The only road to Brexit

Brexit still means Brexit. Or possibly harder Brexit. This is the message from the government after Theresa May finally outlined the framework on which it intends to negotiate the country’s withdrawal from the European Union. While the government is clearly still searching for the details of its plan, at least it has the twelve chapter headings now.

Briefly, when the Prime Minister said both houses of Parliament would get a vote on the final deal, there were gasps of relief, particularly from Remainers, that it might be subject to proper scrutiny, be open to amendment and a settlement which satisfies the vast majority might be found. But, the government has been swift to knock such notions on the head. If MPs feel that the deal on offer isn't adequate, the only alternative would be no deal; better than a bad deal, as the Prime Minister said.

It renders any vote somewhat superfluous. A debate on the terms of exit is not what the government wants; instead, as David Davis told parliament after the Prime Minister had stopped speaking:

‘What we want to have is a vote so the House can be behind and support the policy, which we are quite sure they will approve of when we get there.’

A united parliament, a united country, pulling the same way. No longer little Britain, shackled by Europe, but a Britain looking outward to the world, trading freely with whomever it chooses. This is the vision of the government. With so much rhetorical bombast on display, one half expects Sir Francis Drake to set sail on the high seas once more and plunder the Spanish Main just to show we can.

Parliament, though, isn’t of one mind and neither is the country. No matter how much Theresa May and others might implore ‘Remoaners’ to join this national independence crusade, many are equally determined to hold their position, much like Brexiters would have done had the EU referendum result gone the opposite way.

The 48% then - those who opposed Britain leaving the EU - can they rely upon the official Opposition to champion their cause? Er, no. As far as the two major parties are concerned, their cause is lost and is best ignored. Only Tim Farron, the leader of the Liberal Democrats, makes any effort in this respect and argues that any final deal should be put in a referendum.

Instead, Jeremy Corbyn came out with this:

‘She [Theresa May] has said “leave the single market” then at the same time “we want access to the single market”. I’m not quite sure how that’s going to go down in Europe.... she seems to be wanting to have her cake and eat it.'

Before adding: ‘I think we need to have a deal that ensures we have access to the single market.’

Please excuse me for failing to see the enormous gulf in these two positions.

It is this type of leadership that has frustrated so many long time Labour supporters with Jeremy Corbyn.

Jeremy Corbyn is currently the subject of a ‘populist’ relaunch. 'Let Jeremy be Jeremy' is, apparently, the plan. Aware that he and the Labour Party are somewhat lagging behind Theresa May and her government, it is understandable why Mr Corbyn’s team thought the New Year provided an opportunity to repackage the Labour leader in the hope he might appear to lead a more dynamic opposition.

As part of this relaunch, just a week ago, Jeremy Corbyn delivered his own speech on Brexit which was supposed to provide clarity on Labour’s position. By the end of the day, Corbyn was insisting immigration from the EU wasn’t too high but Labour wasn’t wedded to freedom of movement.

Labour has a huge opportunity to tackle the government on a host of major issues, not just Brexit; the NHS lurches from one crisis to another, delayed decisions on Heathrow, complete inactivity on the Southern rail shambles. But, it seems that for many, on too many occasions, Labour has gone missing from the battlefield, its major figures just not up to the task, save for a few notable exceptions such as Clive Lewis, Angela Rayner and Sir Keir Starmer, the last of whom cannot be expected competently to tackle the government over its Brexit spasms while Labour lacks a coherent policy itself.

Of huge concern should be the Fabian Society report, published earlier in the month, which said it was virtually impossible for a ‘too weak’ Labour Party to win a general election. Support could shrink to as low as 20 per cent and at the next election it could be left with fewer seats than since the 1930s. Its only viable return to power would be to seek alliances with the Liberal Democrats and the Scottish National Party. They show no inclination to forge such a partnership with Mr Corbyn's Labour Party.

This underlines a continual agonising, gnawing fear felt by those Labour supporters who aren’t convinced by the Jeremy Corbyn project and by many who believe it is a vital for all governments to have a decent opposition; the fear that not only is this Labour opposition failing to challenge the government sufficiently, but also that for many years to come no viable opposition is likely to emerge. 

The government, for many understandable reasons, is struggling to make sense of a vote to leave the European Union; a vote that was never meant to be lost and was intended, by David Cameron, to salve the running sores within the Conservative Party. But, as it tries to formulate the most important policy package this country will face in many generations, there is hardly a time in recent history when a government needed a robust opposition more.

The Labour leadership battle isn't a beauty contest

Debate is good, debate is healthy, debate is just what a political party needs after a hefty election defeat. And some Labour activists need to get a grip as many, with Dan Hodges as the standard bearer, seem to think Jeremy Corbyn's inclusion on the leadership ballot is a sign of an unprofessional party as he is simply 'not ready' to be Prime Minister (Corbyn is, for the record, 66).

It is an absurd, anti-democratic, argument. And even if it were true, it isn't unique to Labour; the Conservatives elected Iain Duncan Smith as leader and even John Redwood had a pop.

Yes, Corbyn only got on the Labour leadership ballot as several of his comradely MPs lent their support and nominated him. But this only recognises, whether certain members like it or not, that he represents a not insignificant body of opinion within the party. Surely the hope of the other candidates is that by including him in the debate his more eccentric ideas can be exposed and anything of value can be swiftly co-opted by a candidate more likely to be successful. And, of course, by having the debate, those on the far left will not feel the need to cut their ties to the party altogether. It's a simple method of securing a few votes in the future.

Those arguing that he shouldn't be on the ballot seem to me to struggle to put forward a coherent argument. Yes, it may be the case that it is indulgent of the Labour Party and it may also be that he would take the party to an even more unelectable position, but these remain matters of opinion, not rules of law. This shouldn't, therefore, deny Corbyn of a voice.

Should he, therefore, be banned from standing? Should he and his supporters be the victims of a purge, like Militant all those years ago?

Some even argue that a leadership contest is not, in fact, a debate at all and here I'm lost. If it's not a debate what is it? Should the leading candidates simply agree on the main issues and let the contest be a judgement on physical beauty instead?

As I've argued before, the Conservatives will have their own problems at the next election as they'll either have a new leader with the baggage of 10 years in government - which rarely does them much good - or they will have a new leader without the personal appeal of David Cameron. The emotional spasms currently afflicting the Labour Party were an inevitability after May 7, but, in the main, they are recoverable (Scotland is a different matter).

Despite the best efforts of a few on the right trying to have a jolly good laugh by ironically signing up as Labour supporters just to give Jeremy Corbyn a boost, the Honourable member for Islington North won't win the Labour leadership. In a few months this will all be largely forgotten by the electorate, who, for the main, have no interest in the internal politics of our major parties. And, if anyone does remember, they'll wonder what all the fuss was about.

Wolf in Sheep's clothing - or the other way around?

The country has suffered the greatest recession in living memory, every party admits more painful austerity is on the way after May's election and this state of affairs will have to continue throughout the next parliament if there is a vague chance of wiping out the deficit, let alone the national debt. And yet, judging by their actions of the last few days, the various parties think they're living in clover.

The Conservative Party is acting like a chap who thinks he's the latest Euromillions winner, flashing the cash with abandon, promising his mates all the gifts they could want; only to discover later he got the numbers wrong.

The giveaways have come in a rush: regulated rail fares will be pegged with RPI throughout the lifetime of the next parliament; the NHS will receive the £8billion a year by 2020 which independent experts reckon it needs to keep up with our ageing population; and the next Tory government - somewhat failing to understand the principle of volunteering - would offer 15million workers the opportunity of three days' leave every year to volunteer.

All this is being offered at the same time as the party rules out raising National Insurance and VAT and offers another tax cut to the extremely wealthy through its Inheritance Tax plans.

This is not to suggest these are unpopular ideas (indeed, two of them could benefit me personally hugely - than you George!) but nothing has been offered, by way of explanation, as to how the country would pay for such perks.

And they all come on top of the Conservatives failing to say where £1billion of welfare cuts will come from after the vote. Some might think this would be a rather crucial nugget of detail before deciding which way to swing when voters finally enter the polling booth on May 7,

This campaign of giveaways emerged suddenly after a few days of negative attacks, and negative press especially in the case of Michael Fallon's ferocious attempt at knifing Ed Miliband's character. Perhaps this timing was always the tactic but it does seem abrupt; some commentators have not shied away from calling it panicky. And, there is little doubt, it comes in stark contrast to the fiscal discipline to which George Osborne has consistently claimed his party adhered.

For instance, when Labour suggested a 'tough cap' on rail fares in August 2014, Transport Secretary Patrick McLoughlin denounced it as 'yet another unfunded spending promise' that 'would cost £1.8bn over the lifetime of the next parliament and be paid for by more borrowing and higher taxes'.

When Andrew Marr challenged Chancellor of the Exchequer to explain where the extra NHS funds would come from, all George Osborne would say was that it was 'part of our balanced plan'. So far, all the weight is on one side of the economic see-saw.

Also, as some clever person pointed out on Twitter, if the Conservatives were planning this move, why not actually commit to such spending in the most recent Budget?

Labour has not been much better. Savings have been promised but not nearly amounting to the levels needed to have a credible attempt at tackling the deficit.

In a brazen attempt to steal the Conservative Party's clothes, Ed Miliband will, at the launch of Labour's manifesto tomorrow, commit a Labour government to a new 'Budget Responsibility Lock'.

This, the party explains, will ensure that 'every policy... will be paid for without requiring any additional borrowing' and all parties 'in the future will have their spending and tax commitments independently audited by the Office for Budget Responsibility before a General Election'.

Launching the manifesto, Ed Miliband will declare:

'The very start of our manifesto is different to previous elections. It does not do what most manifestos do. It isn't a shopping list of spending policies. It does something different: its very first page sets out a vow to protect our nation's finances; a clear commitment that every policy in this Manifesto is paid for without a single penny of extra borrowing.'

And he is set to go on, rounding on the Tories for their apparently generous spending commitments.

'In recent days you have seen the Conservatives throwing spending promises around with no idea of where the money is coming from, promises which are unfunded, unfair and unbelievable.

'That approach is bad for the nation's books. And nothing is more dangerous to our NHS than saying you will protect it without being able to say where the money is coming from. You can't help the NHS with an IOU.'

Considering the state of the economy when Labour last left office, it is an audacious bid even to attempt to claim the economic moral high ground. For five years, the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have called - whether reasonably or not - for Ed Balls and Ed Miliband to apologise for Labour's economic record. That being so it is fairly remarkable that the Labour Party has been given the opportunity to swoop on to this political battle ground and attempt a rebrand. Will it persuade ordinary voters that Labour is suddenly fiscally responsible? Its promise of no extra borrowing is surely a position no government could really maintain if faced with tricky economic circumstances.

Moreover, the insistence on rectitude and the refusal of any 'extra borrowing' neatly overlooks the significant distinction between deficit and debt; and this after we have been carefully introduced, in recent years, to some of the economic and linguistic distinctions nestling within these terms. it is all very perplexing.

The Conservative manifesto is being published on Tuesday; they might need to start offering some answers to all the questions.

All concerned should be aware that Paul Johnson, the Director of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, told The World This Weekend that all parties were 'making up numbers'.

'I've found this entire debate from all the parties really deeply depressing. You've had the main parties ruling out whole hosts of relatively straightforward ways of increasing tax, talking about raising tax from some other group, be they the rich or the non-doms or the tax avoiders, but this is all real money and has real effects on the economy, and no sense from anybody about a serious way forward for the tax system.'

Battle of the election leaflets

It is one of the inevitable chores one must address after returning from holiday; sifting through the mounds of post. It wasn't all bad news, there were a few birthday cards, a couple of books I had ordered and a hat, replacing the one currently keeping a very small patch of land dry in a field somewhere in the Lake District. The rest were bills (quickly binned), circulars (swiftly following the bills) and a raft of campaigning material from various parties, all gearing up to the local and Euro elections later this month.

In many ways, the Conservative Party's leaflet was the most interesting. Groovily lower case and called 'intouch', its top headline proclaims 'Time to Turn Penge and Cator Blue: Vote Conservative'. It describes Penge as an 'up and coming area with a vibrant and thriving High Street' and claims Tory councillors would be best to 'resist over-development and protect the unique character of Penge', accusing other parties of being 'obsessed with building more and more cramped housing' in the area.

To describe the High Street as 'vibrant and thriving' is generous to say the least. Apart from some noticable pockets, Penge is proving mightily hard to gentrify. When Woolworths closed it was replaced by a gargantuan 99p shop (followed by a smaller and mercifully short-lived 98p shop). In recent months, at least two banks have closed (the Tory leaflet acknowledges a shortage of banks), along with a Caribbean restaurant. There are several pawnbrokers - always a depressing sign of an area's economic health. The street is frequently strewn with litter, a blight which afflicts the whole neighbourhood and isn't addressed once by the Conservative literature.

As for their claims that they are best placed to protect the character of the area, this seems hard to reconcile considering Bromley Council features just three Labour and three Liberal Democrat councillors; the Conservatives have more than 50. Do these six councillors really impose over-developments upon a cautious council?

A consequence of the make-up of the council is that it is hard for opposition candidates to pledge anything at all in their literature. Indeed, we have received nothing at all from the Liberal Democrats and Labour's leaflet is understandably timid. They acknowledge the litter problem and want to improve local parks and the environment of the High Street. But while they claim they have pushed for more affordable housing, campaigned against the bedroom tax and called for a living wage for council employees, their efforts have either been blocked or ignored. Labour councillors also claim the blocking of an application to turn our local pub into a hostel was 'thanks to campaigning by Labour councillors', forgetting to mention the dozens of well crafted letters of opposition by worried local residents. Ah well, ho hum!

The only other pieces of election literature received were regarding the European elections, one from Ukip, the other from the Communities United Party (CUP). The Ukip one, somewhat disconcertingly addressed to my wife, was predictable enough, with a pledge to 'help you get our country back' though from whom wasn't entirely clear.

As for the CUP, led by Kamran Malik - described on the party's website as 'Legend Leader' - they claim to represent individuals who feel 'at best disillusioned and at worst betrayed by the Coalition government and its predecessors, The Labour Party'. The leaflet said it challenged public authorities on issues such as council tax costs, parking charges and local government spending; indeed, so persistent, or 'truly hopeless', have their challenges been, it was recently issued an injunction from future civil cases with a judge's permission in Newham. Sadly, though, while Mr Malik promises to 'ensure that the voice of the citizens of the United Kingdom is heard at home and in Europe', and some vague comments on taxes and business rates, the leaflet is remarkably light on actual policy.

Judging from these efforts, then, it would seem that the last few days before the election provide partyies with plenty of opportunity to affect opinion.