Is that a B'Stard I see before me?

A crowded field but where is the quality?

They say that fact is stranger than fiction and nowhere is this more true than in British politics right now. Thirty years ago, the TV scriptwriters Laurence Marks and Maurice Gran satirised the Conservative Party of the 1980s in the TV sitcom The New Statesman. It was based around the fictional hard-right Tory MP, Alan B’Stard, who was portrayed as an unscrupulous, amoral individual who would stop at nothing to fulfil his ambitions. It is difficult to watch this clip and avoid the impression that many of the current candidates for the Tory leadership are aping B’Stard’s fictional rhetoric.

Nominations for the Conservative Party leadership closed today, with 10 candidates on the ballot paper and with the first round of voting due to take place on Thursday. Just as a reminder of what is at stake, 314 Tory MPs are due to choose two candidates to succeed Theresa May who will then face a ballot of all Party members. What this means is that 124,000 people will choose the person who will attempt to negotiate the UK’s departure from the EU. Or, to put it another way, this choice will be made by 0.27% of the total electorate. Moreover, if only one candidate emerges from the parliamentary process, as happened in 2016, the new PM will be chose by less than 0.01% of all eligible voters[1]. To highlight the New Statesman-like surrealism of the debate, three of the candidates (Rory Stewart, Andrea Leadsom and Michael Gove) have all admitted to past drugs misdemeanours. Two of the hardline Brexiteer candidates (Dominic Raab and Esther McVey) have suggested suspending parliament to ensure that it cannot block Brexit on 31 October. And this is before we get to Boris Johnson whose strained relationship with the truth is legendary. Welcome to democracy in 21st century Britain.

Reviewing the fiscal options

But for all the lack of quality on display to inherit the office held by substantial politicians such as Winston Churchill and Margaret Thatcher, the economic issue of interest concerns the fiscal policy options suggested by the candidates. Let’s start with Boris Johnson. He has already threatened to withhold the £39 billion payment for incurred liabilities unless the EU gives the UK better exit terms. But assuming this is paid over a period of 3 years, it only amounts to around 10% of the EU’s annual budget revenues (or 0.1% of EU GDP). Not only is it a trifling sum in the grand scheme of things but lawyers suggest that such a move is probably illegal. It would also be the first time since the UK came into existence following the Act of Union in 1707 that it has defaulted on its credit obligations. The EU simply will not be threatened in this way and it would cost the UK far more than it gains. Whilst such a policy may play well with the Tory faithful, it would be an act of monumental economic stupidity.

Various leadership candidates have also promised tax cuts in the event they accede to 10 Downing Street. Johnson has promised to raise the threshold for the higher rate of income tax (40%) from a starting salary of £50,000 to £80,000, at an estimated cost of £10 bn (around 0.5% of GDP). Johnson claims that this can be funded from the £26.6 bn set aside by the Treasury as an insurance fund against a no-deal Brexit. But since Johnson has threatened that the UK would be prepared to walk away from the EU without a deal, he is surely going to need the emergency fund. Johnson’s team counter that the policy would be part funded by raising the upper limit on national insurance contributions. However, the Institute for Fiscal Studies has pointed out that this would benefit richer pensioners who do not pay NICs – which, oddly enough, maps onto the Conservative Party membership demographic.

Meanwhile, Brexiteer Dominic Raab has suggested reducing the basic rate of income tax by 5 percentage points over a period of five years. A rough rule of thumb based on Treasury calculations suggests that this will reduce revenues by more than 1% of GDP on a five-year horizon with no suggestion of how this will be funded. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt, who is also in the running, has called for a huge increase in defence spending to “support our great ally, the United States.” Currently, the UK spends around 2% of GDP on defence – each one percentage point increase will raise outlays by £20 bn. Maybe former Health Secretary Hunt thinks he can find more for defence by taking something away from the health budget or perhaps in contrast to his rivals, he believes taxes should be raised. But like his rivals, he has failed to set out how his plans will be funded.

We should also not forget Michael Gove’s plan to abolish VAT and replace it with a lower, simpler sales tax. Interesting theory but a bad policy. For one thing, it is one of the government’s biggest revenue generators, delivering £138 bn per year to the Exchequer (6.3% of GDP). Moreover it is a general tax involving the production and distribution of goods and the provision of services, and whilst it is borne by the final consumer it is more than simply a sales tax. VAT is also efficient, in contrast to Purchase Tax which it replaced and which was levied on a range of goods at differing rates. It was certainly not efficient. If Gove’s proposed tax is “simple” it will have to be applied to a wide range of goods in order to generate the kind of revenue that VAT does currently, which raises questions of whether items such as food will remain exempt.

Then there is the question of how it impacts on the supply chain. If it is levied at every stage of the process, a “simple” 5% rate on a chain with five links results in a 27% tax rate compared to the current VAT rate of 20%. Moreover, if an exporter is the final link in the chain they will not be able to recoup the tax paid without raising their international selling price, which would render their product uncompetitive. In short, switching away from VAT would involve far more complexity than Gove believes. A simpler tax which is revenue neutral would require a lot of thought and would almost certainly prove impossible to implement before the next election. There is a reason why 166 of 213 UN members have adopted VAT and why India has just rolled it out. It is simple and more efficient than the alternatives.

The fact that the Tory front-runners have made taxation such a big part of their leadership bids reflects the lack of new ideas coming from the political right. Reducing direct taxes worked in the 1980s because previous levels of tax were too high so there were some incentive effects derived from cuts. In addition, there was a large rise in female labour force participation which helped swell income tax coffers. However, the UK did not face the problem of an ageing society which it does today. As a consequence the UK does not have the same scope to cut taxes without major consequences for future public liabilities. Having endured nine years of austerity to bring public finances back into line, it would be fiscally irresponsible to waste all the hard work on unfunded tax cuts which benefit particular interest groups simply to win the race for Number 10.

---

[1] Admittedly, voters do not vote for the PM directly since they only get to choose their local representative. But there is no doubt that their local choices are determined by national level issues.

Brexit Through the Looking Glass

This morning in the office we were kicking around song titles to describe the current Brexit situation. As one old enough to remember the glory days of punk, my contributions were "Should I Stay or Should I Go" by The Clash (released in 1982) and "Anarchy in the UK" by The Sex Pistols (1977). Such is the shambolic state of the Brexit debate that we are beyond the five stages of grief (denial, anger, bargaining, depression and acceptance) and have reverted to outright ridicule.  

It is hard to know where to start but the bulk of the blame for the disastrous sequence of events over the past two years has to be laid squarely at the feet of Theresa May. I have no doubt she is a fundamentally decent woman who believes in delivering the best she can for her country, but as a prime minister she is useless. There is no shame in that. Some people are just not cut out to lead and she is one. But it has got to the stage where she is an outright liability to her party and country. She repeatedly makes promises she cannot keep and continues to bluff her way through, even though she has the weakest possible hand of cards. 

The litany of errors is long: By treating the non-binding referendum result as if it were a winner-takes-all event, May alienated Remain voters and large parts of her own party. Triggering Article 50 without a plan of what the government hoped to achieve was a huge strategic mistake. And the ill-judged election call weakened her domestic authority. Add to that her failure to judge the intentions of the EU, let alone the Brexit ultras in her own party, and the last two years have seen a steady erosion of May’s authority to the point that she makes a lame duck look secure.

The only reason she remains in 10 Downing Street is that the alternatives are either worse or simply don’t want the job under current circumstances. But as The Times noted this morning in an editorial, "Mrs May's attempt at brinkmanship has failed. Without trust and authority it is hard to see what she has to offer, having been trounced twice. The Conservative Party may now decide that only a new leader can find a path to an adequate Brexit." Following parliament’s efforts to prevent May from keeping no deal on the agenda this evening, with her own cabinet colleagues voting against her, her authority is weaker than any prime minister I can recall.

In fairness to the PM, when you are being undermined at every turn by so-called colleagues such as Jacob Rees-Mogg, David Davis and Boris Johnson, a difficult job becomes impossible. The Conservative Party generally is a mess. The pro-Brexit ideologues in the European Research Group have effectively split the party in two with their continued denial of the economic realities facing a post-Brexit UK. There will be no healing so long as they remain in the party. One of the great puzzles of modern British politics is how Theresa May remains so relatively popular (amongst Tories she is second only to – wait for it – Boris Johnson). The answer is she is opposed by Jeremy Corbyn whose dissatisfaction ratings are the highest of any opposition leader in 40 years. Labour has shown no leadership on Brexit and the 48.1% who voted Remain in 2016 believe themselves to be completely disenfranchised by the main political parties.

The great irony of the UK’s current position is that it has spent decades trying to undermine the EU’s drive towards ever-closer union, whilst Brexiteers celebrated winning their “independence” in 2016, only to now have to throw itself on the mercy of the EU to grant an extension of the Article 50 deadline. The sheer, utter, spectacular incompetence of the UK political class in allowing itself to be put in this position defies words.

Having handed the negotiating power back to the EU, what is likely to happen now? Other EU leaders have expressed the view that the UK needs a good reason to be granted an extension, and incompetence in dealing with its own MPs is unlikely to be good enough. And whilst Theresa May has expressed a preference for an extension that is both limited and one-off in nature, the EU is unlikely to give much weight to her wishes. Why should it? It’s not as if she can deliver on what she has promised. Moreover, DExEU has already suggested that the UK is not prepared for a no-deal Brexit in March and there is no reason to suppose it will be any better prepared in (say) three months’ time.

There is thus a strong possibility that if the EU does grant an extension, it will come with conditions attached – one of which may be that it has to run to end-2020. This will not go down well with MPs, many of whom will decry that the UK is being held prisoner by the EU. They may then be forced to make a choice between leaving without any deal and accepting that the only way that Brexit can be delivered at all is by accepting a prolonged delay.

This will raise the risk of a no-deal Brexit which is exactly what most economists have warned against for at least three years. Under these circumstances, I would not be at all surprised if the Withdrawal Agreement that has twice been rejected by parliament by two of the largest margins in the last 100 years will once again find its way back onto the table (and that is indeed being widely trailed on this evening's TV news programmes). Theresa May used to say that no deal is better than a bad deal. Judging by her desperation to get this deal over the line, she now seems to think that the opposite is true.

We should be in no doubt that the political shambles which has emerged over the past two years is the result of a lack of planning, organisation and leadership. Whatever people thought they voted for in 2016, it surely wasn’t this. My favourite quote to describe the Brexit omnishambles comes from fictional spin doctor Malcolm Tucker from the BBC satire The Thick of It who, when faced with political accusations, fired back with the memorable line “How dare you come and lay this at my door! How dare you blame me for this! Which is the result of a political class, which has given up on morality and simply pursues popularity at all costs.” What was political satire in 2012 is the political reality of 2019.

Enough is enough

Brexit has become such a dominant element of my professional life over the last six years that I thought I had become inured to the craziness as politicians bend over backwards to fulfil “the will of the people” following a non-legally binding referendum that threatens to crash the economy. But the events of the past few days have tried my patience like never before. We are increasingly in a 1984-style Orwellian world in which politicians operate in a world of doublespeak. Take today’s parliamentary votes in which MPs passed two motions, one of which called for redefining the nature of the Northern Irish backstop designed to avoid a hard Irish border whilst the other made it clear that parliament is not in favour of leaving the EU without a deal.

MPs fell over themselves to suggest that somehow we had moved forward. How? By accepting two contradictory motions, one of which suggests the UK is prepared to go to the wire on the backstop proposal and the other which says the complete opposite?  Such is the predicament facing the Conservatives that Theresa May is prepared to ride roughshod over the national interest in a desperate attempt to keep her party together. And everyone can see it. Obviously the EU has no interest in renegotiating the deal – the need for an Irish border exists to ensure that if the UK does indeed crash out of the EU and falls back on WTO rules, they can be enforced. Moreover the EU has made it clear that the UK can remain within the customs union if it is prepared to accept the terms. But this is not enough for a group of MPs who, in the words of Boris Johnson, want to have their cake and eat it.

If Orwell had not written 1984, someone else would have had to invent Emmanuel Goldstein’s The Theory and Practice of Oligarchical Collectivism, the first chapter of which is entitled Ignorance is Strength.

Ignorance abounds: Following the warnings by Airbus CEO Tom Enders that the company may be forced to reconsider its position in the UK in the event of a hard Brexit, we were treated to this spectacular rebuttal from Conservative MP Mark Francois who remarked that his father “was a D Day veteran. He never submitted to bullying by any German and neither will his son." Yes, you did read that right: an elected member of the British parliament, born in 1965 and whose military experience came no closer than serving in the Territorial Army, refers to a war that ended twenty years before he was born to attack the business interests of a multinational company. Is this really where we are? Has Brexit at all costs simply become a cause celebre for nationalists to realise their fantasy of a pre-EU Britain that never really existed? In the words of comedian Chris Addison, “it’s a peculiar anomaly that Brexiters can clearly recall World War 2 yet have no apparent memory of The Troubles in  Northern Ireland.” Shame on you, Mark Gino Francois.

The extent to which the Conservative Party has tied itself in knots over the EU question was laid bare by a recent BBC programme Inside Europe, the first episode of which followed the trail which has led us to our current predicament. It illustrated the extent to which the British Conservatives have failed to engage with the EU. But perhaps more damningly, it highlighted the ham-fisted efforts of former PM David Cameron, who was elected on a promise “to stop banging on about Europe”, to deal with the EU and how he failed to stand up to the right-wing of his party at pretty much every turn. We were reminded of how the UK vetoed the EU’s efforts in December 2011 to rewrite treaties which would place limits on fiscal deficits and debt, and impose automatic penalties for countries which breach them, as it attempted to place a firebreak in the way of the raging Greek debt crisis.

As it happens, the EU did not cover itself in glory. The measures were badly designed and focused on imposing fiscal discipline at a time when it was least needed. In the preceding the 17 years Germany had only complied with the debt brake rules twice and France not at all. But the EU was still not willing to grant the UK any concessions which would exempt the UK financial services industry from any treaty changes, thus prompting Cameron’s veto. I wrote at the time that it “could set the UK on a collision course with other EU members. It is to be hoped that such an outcome does not arise.” I had no idea it would lead us down the path towards  the 2016 showdown but it is no surprise that the EU was not overly keen to help Cameron when he attempted to wring concessions which would  allow him to claim some progress ahead of his self-imposed (and foolish) decision to call a referendum on membership.

One of the issues that struck me most forcibly was that many Conservative politicians were fixated on the need for a referendum as early as 2012 in a bid to lance the boil of Euroscepticism. Whilst the Westminster bubble may have focused on the fact that UKIP was drawing support away from the Conservatives, the issue of the EU simply was not as uppermost in the minds of voters as the programme led us to suppose. I thus could not help feeling that there was a certain amount of history being rewritten.

Every time British MPs engage in a bout of navel-gazing such as we have seen tonight, we call enough is enough. Yet still it goes on. But Brexit is simply a problem for the Conservative Party that cannot agree on what form it should take. If I were an EU negotiator, I would tell the UK government that they have a choice – accept the deal as it is or leave without one. They have no interest in giving in to the Conservative hard-liners who have demonstrated unwillingness to compromise. It is now up to British politicians to face them down, and stand up for what they were elected for: The interests of the people who put them there – all of them, and not just the 52%.

May's day turns out OK

 

To say that this has been a tumultuous week in UK politics is like saying you can get a good suntan in the Sahara. It is a statement of fact that simply does not do justice to the magnitude of events. At least we did get one meaningful vote – just not the one planned. Following the postponement of the parliamentary vote on the Withdrawal Agreement, we were treated to the spectacle of the civil war within the Conservative Party being fought in the open as rebellious Tory MPs tabled a motion of no confidence in Theresa May. Although her margin of victory was widely viewed as insufficient (200-117), she obtained 63.1% of the vote which is a larger share than in any of the 8 contested ballots in the past 43 years, bar John Major’s 66.3% when he challenged backbench rebels to unseat him in 1995 (chart).

Nonetheless, the impression remains of a prime minister who is in office but not in power. But Brexit is quite simply an undeliverable policy. Worse still, it has been hijacked by various interest groups seeking to further their own interests, all of whom have irreconcilable positions. Brexiteers simply refuse to accept that it is impossible to leave the EU on the terms that they desire, despite all the evidence to the contrary (see here for the journalist James O’Brien’s coruscating denunciation of their views). Remainers don’t always give the impression that they fully took on board the message of the 2016 referendum. Then there are the opportunists in the Labour Party who are simply using the chaos of the current situation to push their call for a general election.

Meanwhile, the world looks on aghast as the extraordinary events in UK politics continue to unfold. It has not been an edifying experience for a nation which prides itself on its constitutional stability and I have lost count of the number of times I have been asked what is going on in your country. I cannot explain it, but it was perhaps best summed up in a letter to The Times yesterday by Robert Blackburn QC, Professor of Constitutional Law at Kings College London, who wrote: “The political class has brought the present crisis over Brexit on itself by continuing to ignore the now urgent need to repair the creaking Victorian infrastructure through which our rulers continue to govern the country ... The use of an ad hoc referendum on a constitutional policy question of immense complexity, with no detailed prior examination and public dissemination of its implications across UK public life … and no parliamentary process for its approval, has exposed to the world the curiosity and embarrassment of a post-imperial unwritten political and governmental structure in turmoil.” In other words, a governmental system that is not fit for purpose.

He concludes that we need to enact the recommendations of a House of Commons Committee which “set out the case for a written codified constitution, one fit for the modern democratic era with a process through which popular deliberation and constitutional change should take place.” At the very least such an approach might act as a pressure vessel to contain the worst instincts of anti-EU populists who have infected the Conservative Party.

But now that the genie is out of the bottle it is difficult to see where we go from here. The leadership election has not resolved anything apart from drawing attention to the kindergarten antics of the inaptly named European Research Group which: (i) hates all European political ideas; (ii) clearly does no research and (iii) is a collection of disparate individuals rather than a coherent group. It is thus likely that we will continue with the plan announced by Theresa May on Tuesday in which parliament will be allowed to vote on the Withdrawal Agreement sometime before 21 January 2019. But in the absence of any significant amendments – and there is no sign that the European Commission is in any mood to reopen negotiations – MPs are likely to reject it.

But whilst nothing good will come out of Brexit, nor is there anything to be gained by calling for a second referendum any time soon let alone withdrawing the Article 50 notice. All three policy options will be hugely divisive, which is why I maintain that an extension to the Article 50 period is the least worst option. One complication which gets little airplay is that an extension of the deadline will cut across the European Parliamentary elections, scheduled for May 2019. It has long been assumed that the UK would be out of the EU by this point and will not be required to send MEPs to Brussels. If the UK is technically still a member of the EU this could cause some problems, though I can envisage a scenario in which the EU and UK arrange a fix whereby the UK is assumed to leave before the end of the parliamentary term and would thus not be required to elect MEPs.

Such a policy will buy time. But how much time will the UK need in order to pull itself together? Probably a lot more than the EU27 is likely to grant. However, I recall suggesting some time ago that one option would be to keep EU associate membership without actually leaving until public opinion has changed sufficiently to suggest that a second referendum is clearly winnable either way, thus decisively confirming or rejecting the Brexit decision. It is more than evident that politicians cannot decide what to do and unless Brussels comes to Westminster’s aid I am struggling to see how else this plays out.

Unless the Conservative Party can sort itself out, however, this issue is likely to periodically erupt every few decades. Thirty years ago, when Labour was in thrall to the left wing of the party, a series of leaders embarked on a modernisation programme which resulted in the expulsion of many of those viewed as extremists. The policy was successful in as much as Labour tacked to the centre ground and laid the groundwork for Tony Blair to claim three successive election victories with handsome majorities. Despite the current vogue for extremist policies, elections are largely won by capturing the centre ground. The Conservatives would do well to have a similar root-and-branch reform and rediscover the brio which allowed them to set the political agenda.

Imagine they held a coup and nobody came

Four days ago, amidst much media ballyhoo, the European Research Group began a campaign to launch a motion of no-confidence in Prime Minister Theresa May. All they had to do was get 48 Conservative MPs to sign up and, hey presto, the easiest election call in history. At the time of writing, they hadn't managed to do it. The powerful right-wing backbenchers that the prime minister has spent the last two years trying to appease continue to look like the disenchanted malcontents that they really are. All mouth and no trousers, as they say.

They may get the requisite 48 signatures one of these days. But the fact that it is taking them so long to do so weakens their case to be speaking for a large element of the Conservative Party. And the longer this drags on, the weaker they look. In some ways, their fate is beginning to look like that of Islamic State, which was a formidable terrorist organisation that occupied territory held by sovereign governments before being gradually pushed out by the well-organised forces ranged against them. IS are still dangerous but they are a shadow of their former selves. Without wishing to accuse the ERG of terrorism, they have infiltrated large parts of the Conservative Party and have occupied the political agenda by winning the 2016 referendum. However, as the inconvenient economic facts close in on them, they are fighting a losing battle to stay relevant. They are losing ground, and they know it. Even Theresa May is not scared of them anymore. The ERG has lost its power to intimidate and the PM is prepared to battle on her terms. 

The ERG is losing because it has never accepted the reality of Brexit. Over recent weeks prominent Leave-supporting MPs have made some ridiculous statements which have undermined their credibility and do make you wonder whether they are looking at the issues in the same way as other rational people. Take, for example, former Brexit Secretary Dominic Raab’s comment that “I hadn’t understood the full extent of this but … we’re particularly reliant on the Dover-Calais crossing.” This is the port through which a lorry passes every 12 seconds of the day and through which 17% of UK merchandise trade flows. Or take Nadine Dorries’ comment that Theresa May’s deal with the EU gives us “No voice; no votes; no MEPs; no Commissioner.” Seriously? And just to prove that the inability to face up to reality knows no party bounds, when faced with a quote by EU President Juncker that the UK will not get a deal that is as advantageous as EU membership, Jeremy Corbyn responded “Well that was his view. We have a different one.” 

Brexiteers may have won the 2016 referendum but they never knew how to deliver Brexit. It is not as if they have not had plenty of opportunities: Two Brexit Secretaries and a Foreign Secretary, all with influence over the relationship with the EU and all have walked out. They will undoubtedly continue to intervene from the backbenches but they have four months to pull a non-existent rabbit from an invisible hat and nobody believes they can do it. 

This does not mean that the Withdrawal Agreement will necessarily pass through parliament. Too many people oppose it for different reasons. I am thus increasingly of the view that extending the Article 50 deadline is the best option and sure enough, Michel Barnier yesterday proposed extending Britain’s transition period out of the EU until end-2022. Naturally it will cost more – another €10bn is the figure being put about, which is broadly the same as the UK’s current net contribution. So that's OK then: Pay the same and have no say over the rules. 

What is particularly irritating is that it was so blindingly obvious that this was going to happen, yet politicians blindly led us to the edge of the cliff despite being told they were on the wrong track. We told you that the EU would extract a quid pro quo as the UK left. We told you that the UK would lose any say over the rules whilst still paying into the budget. And we warned you that it was virtually impossible to take back control in a globalised world. For those MPs who still think they can negotiate the impossible deal, I have a bridge to sell you.

Left or right?

Party conferences are usually best avoided apart from those with a genuine interest in the minutiae of party politics. This does not prevent the UK media from dissecting the speeches of senior figures for clues as to what policies are likely to be presented (or more likely ignored) by the time the next general election comes round. But this year is different. The world’s media paid attention to last week’s Labour Party conference, and will focus on next week’s Tory conference for the same reason: They want to understand what the UK political establishment plans to do about Brexit.

Dealing first with the Conservatives, because that is the easiest part, we pretty much know that Theresa May will sound hawkish to reassure the party faithful that her government has no intention of backing down in the face of intimidation from Brussels. Expect a show of bravado with the underlying theme of “no surrender”, partly because that is what the party wants to hear but also because May is under pressure to save her political skin following repeated attempts by Boris Johnson to convince the electorate that he is the man to deliver Brexit (yawn!).

But Labour’s conference was a genuinely fascinating affair as it struggled to deal with the Brexit question. It is well known that leader Jeremy Corbyn is a Eurosceptic but a large majority of party members are opposed to Brexit. To complicate matters further, a large proportion of voters in Labour’s strongholds outside London were in favour of Brexit. Consequently, the party has struggled to come up with a coherent policy over the past couple of years. Last weekend, there was apparently much heated discussion as senior party officials wrestled with a compromise wording for the conference Brexit motion. Eventually, Labour agreed to keep a second referendum on the table but there was disagreement as to whether this included an option to remain in the EU. The shadow chancellor, John McDonnell, who is regarded by many as the keeper of the socialist flame, insisted that a referendum would only be called on the terms of any deal agreed with Brussels. But Keir Starmer, shadow Brexit secretary, won a standing ovation from the conference when he declared in an off-script speech that “no one is ruling out Remain.” So that’s all clear. Or not!

Irrespective of what is actually on the ballot paper, Labour appears to be committed to a referendum on something. There again, Tony Blair promised a referendum on euro membership that never happened. Indeed, it made it into Labour’s 1997 election manifesto. This has heightened the widespread belief that what Labour really wants is to get its hands on the levers of power – quite rightly, as that is what politicians are supposed to want. But at what price? Corbyn has spent 35 years in parliament protesting against the status quo. So whilst we know what he is against, voters do not know what he stands for.

John McDonnell’s speech to the conference this week revealed a radical economic platform. There is a general belief within the Labour hierarchy that the Conservatives’ social policy plans are so unpopular that Labour can afford to be upfront about its economic plans (they are probably right about the former but I am less sure of the latter). McDonnell outlined a compulsory share ownership scheme under which 10% of the equity in the UK’s large companies would be gradually handed over to workers. In addition, he announced plans to give workers one-third of the seats on company boards, and offered fresh details of proposals to nationalise utilities in the water industry. It is an agenda designed to frighten corporate Britain and the dilemma for many voters is whether this radical agenda is a price worth paying for reversing Brexit. For sure, the worst of all possible economic outcomes would be Labour’s economic plans AND Brexit, and the polls suggest that neither Labour nor the Conservatives are able to command a lead. Voters appear to be turned off by Tory infighting over Brexit and their inability to deliver what they promised, but equally they do not trust Labour in key areas of policy.

The international press also took a sceptical view. The respected Neue Zürcher Zeitung spoke for many by suggesting that Labour is putting a desire for power ahead of the national interest. Corbyn’s inability to articulate what he wants from a second referendum suggests it is a prospect to be dangled in front of the electorate in order to realise his true objective of taking Britain in a new direction. Le Monde also questioned whether the chaos of Brexit could indeed bring Labour to power.

Perhaps more than anything, the events of the past two years reveal the extent to which the policy failures of successive governments have been laid bare. Brexit was in part the result of the failure of governments to listen to the electorate on a wide range of issues, against a backdrop of extreme austerity. This has created a policy vacuum in which policies advocated by extreme free-marketeers and old-style socialists compete with each other in a way we have not seen for 40 years. It sometimes feels that taking back control really means taking the UK back to the 1970s. But much as I enjoyed that decade - it defined the music I grew up with for one thing - I would much rather look forward than backwards.