Reforming UK Social Care after Covid19

The Covid19 crisis has exposed the failings of the UK’s social care system. These have been evident for many years, but the crisis may make it possible to consider reforms which would previously have seemed politically impossible.

Most people don’t think about their likely need for social care in later life (unless perhaps they experience the problems facing an elderly relative). Most overestimate the support available for the state. The consequences can be severe for individuals and financially disastrous for some.

Some people are lucky: a quarter of all 65 year olds will never spend anything on social care, but others will face very large costs, with one in ten needing to spend over £100,000. No individual can tell which will happen to them. So some hoard their money in case, some try to insure themselves against the risk, and most make no preparation at all. Some of the latter find all their money swallowed by unexpected bills in later life.

An unpredictable lifecourse risk of this kind can only be fairly managed by the state. It can do this by providing a safety net for those who find themselves destitute, by requiring everyone to insure themselves privately, or by providing a universal service free at the point of use (like the NHS).

How the system is failing

The present system fails on three counts. First it is unfair, because it affects individuals at random. Second it is underfunded, because it is not seen as a core part of the health service. This makes the host of private providers vulnerable, and when they fail, the state has to step in to protect the residents/recipients. Third, despite the high levels of skill involved, the workforce is severely underpaid (as has been recognised in the present crisis).

Two reforms

Governments have repeatedly failed to grasp this issue, because there is little political pressure (since most people don’t want to think about old age), and the costs of reform have been seen as too big. However, the Covid19 crisis has changed peoples’ perceptions both of social care, as infections and deaths of care recipients and staff have soared, and of what is a “large” cost. Now may be the time for action. I suggest two reforms:

“Nationalisation”. A system where social care is delivered through thousands of independent, privately owned homes and domiciliary services, makes it extremely difficult to manage a crisis of the kind we are experiencing. We cannot get emergency protective equipment to them quickly; we cannot easily intervene to manage those who are ill and protect those who are not; and we cannot even discover promptly how many people are ill or dying. When the costs of providing care spiral under this sort of pressure, private providers fail, and the state has to step in to protect the care recipients. Local Authorities used to be major providers of such care.  Perhaps their role needs re-establishing as the main provider of care for most people.

Pay reform. Care work is demanding and highly skilled, but undervalued and underpaid. The Covid19 crisis has changed public perceptions, and there is widespread public support to paying them better.  The care workforce is much more widely distributed across the country than workers in many other sectors. A substantial injection of wages into this group would not only improve their lives, but would inject money into left behind communities, providing support for a range of local enterprises and services.

Who pays?

This would need to be paid for by higher taxation of those on above average earnings. There is probably now a public appetite for such increases. Those who would lose financially in the short term would benefit both from better management of infectious diseases (which can affect anyone); from reduced financial risk in the long term; from reliable access to care when they need it; and healthier local economies.

Time to defend the BBC

Throughout its history, British Governments have sought to influence the BBC, as the national broadcaster, to reflect more positively on their agenda (which they naturally see as coinciding with the national and public interest). Some have done so by frontal attacks and demands, others by gradual change of funding or regulation. Overall, the institution has successfully defended itself. Faced with a government with a substantial majority in Parliament the BBC once again faces a serious challenge, and it is important (once again) to defend its unique mission and achievements.

Most broadcasting organisations worldwide are either commercial organisations, answerable to shareholders, proprietors, and advertisers;  or publicly run, and accountable to governments. In both cases their mission and activities, and their reporting of news and current affairs is liable to direct bias to reflect the interests of their owners. In many cases this amounts to direct control.

This is constitutionally not true of the BBC, which is bound by a Royal Charter to be independent and impartial, and

“to act in the public interest, serving all audiences through the provision of impartial, high-quality and distinctive output and services which inform, educate and entertain”.

It is, of course, exposed to pressure from Governments, which naturally tend to identify the national and public interest with their own agenda.  However, its funding, mainly through a hypothecated tax (the licence fee) and its governing bodies, provide a degree of protection against undue influence, as does its relationship with the independent broadcasting regulator OFCOM.

Nevertheless, it does not always succeed in preserving its impartiality. Independent evaluations have shown that its news coverage has a bias towards the status quo, partly because its view of news priorities is influenced by the print news media, most of which is explicitly biased by its proprietors to the political right.

The fact that the BBC is criticised for bias in its news and current affairs coverage from both left and right does not necessarily mean that it gets the balance “right”, since there is no absolute “centre”. However, over time it does adjust, albeit cautiously, as evidence and public attitudes change. For example, on grounds of impartiality, it used to present climate change as a debate between two opposing views. It now accepts that the overwhelming body of scientific evidence supports the view that manmade climate change is a serious issue and that there is no need to give equal time to the opponents.

The BBC’s news coverage commands very wide support. IPSOS/MORI’s survey of adults who follow the news compares people’s views of the five main broadcast media in the UK. It finds clear majorities who believe that BBC news is impartial (44%), trustworthy (51% – five times higher than ITV), and accurate (53%). In normal times, 80% of adults and 70% of 16-34 year olds reached by BBC news each week, and at critical times, most people turn to the BBC. During the Brexit debates in Parliament more than 3 million people watched BBC Parliament, for its direct coverage and its explanations and commentary.

News is the most politically sensitive aspect of its work, but it is only one. The scale of the BBC is unique. In the UK it operates 8 TV channels and 20 radio stations, while its commercial arm, which supports all the work financially, also runs 10 TV channels. The BBC is a major contributor to our society and culture through documentaries, entertainment, music (of all forms), drama, education and information on a scale unrivalled by any broadcasting agency in the world. Its regional organisation provides local and regional news in every part of the UK.  It maintains orchestras, and runs the world’s largest music festival (The Proms) each year. And it does this through a wide range of media – TV, Radio, Podcasts, Websites.

It reaches most of the adult population every week, as well as large audiences worldwide.  80% of adults see BBC TV, and 62% listen to BBC radio each week. By contrast 70% of adults watch ITV, and 65% listen to all commercial radio stations. Two thirds of viewers and listeners say that the BBC is effective at helping them learn new things. 56% of people think that  the BBC reflects people like them, and a similar number say it is effective at catering for the part of the UK where they live. Despite the rise of online and streaming services, 80% of people under 16 still use the BBC each week.

The BBC is highly respected worldwide for its independence and the range and quality of its output. It broadcasts in 40 languages to an audience outside the UK of nearly 400 million every week.  Its unique role and size enables it to maintain a network of journalists round the world. A global network of journalists and bureaux in 59 countries give it a unique capacity to report news and current affairs quickly to UK and global audiences, based on long term familiarity with different countries and regions. Its international reputation is reflected in the scale of its international sales of programmes. Unlike other national broadcasters with global scope it is seen as objective and impartial, and not projecting a national political agenda, beyond the promotion of open societies and democratic debate. Its nearest global competitor is CNN, with half the global audience, and only 36 “editorial operations bases”.

The key to the BBC’s independence is its Charter, and its funding model. Three quarters of its funding comes through the licence fee, which is effectively a hypothecated tax. Government can set the level of the licence fee, but is prevented from any more direct influence. The licence fee is a tax on everyone who watches BBC TV, but it accounts for 75% of the BBC’s income, and goes to sustain the whole organisation, which consists of many interlocking parts. Half the licence fee income is spent on TV, 17% on radio, and 8% of online services (which have a very large global audience). The scale of the licence fee (at £13 a month) is small by comparison with its rivals, none of whom provide anything like the scale and diversity of services. A basic Sky subscription costs £22 a month, and a Netflix subscription (which provides a much more limited range of services) costs £9 a month.

The BBC is subject to a high degree of public scrutiny. It receives and responds to, a large body of criticism and complaints about individual broadcasts and activities, and there is a constant debate about its institutional policies on issues like equal pay or the scale of regional coverage. However, formal complaints are remarkably rare.  In 2018-19 OFCOM received 247 complaints against the BBC. It fond against the BBC on two of these.

The BBC is unique, but like any large organisation, it can improve the way it manages itself, and the quality and reach of its output. However, there is no comparable broadcasting institution in the world, in terms of scale, reach, quality of output and public trust. Anyone who wishes to propose a major change in the BBC as a duty to demonstrate how these qualities could be maintained by any other model of funding, governance, and accountability. To change these fundamentally without clear evidence of benefit, would be vandalism of a major national asset.

A government with a large Parliamentary majority is always a potential threat to the BBC, and our present government has made its intentions clear. Of course it needs improvement, but any alternative would be hugely worse. Now is the time to support it.

Three disastrous myths of the Left

On a recent RSA “Polarised” podcast Chris Clarke (former Labour press officer) proposes three myths of the “populist left” which prevent us from achieving power and improving the world. They are:

  • The Dark Knight myth – we are virtuous: they are evil. Tories are not misguided or incompetent, they are morally reprehensible. Since no proper leftist can be friends with a Tory, we must not cooperate with people outside our own bubble, whose votes we would need to win power. Because we are claiming the moral high ground, we are held to higher standards than other parties. This makes us vulnerable to attacks on issues like antisemitism within the party.
  • The Puppet Master myth – we live in a hidden dictatorship. The world is ruled by a rich elite and media barons. Their power is so great that we could only ever win by unacceptable compromise (“Tony Blair was Rupert Murdoch’s puppet”)
  • The Golden Age myth – we must get back to the glorious years of real Labour (whenever that was). Since then the history of the left has been one of constant betrayal (Attlee gave us the welfare state, but was derided as a “mealy mouthed moderate”). This makes us vulnerable to claims that we are trying to recreate the 1970s (or some similar distant past, remembered mainly for its problems)

Versions of all three can be regularly found in left leaning Facebook groups. The narrative which they feed is one of heroic defeat. We will always lose, because the forces against us are too strong, clever and evil, and we are betrayed by sneering traitors. Since winning means abandoning virtue and joining the wicked elite, deep down we have given up before we begin.

I find it a persuasive argument (listen to the podcast below), and I think we should resist all three. The world is a complex and untidy place. Most people are not inherently malign, but they disagree legitimately about what is good, and how to pursue it. They also disagree about what should be prioritised when. Institutions which can help or obstruct progress need continual review and reform. Governments have to respond to events. Progress happens slowly, faster in some areas than others.

And remember, revolutions always punish the poorest first and most.

Hopes for 2020

In December 2019 I was invited by the Eastern Daily Press to write about my hopes for 2020.

But we are not living in hopeful times. In one of the richest countries in the world, we have people sleeping on the streets, and many more who can’t afford a decent home. We have an environmental crisis, stagnant living standards, the greatest inequality in wealth for a century, growing poverty, a struggling health service, and a social care system which cannot guarantee that we will all spend our last years in dignity and comfort. And we have just given a Parliamentary majority to the party which has been in government for the last nine years.

Four elections and a referendum have shown us a country, and a county,  deeply divided. On five consecutive occasions, around a third of the people voted for one thing, around a third voted for the opposite, and around a third did not vote. By a quirk of our electoral system, we now have a government with a large majority in Parliament, despite the fact that a slight majority voted for parties which opposed that government’s central policy. Probably more people voted to stop something they feared, than voted for something they hoped for.

So hope may be the wrong word. Like many people, I am pessimistic about the chances of any of these getting better soon. So I chose something which could, in the long term, help us towards a more democratic government, which could command the support of a real majority, and help resolve some of the challenges.

I want three reforms to our electoral system:

Firstly, we should replace our “first past the post” system with a proportional one. At present if you live in most of Norfolk there is no real chance of changing anything by voting in national elections, since all the seats are “safe” for Conservatives (or Labour in Norwich South). So what happens to us is decided by a few voters in marginal seats far away.

Secondly, we should return power and resources to a much more local level. For more than 40 years, central government has been steadily emasculating local government, by removing funding, and imposing national controls and performance measures. Public confidence has been undermined in a system where local Councils are still expected to deliver services, with ever more detailed monitoring and control, but with no scope to pay for what is needed.

Finally, we need far more opportunities for people to learn about and debate the issues which affect their lives. In 1943, in a bankrupt country in the middle of a war, the Coalition government decided to provide every serviceman and woman with three hours a week of education about political and economic issues. The result was a surge in understanding of the issues, and engagement in politics. If we spent more time helping people to understand the issues, we might have less division and a better world.

I am not hopeful. Parties rarely reform the system which put them in power, especially if they know that their power rests on a precarious base. I am not confident of any of this happening in my lifetime, but for the sake of my granddaughter and her generation, I hope we can move at least a little forward.

Failing democracy

Hopes for a new decade

In December 2019 I was invited by the Eastern Daily Press to write about my hopes for 2020.

But we are not living in hopeful times. In one of the richest countries in the world, we have people sleeping on the streets, and many more who can’t afford a decent home. We have an environmental crisis, stagnant living standards, the greatest inequality in wealth for a century, growing poverty, a struggling health service, and a social care system which cannot guarantee that we will all spend our last years in dignity and comfort. And we have just given a Parliamentary majority to the party which has been in government for the last nine years.

A divided country

Four elections and a referendum have shown us a country, and a county,  deeply divided. On five consecutive occasions, around a third of the people voted for one thing, around a third voted for the opposite, and around a third did not vote. By a quirk of our electoral system, we now have a government with a large majority in Parliament, despite the fact that a slight majority voted for parties which opposed that government’s central policy. Probably more people voted to stop something they feared, than voted for something they hoped for.

So hope may be the wrong word. Like many people, I am pessimistic about the chances of any of these getting better soon. So I chose something which could, in the long term, help us towards a more democratic government, which could command the support of a real majority, and help resolve some of the challenges.

Three reforms

I want three reforms to our electoral system:

Firstly, we should replace our “first past the post” system with a proportional one. At present if you live in most of Norfolk there is no real chance of changing anything by voting in national elections, since all the seats are “safe” for Conservatives (or Labour in Norwich South). So what happens to us is decided by a few voters in marginal seats far away.

Secondly, we should return power and resources to a much more local level. For more than 40 years, central government has been steadily emasculating local government, by removing funding, and imposing national controls and performance measures. Public confidence has been undermined in a system where local Councils are still expected to deliver services, with ever more detailed monitoring and control, but with no scope to pay for what is needed.

Finally, we need far more opportunities for people to learn about and debate the issues which affect their lives. In 1943, in a bankrupt country in the middle of a war, the Coalition government decided to provide every serviceman and woman with three hours a week of education about political and economic issues. The result was a surge in understanding of the issues, and engagement in politics. If we spent more time helping people to understand the issues, we might have less division and a better world.

Can we hope?

I am not hopeful. Parties rarely reform the system which put them in power, especially if they know that their power rests on a precarious base. I am not confident of any of this happening in my lifetime, but for the sake of my granddaughter and her generation, I hope we can move at least a little forward.

The myth of “no deal” Brexit

Four years ago, most people in Britain never gave a thought to the European Union.

They could not name a European law which had made their lives more difficult, they were happy to be able to travel freely around Europe, and that there were enough people to run our NHS, to care for our old people, and pick our fruit and vegetables, they could not name a single European law which made their lives more difficult, and they were content that £1 a week of their taxes was spent on our membership of the EU.

Then, to try to end a long running quarrel in the Tory Party, David Cameron decided to crush the Europhobe minority of his Party by proving that the British people were happy with this situation.

The people were angry about a lot of things – austerity, cuts to public services, falling real wages, rising crime, homelessness, food banks, potholes, queues in the NHS. None of these had anything to do with the EU. In one or two cases, the EU was actually helping.

But people were told that these problems were the fault of the politicians, and that leaving the EU would make these things better. Politicians told them to vote remain, so they voted leave

Since then we have become a deeply divided society over something that almost nobody cared about, and most people didn’t understand. And our country, of which I used to be proud, has become a laughing stock around the world.

So it’s no wonder that the only thing we now agree about is that we want it all to be over. That is why so many people would vote for leaving with “no deal” as soon as possible.

But just as leaving the EU will not deal with potholes in Norfolk, so leaving with no deal will not stop the debate about our relationship with the EU.

No deal is an illusion. We cannot survive without working relationships with our nearest neighbours. So after a “no deal” exit our government would have to go back to Brussels to ask them to open negotiations: on cooperation on crime, on how to avoid civil war in Ireland, on how to maintain free trade and shared standards for food and medicines, on citizen’s rights, on licensing of air traffic and professional qualifications. And they will be happy to negotiate, provided we first sign up to the things which our government agreed to, and Parliament rejected.

So no deal is groundhog day. It means starting the whole awful process of the last three years again, just from a weaker position. We will spend billions on bailing out businesses damaged by Brexit. We will see the flow of businesses moving out of the UK grow as they despair of our ever reaching a solution. Every commentator (including the pro-leave economists, and the Government) agrees that we will be poorer. We will still have 14,000 civil servants working on Brexit rather than our real problems. Our politics and government will continue to have no time for the country’s real problems.

It is time to be honest with the people – no deal is not a solution, it is not “getting it over with”, it is restarting the whole awful mess.

There are really only two choices – a possible agreement on how to leave the EU, carefully negotiated over three painful years, or sticking with the deal we had four years ago, membership of the EU, on terms more generous than any other country has. Four years ago the overwhelming majority were content with the deal we have.

We need to ask the people – how will your life be better if we leave? Is that worth the price of more years of political division, and a government too busy with Brexit to be able work on our real problems.

No deal is no answer – its time to ask the people.

UK cultural and political attitudes 2019

Hanbury carried out a poll of 4984 people in June 2019 on a range of cultural and political issues, on behalf of Politico. Data has been published by age, gender, region, referendum vote and political affiliation. The following is an analysis of some of that data.

The poll asked people to place themselves on a scale of 1-100 between two contrasting statements. In such polls there is a tendency for people to choose either the middle or the extremes. On most questions around a third of respondents chose the middle position, while a quarter chose one of the extremes. The summary below is based only on those who gave a very clear/extreme response (either choosing less than 11 or over 89). In most cases this accounts for a quarter of respondents.

Against each statement is a net score – the percentage agreeing minus the percentage disagreeing

This analysis identifies:

  • Issues where there is strong agreement across most groups
  • Issues where there is agreement but less widespread
  • Issues which divide people by age, party affiliation, or referendum vote

Most people strongly believe that

  agree disagree
the “country has moved [on cultural issues]… further away from my own views in the past decade“ 37 10
“making a decent living has got harder for people like me” 23 4
“the wealthiest have generally earned their money by exploiting others rather than hard work” 22 4
reducing the gap between rich and poor is more important than growing the economy faster 20 4
privatisation of utilities has been bad 20 5
society has become more divided 18 5

Most people also believe that

  Agree Disagree
a decline in marriage has led to “a decline in family commitments and values”, 17 7
efforts to reduce inequality between men and women needs to go further 16 7
government should guarantee a good standard of living for all working families 15 10
in criminal justice, punishment is more important than rehabilitation 15 11
the growth of living in cites has had a negative impact 14 4
too many young people are going to university rather than “technological” education 13 3
Faced with the choice between security and freedom, they prioritise security 13 7
economic factors have been more important than cultural in their own lives 13 9
globalisation has not benefited most people 12 4
society has been changed as much by economic as cultural factors 12 12
government should focus equally on economic and social priorities 10 10
technological change has been bad for jobs and wages, and all believe that globalisation has not benefited most people. 9 5

Two groups

On many issues, the population divides into two broad groups

Cluster A: Oldest, leavers, Brexit and Conservatives are more likely to:

  • believe that society has become more divided,
  • value tradition over change,
  • value security over freedom,
  • believe that globalisation has been bad for society
  • believe that living in cities has had a negative impact on society,
  • believe the decline in marriage has led to a decline in family commitments,
  • believe that too many people are going to university rather than technological education,
  • believe that immigration has been bad for the economy,
  • prioritise punishment over rehabilitation,
  • are less likely to believe that the government should guarantee a good standard of living for all workers
  • support government by “a strong leader who does not have to worry about Parliament”

Cluster B: Young, remainers, Labour, Green SNP, and LibDem voters are more likely to:

  • Value change more than tradition,
  • Believe that gender equality must go further
  • believe immigration has been good for the economy,
  • less likely to prioritise punishment over rehabilitation,
  • believe that government should focus on strengthening society over economic growth
  • believe that government should guarantee a decent standard of living for all workers
  • believe that wealthy people have become rich by exploitation, rather than hard work
  • most likely to prioritise equality over growth,
  • most suspicious of “strong leaders”

Exceptions

  • Leavers are most likely to prioritise culture over the economy
  • Brexit voters are least likely to believe gender equality has gone too far, but still evenly balanced
  • Conservatives are:
    • least likely to think that privatisation of utilities has been a bad thing,
    • least likely to believe that government should guarantee a decent standard of living for all workers
    • least likely to be hostile to a strong leader
  • Women strongly support the government supporting a good standard of living for all workers

Repairing a broken constitution

Is the system broken?

There is wide agreement that our political system is broken.  Because Parliament accurately reflects the confusion and division in the country on the most pressing political issue of a generation, it is incapable of rational decision making, and has clearly lost the confidence of the electorate. For three years it has been unable to legislate on that, or any of the other major issues facing the country. A referendum called to resolve an internal dispute in one party has divided the nation and undermined trust in democracy. Our electoral system has been challenged by special interests, and the institutions which exist to police them[1] have proved incapable of doing so. First past the post elections continue to give very great power to parties with no clear majority[2]. Our constitution allows the paid up members of one political party to choose a Prime Minister, even when those members are deeply unrepresentative of the electorate as a whole. Once in post, that Prime Minister can appoint a strongly partisan government, and has absolutely no obligation to seek a renewed mandate for his or her agenda from the electorate.

This is wrong, and undemocratic, and it is not surprising that people are angry, despairing, or have simply given up hope in politics. Some believe that leaving the European Union will be an economic, political and constitutional disaster. Others believe that to fail to do so would be to finally undermine democracy itself. Conflicts of reason and emotion provide a dangerous cocktail of argument which cedes power to those with the loudest voices.

Could an election or referendum resolve the problem?

There is now talk of a government of national unity, or a new minority government with a remit to delay the Brexit process to allow a new referendum on Brexit. However, the best available evidence is that another referendum would produce further anger and division, with a similarly small majority in favour of remaining in the EU. Acting on that would arouse serious anger and mistrust in the democratic process, but failing to do so would create similar anger on the part of the half of the population who still want to remain. It would not resolve the difficulty that the four nations of the Union are likely to vote strongly in different ways. Similarly, a general election is unlikely to give a clear answer to the Brexit question, since the country is deeply divided, the two traditionally major parties are both divided on Brexit, and a host of other issues will also come into play. Opinion polls, and the European Parliament election result, suggest that an election would produce another hung Parliament, even more divided than the present one.

In most electoral systems worldwide a major constitutional change like Brexit is only carried out if a supermajority votes for it. Otherwise, the status quo is upheld. The supermajority can be a majority of voters (60%, two thirds or even more) or an absolute majority of the electorate. By any such test, the 2016 referendum would have failed. However, given that we have had a referendum, albeit with a very narrow result, it is not clear what the “status quo” would be: another recipe for conflict.

An alternative plan

We clearly need a way of dealing with the two deeply intertwined issues of Brexit and constitutional reform. They need to be considered at the same time because, if Brexit happens, government will be embroiled in international negotiation over trade and many other issues for years to come, with no time or inclination to consider constitutional (or any other) issues, and the problems will only grow. However, if there is no clear route through which the goal of those who voted leave can be achieved, then they would be entitled to suspect a plot to invalidate the previous decision.

I therefore propose a radical strategy which seeks to deal with both issues at the same time, and with the current divided, but broadly representative, Parliament. It comprises four elements:

  1. A caretaker government of national unity should be created from the current Parliament, to serve no longer than May 2021 (the date of the next general election under the Fixed Term Parliaments Act).  Whether it is formed by a cross party collaboration led by an acceptable backbench MP, or by one of the opposition parties, it must be agreed that during that period there will be no major policy change or legislation which does not command the support of a specified proportion of MPs (perhaps two thirds?). This can reassure members of all parties that supporting the national unity government will not allow one party to impose partisan policies.
  2. The government should immediately request an extension to the Article 50 notice for two years to carry out a constitutional review and a referendum.
  3. The government should immediately legislate to create one or more representative citizens assemblies to consider the UK’s relationship with the EU, and to make recommendations with a specified deadline, and to authorise a referendum
  4. That government should immediately convene a constitutional convention to consider and make recommendations to Parliament on the following issues (which need to be considered together, since they interact in many complex ways):
    • The extent and nature of devolution to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, and  the place of England in the Union
    • The conduct of a further referendum on Europe
    • The future use (if any) of referenda: what issues are appropriate for referenda, whether they should be outlawed altogether, or governed by a supermajority
    • A more proportional electoral system to ensure that members of the electorate can realistically believe that their votes count
    • The reduction of the voting age to 16
    • The reform of electoral law, including the regulation of media coverage and online campaigning, the institutions for policing breaches of that law, and the penalties for doing so.
    • The possible repeal of the Fixed Term Parliaments Act.
  5. In the light of the recommendations of the Constitutional Convention the government should bring to Parliament a Constitution Bill, addressing the issues in 4 above. The aim should be to have such legislation in place before the next planned General Election in May 2021.

Is this realistic?

It will be argued that we cannot afford the luxury of two years of navel gazing: there are too many important issues to face. I believe that there is no better alternative. It is clear that our political system cannot arrive at agreement on how to deal with any of these issues. The most we can expect from an election or referendum now would be to give one party or another a sufficient majority to impose divisive policies on a sceptical electorate. Restoring confidence in democracy requires an overhaul of the system, nor merely rerunning the failed machine.


[1] The Electoral Commission has said that its powers are no longer fit for purpose, and the police have failed to pursue alleged breaches of the law.

[2] In 1983 a 42% vote share gave Margaret Thatcher a majority of over 70. In 2017 the same vote share left Theresa May 2 seats short of any majority at all. A mere 533 votes in nine key constituencies would have given her a clear majority.

Engineers and Warriors

Ian Leslie has at last explained to me why I fall out with friends who share my political aspirations.

Robert Hanlon said “never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity”. On that basis, Leslie distinguishes “engineers” from “warriors”. 

I am an “engineer”, a “mistake theorist”, who believes that our problems are the result of ignorance or confusion. My opponents are wrong, not wicked, and if we talk to each other we may find a solution. They may even persuade me that I am wrong!

By contrast “warriors”, or “conflict theorists” believe that there are irreconcilable conflicts of interest, which can only be overcome by one side winning.

The Trump, Farage, Johnson mode is a warrior one, shared by some people on the left. It is charismatic and exciting, it motivates campaigners because it promises simple solutions and has a clear enemy.

The EU is a supremely engineering project. In the words of Johnson’s hero “jaw jaw is better than war war”. By endless tedious discussions and compromise we arrive at a consensus which takes us forward in small boring steps. It rejects accusations of treason – compromise is usually the solution, not the problem.

It is because we campaign as warriors and govern as engineers that governments fail.

Fingers crossed!

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2019/07/why-our-politics-divided-engineers-and-warriors-compromisers-and-fighters

Time for Labour to come off the fence

In July 2019 the leaders of the major Trades Unions agreed that the Labour Party should agree to put any Brexit plan back to the people. Shortly afterwards Jeremy Corbyn wrote to all members adopting a modified version of this.

At the July meeting of the Broadland Constituency Labour Party I proposed a motion which would take that policy one step further, towards what I believe will be our final position. That motion was supported by those present with a two to one majority, although the meeting was inquorate, so will require ratification at a future meeting. This is what I said in proposing it.

I believe that we have wasted three years talking to ourselves inside the Party about this issue, refusing to act as a principled opposition, while the electorate look on puzzled and confused. While we try to keep the peace in our party, the voters are deserting us.

Brexit was a project of the extreme right of the Tory Party, designed to entrench predatory capitalism, and in 2016 Labour Party said that the best possible policy for the UK was to retain full voting membership of the EU, and use our considerable influence as the third largest member state to help move Europe to the left. We said that leaving the EU would make Britain poorer and weaker, it would harm jobs, security and welfare. All available evidence shows that this remains the view of the majority of Labour members and voters.

However, 37% of the electorate voted leave and we lost the referendum by a narrow margin. The Labour Party then adopted a position that respect for the “democratic vote” requires that we support something which we had previously opposed. This is not what we normally do. When we lose a general election we do not passively accept the “will of the people”, we continue to campaign for our principles, and work for another election to reverse the decision.

This has confused the electorate, who are not clear what we stand for, and suspect us of playing politics for party advantage. It has lost us votes to parties with clearer Brexit policies. In the Euro elections 45% of those who voted Labour in 2017 switched to explicitly remain parties.

The country and Parliament are deeply divided on this issue. Neither of the extreme positions – “no deal” or revoke can pass Parliament, and Jeremy’s policy is now the compromise one, which I have been campaigning for for 2 years, to put the question back to the people.

However, the Party position is still that in an election we would promise to seek to negotiate a better form of Brexit, and then put that to a referendum. There are two problems:

  • Firstly, the EU has said repeatedly that there will be no new negotiation of the Withdrawal Agreement, and polls show that the majority of people in the UK believe them. A policy which suggests that we believe in the impossible will be difficult to sell to the voters.
  • Secondly, if we believe that no form of Brexit is as good as remaining, we are in an absurd situation. We will negotiate a deal which we don’t believe is the best option. We will then hold a referendum in which we either support our own plan, contradicting our own view of the national interest, or we campaign against our own deal. Why would the EU consider talking to us on that basis? Why would the electorate consider voting for it? Why would activists be prepared to campaign for it?

If we are to win back those who have left us, and persuade the undecided, we need to be clear that we are standing on our principles. Brexit in any form will damage the country. Every possible form of Brexit is different from, and worse than, what the leave campaign promised, and any of the forms of Brexit now available. It is time to be clear where we stand, as a positive remain party in all circumstances. That is where I believe we will end up. The current fudge may keep an uneasy peace in the party, but it will lose us any election.