The Future Now

Coalition government and the prospects for LVT

If the claims of David Cameron and Nick Clegg are to be taken at face value, here in the UK we now live under a radical transforming government unprecedented in its progressive ambition. 

Of course, there is nothing in the coalition agreement to justify the hyperbole, but there may be a glimmer of  hope. For the first time since long before the last coalition was dissolved in 1945, the cabinet now boasts three members who are on record as supporting the principle of land value taxation (LVT), a radical and potentially transforming policy if ever there was one.

Read the full article ...

Markets versus democracy

Ruth Sunderland has it right in this piece in yesterday's Observer.  As she says of the financial markets,

We may sometimes despair of our leaders but it cannot be right that they are trampled by unaccountable and unelected traders, acting purely for their own profit and with no thought for the wider social good.

It's very encouraging to read such words in a mainstream publication. The question of how the activities of traders in the financial markets can be reconciled with the idea of democracy requires further investigation.

Osborne knows better than Keynes

Dean baker, who recently came third in the poll for the Real World Economics Revere Award for Economics, has this very clear piece over at comment is free which explains the risks of cutting back on public expenditure before the recovery is fully established.

As Baker says:

In a period of high unemployment, like the present, governments can literally just print money. Not only will this put people back to work, this process can also lay the basis for stronger growth in the future by creating better infrastructure, more energy-efficient buildings, supporting research and development of clean energy and improving the education of our children.

Alternatively, as the Tories seem determined to do, they can contrive a needless double-dip recession. Then, when the economy eventually does recover, the well to do, having been largely insulated from it's worst effects, can, once again, clean up.

But let's not be too hasty to judge.  Perhaps Cameron and Osborne really believe £6 billion in cuts now is the best thing for the UK economy.  Yes, I'm sure they are sincere. After all in their world view, the economy is designed to protect the interests of minority wealth and privilege. Conservatives will always look after their core support.

Unemployment will reach 3 million by Christmas.

Not all Brown's fault

Last post in defence of the record of the ex-Prime Minister: Martin Wolf makes a good case for why Gordon Brown is not entirely to blame for the economic mess the country currently finds itself in. Brown's mistakes, according to Wolf, were too readily to accept the advice of economists, and, of course, to believe the good times would last forever.  The first can be excused, the second can't really.

Gordon Brown again

Further to last Thursday's post, I thought this piece by Anthony Seldon was a very balanced summing up of Gordon Brown's contribution to British political life.   I agree with Seldon that history will look kindly upon his time in office, and with his concluding remarks:

Not a great prime minister, but a man of deep intellect and passion whose ambition and temperament often got the better of him, but who served his country with honour and good judgment at a time of grave national crisis.

Backtracking already

I fear Conor Gearty has it right in this article at comment is free today. He describes the process by which Conservatives throughout history have suddenly forgotten their proud liberal credentials upon being voted into office.

As Gearty writes:

The Conservatives have a long record of deploying state power to crush dissent to which their attacks on the poor and on organised labour have invariably given rise.

While I am happy to applaud their decision to drop the ludicrous and expensive ID card scheme, as Gearty says, there's no mention of repealing the Labour-introduced power to hold suspects for 28 days without charge.  As he also points out, the one Tory who really cares about, and understands, civil liberties, David Davis, is nowhere to be seen in government.

Dominic Greive, who should have been Home Secretary, but isn't, said in the Telegraph a couple of years ago, that 28 days is 'much longer' than it should be, and promised a review.  It won't happen, and we can expect much more backtracking on civil liberties over the life of this government.

Gordon Brown

I find myself agreeing with almost everything in this balanced piece by Neil Clark at the First Post.  While, in many ways, Brown was bound to fail in an era in which presentation and style is everything and substance counts for little, Clark reminds us that he could not have inherited at a worst time.

And while he must take some of the blame for failing to address, or even acknowledge, the root causes of the financial meltdown in advance, it's very difficult to imagine another Chancellor doing things any differently; certainly not one from the Conservative Party.

Who cares what bankers think?

The Guardian is quoting David Buik as follows:

David Buik, City commentator at BGC Partners, warned that few bankers would support the breakup of their businesses into smaller retail and investment-banking divisions.

"Lovely bloke he may be, but the thought of Vince Cable, as Treasury secretary, bringing influence to bear over the banking system and its constitution fills me with horror. This is nightmare material and I must head to the chemist for some barbiturates! I never voted for this and nor did millions of others," said Buik.

But millions of others did.  That's the whole point of democracy.  Companies like BGC represent the interests of their shareholders, their staff and those wealthy enough to take advantage of the brokerage services they offer, ie a tiny percentage of the electorate.

I really can't see it happening on George Osborne's watch, but let's hope Vince Cable is somehow able to remind bankers and brokers that their job is to add value to the real economy, and not simply extract wealth from it to channel into the bank accounts of the super-rich. 

Tory government, record unemployment.

Rather fitting that unemployment should rise to a 15 year high on the first day of a new Conservative government.  It was the previous Tory administration, after all, that introduced the idea that structural unemployment was a price worth paying for a 'successful' economy.

Of course, the new government has little scope for measures to bring this dreadful figure down.  Expect 3 million unemployed by Christmas.

The rural and 'burbs party

Can't help but agree with Alex Salmond that an opportunity has been missed.  I like Salmond and agree with him on most things: I just don't support the splitting of the United Kingdom into its constituent parts.  As an internationalist, the division of existing nation states into smaller units goes against the grain. 

That said, under the last Tory administration, the Scots were treated abysmally.  If I was a Scot, I'd be pretty pissed off that David Cameron was now my Prime Minister.  The BBC is suggesting that Danny Alexander will be Scottish Secretary, which will doubtless be described by the media as a conciliatory move. The reality is that Cameron has no choice: without the Lib-Dems, the new government would have no democratic legitimacy in Scotland. 

And with Labour making strong gains in the local council elections in London, and many London Labour MPs defying the polls to hold on to their seats, the Tory party is now a party of rural and suburban England only.

Feeling slightly sick

Well, that serves me bloody well right.  My first ever vote for the Lib-Dems and we end up with a Tory government, and Nick Clegg, whose true clolours are gradually being revealed, as Deputy PM.  The thing that makes me most sick, obvioulsy, is that George Osborne is Chancellor; although it looks like Vince Cable will be on hand at Cabinet to keep an eye on him. 

With the exception of Clegg and David Laws, I really can't see the other senior Lib-Dems fitting comfortably into a Cameron/Osborne led government.  And if reports that the Tories have agreed to accommodate Lib-Dems plans to take earnings under £10,000/year out of income tax are true, and both parties are agreed on the need for substantial deficit reduction this year, then there must be a good chance it will all end in tears.

My other fear is that the only senior Tory I have any time for, Ken Clarke, may lose his cabinet post to Vince Cable.  Will he accept a more junior role I wonder?  I can't imagine he would go to the Treasury as Chief Secretary having already done the top job, unless he has instructions from Cameron to keep a close eye on the oh so scary George Osborne.

Time for a change

Sounds like Gordon Brown will resign as PM soon.  I guess Labour have proved themselves incapable of forging any kind of 'progressive' alliance.  We shouldn't be surprised: although in some respects they have held back the tide of Thatcherite neo-conservatism over the last thirteen years. they neve tried to strike out in a different, genuinely progressive direction.  And Gordon Brown is as responsible for that as Tony Blair is.

So where should progressives look now?  Labour have to rebuild from rock bottom: this will take time, and I'm not sure the party or the wider movement has the progressive philosophy or foundations to do that successfully.  And the Lib-Dems - in many ways more progressive than Labour - have lashed themselves to Cameron's Conservatives.

Perhaps the best we can hope for is that the Lib-Dem ballast in Government can restrain the natural tendencies of the Tories to deliver (unreserved) rewards to their traditional support base while neglecting the hard working majority of ordinary Britons (and, of course, those for whom work opportunities cannot be found under current economic arrangements).

I guess there's the possibilty of a Tory split at some point in the future, with the hard right disowning Cameron for failing to deliver a majority, and having to make concessions to his coalition partners.  But let's wait for the details of the coalition agreement.  While I hate the thought of Cameron as Prime Minister, there has been too little to celebrate over the last 13 years.  It is time for a change.

Brilliant

There are a great many reasons not to like Alistair Campbell.  I suspect Armando Ianucci's Malcolm Tucker is probably not that far from the mark, certainly in his less manic moments.  I also think Campbell behaved appalling over the 'dodgy dossier' of allegedly fabricated intelligence that was used by Tony Blair to justify joining George Bush's illegal war against the people of Iraq, and in the aftermath of the tragic death of Dr David Kelly.

On the other hand, Campbell's willingness to discuss his own mental health problems, and his unstinting commitment to charitable causes suggest there is something more to the man, and yesterday was surely his finest hour.

It must be every politician's or pundit's ambition to humiliate a patronising senior correspondent on live television.  And this is exactly what Campbell did to Adam Boulton yesterday:

Of course, Campbell is dead right. The media bias in favour of David Cameron has been obvious throughout the campaign. On the BBC Nick Robinson has been guilty at times (thoygh surprising good at others), and the Sky coverage has been continuously slanted in Cameron's favour.

This is only to state the bleeding obvious: Rupert Murdoch's newspapers are explicit in their support for the Tories. In the United States, his Fox News makes no pretence to be objective in its coverage. Why then, should anyone be surprised that people on the left find Sky's coverage to be biased, and their attempts to deny it disingenuous.

It seems to me that Adam Boulton, as well as appearing the worst for drink - Campbell is a teetotaller remember - doth protest too much.

Perchance to dream

With a Lib-Lab pact now looking a distinct possibility, some who would otherwise support such a 'progressive' coalition are beginning to wonder if, given the economic problems facing the country, this would not be too much of a poisoned chalice.

Aditya Chakrabortty, whose excellent articles are gracing the comment pages of The Guardian with increasing frequency, has this very entertaining take on the situation.

By way of a reply, I left the following comment:

Unless, of course, a new coalition government stumbled upon a leader with the vision and the guts to explain to the electorate why the pain of draconian cuts is necessary, who and what - an economic system principally designed to deliver minority wealth and privilege - is ultimately responsible, and how such an dreadful situation could be avoided in future.

[wakes from dream .....]

Given the probable list of candidates for the post of Labour leader, and thus Prime Minister, this is, of course, most unlikely.  The only potential candidate likely to take this approach is the very able Jon Cruddas.  The bookies have him as the 16/1 outsider.  Not impossible.

Not so wide of the mark, perhaps

In the wake of Gordon Brown's resignation, I see Alastair Darling is second favourite, allbeit a long way behind the odds-on favourite David Miliband, to be the next Labour leader.

My prediction of 16 April no longer looks so wide of the mark.

It's getting better all the time

So Gordon Brown has agreed to step down to allow formal negotiations with the Lib-Dems to begin. Entirely proper that he should remain as PM until the Labour Party elect a new leader, but let's hope they can do that before the party conference in September.

A progressive coalition moves closer.  Let's hope Labour don't blow it.  This is the best hope of for electoral reform, of locking the Tory Party of minority wealth and privilege out of power for the foreseeabale future, and of creating a context in which genuine progress towards a more just and inclusive society can begin to be achieved.

In a nutshell

Philippe Sands sums it up nicely over at Comment is free now.

Getting quite exciting

I still don't like Nick Robinson, but he does seem to be the best connected and thus best informed of the political corespondents: some good news.

Should I stay or should I go now?

Who knows exactly what's going inside the cabinet office at the negotioations between the Tories and the Lib-Dems? Whaetver they're talking about, it looks like we'll know this evening whether Nick Clegg is going to hand David Cameron the keys to No 10.

That it has taken so long, suggests to me a chance that things are not going Cameron's way.  In which case, presumably Clegg will be calling on Gordon Brown later tonight.

If that does happen, what approach should Clegg take, and how should Brown respond?  Most commentators seem to think that a Lib-Lab deal will be conditional on Brown either stepping aside now, or agreeing to do so within a give timescale.  I think his decision should be based on whatever gives the best chance of sustaining a progressive coalition as long as necessay to bring in a new voting system.

The key question is, even if Brown has seen the light and is prepared to offer a referendum on PR, would he be able to deliver all his MPs for the Commons vote that would enable a referendum?  I don't know the answer to that question.  But I think it's the best (indeed only) chance that supporters of PR have to make progress towards their cherished goal.

Although Brown is tainted by failure (some real but most drummed up by a hostile media) I tend to agree with Ken Livingstone.

There are only two grounds for arguing that Brown should stand down: that he didn't win the election, or that he doesn't command the loyalty of his party.  He didn't win the election, true, but neither did he lose it sufficiently badly to be ejected from office (had that been the case he would have gone to the Palace on Friday morning).

And, as all the Labour MPs returned on Thursday were elected under Mr Brown's leadership, they owe him a debt of loyalty.  And they should not be afraid of PR.  The best arguments for electoral reform are (a) that it would force politicians on all sides to become a lot better at selling their policies and vision to the electorate, and (b) it would mean that a Tory government with minority support could never again be elected.

I think Gordon Brown should promise a referendum on PR as soon as possible.  An election under a new system should be held within a year.  Give the voters another opportunity to dispatch Brown from power if they want to.  That's how things should work in a democracy.

Alex Salmond to the rescue?

A perfectly timed intervention from the excellent Alex Salmond. As Jackie Ashley reports here, Salmond has changed the parliamentray arithmetic by proposing a progressive alliance for electoral reform including the SNP, Plaid Cymru, the SDLP and the Alliance Party and Green MPs which with Labour and the Lib-Dems would have 329 seats in Parliament, enough to force through electoral reform as long as all can agree on the specifics of the new system.

Recriminations begin

This article from Simon Heffer to today's Telegraph provides plenty of reasons why the Tories are not fit to govern.  Of course, Heffer is right to argue that Cameron's strategy of turning himself into Blair II failed to get the Tories elected with a majority.  But his preferred strategy, of remaining more typically Tory, and taking, for example, a tougher stance on immigration and Europe, would have delivered the Tories even fewer votes.

The fact that intelligent people like Mr Heffer still don't realise that there is no majority in this country for the party of minorty wealth and privilege just goues to prove how out of touch they remain.

Closest to the post?

Below is my comment after Deborah Orr's rather defeatist piece on Comment is Free yesterday:

But put the two losing parties together, and not only do you have two sets of largely complimentary policies, you also have around 52 per cent of the popular vote.

In PR terms, as Jonathan Powell pointed out on the BBC today, we have an outcome which is quite normal on the continent. Don't let the Tories and the right wing press persuade you that a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance would be undemocratic: it would be the only democratic outcome. Well over 50 per cent voted to keep the Tories out of power. It would be a travesty if Cameron still wheedled his way into No 10.

And what do people think will happen when we finally get PR? Exactly this!

Having given my vote to Clegg, after considerable soul searching, I'm disappointed that he appears really to believe that the party that comes closest to the post in a first past the post electoral system has the right to try and form a government first.  36 per cent of the vote is not enough, Especially when Labour and the Lib-Dems, with 52 per cent between them, have much more in common in terms of policy, values and philosophy the either do with the Conservatives.  Tories keep saying that the people have voted for a Conservative government because they got more votes than anyone else.  36 per cent of people did, but in a democracy that is not sufficient.

Post election thoughts

Some random thoughts as they come to mind:

Looks like Labour and the Lib-Dems combined will end up with around 52 per cent of the popular vote and the chance of getting a working majority (just) in the House Of Commons.  If that's the case, and given the closeness of Labour and Lib-Dem policies and the distance of both from the Tories, then the only democratic outcome is a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition.

If such a coalition comes is agreed, then this could and should lead to reform of the voting system.  A scenario not dissimilar to that advocated by Will Hutton in Sunday's Observer comes into play.  And the best thing about it, it that it gives progressives the chance to ensure that a minority Conservative government, promoting the interests of minority wealth and privilege, will never again be able to assume power.

Nick Robinson is on the BBC suggesting that Labour insiders are preparing the way for Gordon Brown to stand aside if that is a condition of a coalition with the Lib-Dems.  Given his party's poor performance, Nick Clegg is out of the frame for PM.  But which senior Labour figure might get the keys to No 10. 

That Joanne Cash in Westminster North is a very poor loser.  She had a hissy fit on camera, apparently blaming the press for her defeat.  The worst kind of Tory (they're not all bad).

Glad Sarah Teather won Brent Central.  She's a really good egg.  Shame about Susan Kramer in Richmond.  She came to my book launch - I really like her.

Brilliant success for Caroline Lucas in Brighton Pavilion.  Under PR I would have voted Green, indeed I voted Green in the local council elections.  If the next election is held under PR, there should be a good chance of more Green MPs to come.

I don't have a great deal of Time for Richard Lambert of the CBI, but I was pleased to see him tell Andrew Neil in the small hours that "Britain is not Greece".  Lambert knows better than most, that the threat from the financial markets can be fended off by cautioning against panic.  Democracy cannot be held to ransom by the financial markets who represent the interest of a tiny minority.

Brown has just announced that Alastair Darling will be participtaing in a conference call of G8 finance ministers later today to discuss the currency crisis.  If the Tories had won last night, George Osborne would be sitting in his place.   Just the thought of it makes me feel sick.

Although I still can't stand the thought of cameron in No 10, I do think the argument in this piece by Lance Price has some merit.  He suggests that Labour and the Lib-dems should go into opposition together and, essentially, let the Conservatives hand themslves.

Jonathan Powell has just told Jeremy Paxman that this is only a crisis if we turn it into one.  He's dead right - we have to trust the politicians to find a way through this.  Tony Benn thinks another general election will come sooner rather than later.  I hope there is another general election, but only after a refendum and legislation to change the voting system.

Majority government?

Because of the UK's daft electoral system, we haven't had a majority government (ie one that has one at least 50 per cent of the popular vote) since 1945.  But if Martin Kettle is right, tomorrow we could see David Cameron trying to force his way into government despite his party being well short of a majority of seats in the House of Commons and still further short of a majority of votes.

Kettle suggests that even if Brown offers Clegg a significant role in a coalition government, Cameron could block such a move by declaring himself to be the winner, with, according to Kettle's scenario, just 300 Tory MPs in the commons against a combined total of 330 Labour and Lib-Dem MPs. This outcome would require the shares of the popular to be around 37 per cent for the Tories and 55 per cent for Labour and the Lib-Dems, combined.

If Cameron tried and succeeded to form a government on this basis, then not only is it hard to see such a minority government surviving - bad for stability in a time of ongoing economic difficulty - but it would be archly undemocratic and, quite frankly, immoral.

At a time when so many people are calling for electoral reform this would prove that the political system is corrupt beyond repair, and that the Tories care nothing for democracy.

Why has it taken so long?

Just caught up with Gordon Brown's speech to Citizens UK on Monday which everyone has been raving about.  If this is what Brown really believes, then why did he fail, so badly, to deliver on his vision while he was in power? And don't forget he had massive influence before he became Prime Minister.  And why should we give him another chance?

Perhaps only because, whatever the disappointments of the last 13 years, it's all too easy to imagine how things would have been had the Conservatives been running things, and how bad they could quickly become if David Cameron wins tomorrow.

On the other hand ...

... perhaps Anthony Barnett has a point.  He argues that only if the Lib-Dems score more votes than Labour will they be able to form a coalition with Labour having first forced Brown and Mandleson to resign, enabling them to put Clegg forward as Prime Minister.

But it sounds like Barnett would only support a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance if Brown and Mandleson are out of the picture.  Now, I would like to see them out of the picture, and I would be happy to support Clegg for Prime Minister if his party gets more votes than Labour, but I don't think it's necessarily true that a Labour/Lib-Dem alliance is only viable if the Lib-Dems get more votes.

If the Lib-Dems come a close third in terms of votes, as still seems possible, then Labour and the Lib-Dems would have at least 55 per cent of the popular vote between them.  Their policies, and their values and underlying philosophies, are much closer to each other's than either is to tp that of the Conservatives.  A Labour/Lib-Dem alliance, whichever party comes second, would therefore have a serious popular mandate, and should form a government led by the chosen candidate of whichever party scores more votes.

If Anthony Barnett had his way (and I say this with some reservations as I agree with him on most things) it appears the chance of keeping the Tories out would be sacrificed because he couldn't support an alliance with Brown and Mandleson.

I'd rather have a cabinet including Clegg, Cable, Huhne, Brown and Mandleson than one which included only Tories.

At the end of the day it boils down to whether Barnett is right about the Lib-Dems not making an alliance with Labour if they come third in the popular vote.  I think they'd be cutting off their noses to spite their faces.  For this reason, for the next few minutes at least, I'm voting Labour.

The best hope for progress

While it's difficult to disagree with anything George Monbiot wrote in yesterday's Guardian - the New Labour project has failed the progressive cause so miserably over the last thirteen years - I still find myself agreeing with Jonathan Freedland today: however negative it feels, the priority must be to keep the Tories from forming a government.  With the polls as they are, this means ensuring the Labour vote holds up sufficiently to make a Labour/Lib-Dem coalition viable.

Under PR, I would be giving my vote to the Greens.  As things stand, while I have considered voting for the Lib-Dems, not least because Messrs. Clegg, Cable and Huhne are all on record as supporters of Land Value Taxation, Clegg's refusal to rule out a deal with the Conservatives, who, as Mary Riddell wrote in yesterday's Telegraph, could never meet his minimum requirements, persuades me to support Labour.

For the record, while I support voting reform and the introduction of some form of proportional representation, I don't see it as a panacea. There are certainly more pressing issues which wouldn't necessarily be addressed by changing the voting system.

It remains the case that the best context for the kind of transformative economic and social change the UK desperately needs, is the establishment of a coalition government between Labour and the Lib-Dems.  Don't get me wrong: if this is achieved it will be no guarantee of progress, but it will provide a more favourable environment for change.

If Labour score more of the popular vote than the Lib-Dems, then Gordon Brown will have a claim to remain as Prime Minister, though I hope he will stand aside.  If the Lib-Dems come in ahead, then Clegg should be Prime Minister.

If Cameron somehow manages to obtain the keys to No 10 with less than 35 per cent of the popular vote, then the result will be completely unjust.  But Labour, who had thirteen years to change the voting system to prevent such an outcome, will only have themselves to blame.