: Jack Lesgrin’s Week: Heads, not troops in the sand

21/04/2021, 02:42:15 PM

by Jack Lesgrin

Heads, not troops in the sand 

President Biden’s decision to bring all US troops home from Afghanistan by 11 September risks the Taliban once more taking over the government and reverting to their medieval ways. Our concern should of course be for Afghan citizens, whose hard-won rights are now jeopardised. But spare a thought too for the Anti-Intervention Brigade in the West. Their policy of active inaction is normally very difficult to challenge, even when huge losses of life result from no or minimal intervention, as with Rwanda. On the surface, Biden’s move is their dream scenario: Western troops are out, leave it for ‘the people’ of a sovereign country to ‘work it out’, and if goes pear-shaped follow the mantra of a former Labour leader and ‘get everyone around the table.’ Interventionists are often accused of having ‘blood on our hands’, yet those who favour inaction must be reminded repeatedly of the consequences, should they transpire: women’s and girls’ rights traduced, more violence and perhaps international terrorism, hostility to the international community, an end to democracy and possibility a refugee crisis. You can stick your head in the sand, but the problems of the world will, ultimately wash up around you.

Outragitis pandemic

Political Health England (PHE) has identified a dangerous new e-virus that appears to cause inflammation of ‘outrage’. With the R-number already thought to be above one, meaning that one malign idea will be transmitted to more than one other, PHE has issued a national warning and are conducting surge testing within SW1 postcodes, where a particularly aggressive strain is feared to be transmitting. Those with an interest in current affairs are thought to be most at risk, as the e-virus can probably survive for up to 24 hours in tweets and remain infective in op-eds for as long as two weeks. There are thought to be reservoirs of the e-virus within ancient ideologies of the left and right. Political scientists are currently investigating how the e-virus may have jumped from its original source into the mass-market. The leading hypothesis is that it infected a small number of political activists who found that while ultimately self-defeating and deadly, a short-term uptick in support and electoral advantage arises from claims that everything a government does is part of a Machiavellian conspiracy to undermine the public good and weaken democratic institutions. Another hypothesis is that the e-virus may have spread in the UK through the importation of campaign techniques, political practices and narratives endemic in the United States. PHE has asked the public to be alert in the traditional and social media, in cafes and pubs or at the dinner table, for phrases such as “we’re no longer a democracy”, or “…is no longer fit for purpose”, or “…threatens everything we hold dear”, “…is worse than it’s ever been”, or simply “I hate his/her politics/idea”. Political scientists and private sector companies such as newspapers and media outlets are working on a vaccine, although none has been developed in less than a decade during previous outbreaks.

Resist the Trump Disinfectant Doctrine over lobbying Read the rest of this entry »

Facebook Twitter Digg Delicious StumbleUpon