Labour pains (revisited)

I have been very critical of the UK Conservative government over the years – and with good reason – but just to show my even-handedness, I thought it worthwhile to reflect on the performance of the opposition Labour Party following the recent publication of its 2019 election review. According to the authors of the report, Labour suffered a heavy election defeat because Jeremy Corbyn was a deeply unpopular leader amongst the wider electorate and its policy on Brexit was confused. The authors also referenced deeper seated issues, as the party increasingly lost touch with its core support – a problem which was masked by the relative outperformance relative to expectations in 2017 – with the result that “Labour has a mountain to climb to get back into power in the next five years.” 

But cast your mind back five years, and three elections, ago and Labour had just lost a general election in which they were expected to run the Conservatives very close, running neck-and-neck in the opinion polls right up until election day. Although it was anticipated they would win the most seats, the Tories were expected to fall short of a majority and would be forced to form another coalition with the Lib Dems. In the event, they won a majority of 12 seats. Whilst the Tories then unleashed Brexit on an unsuspecting British public, Labour went into full introspective mode and decided that the key reasons for their defeat were: (i) the fact that they remained tarnished by the myth the previous Labour government was responsible for crashing the economy; (ii) an inability to deal with “issues of connection” like immigration and benefits and (iii) Ed Miliband was judged to be not as strong a leader as David Cameron. 

Quite how the election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader following Miliband’s resignation was meant to address any of those issues was lost on me – and indeed most voters. In the words of The Economist “Mr Corbyn has been the party’s most disastrous leader ever – not just useless … but positively malign.” That he was unelectable as prime minister was obvious from day one. In a client note I put out in September 2015 just after he was elected leader, I wrote “Simply put, Mr Corbyn is an old-fashioned socialist and is a throwback (at least in British terms) to a political group which was believed to have become extinct in the 1980s … Mr Corbyn is unelectable. None of the analysis performed in the wake of the May general election suggests that Labour failed to win a majority because it was not sufficiently socialist – indeed, quite the opposite.” I take no pleasure in being right. 

Worse still, Corbyn was one of the facilitators of the breakdown in current British politics.  To quote The Economist again, “his failure to throw his party’s weight behind the Remain campaign contributed significantly to Britain’s decision to leave the EU, which most of the membership opposed. His refusal to meet Theresa May half-way during the dying days of her administration killed off any chance of a soft Brexit. His extreme politics and sanctimonious style drove traditional Labour voters into Boris Johnson’s arms.”

It is hard to disagree with any of this. Indeed, a lot of the blame for the fact that Boris Johnson’s inept government can theoretically continue in office for another four years can be laid at Corbyn’s door. But bygones are bygones and the big question for Labour is whether the party can recover. For my money, it can. For one thing, the election of Keir Starmer as party leader has put a centrist politician in charge. I have noted previously that Labour performs badly when it tacks too far to the left and Starmer will drag them way from some of the positions supported by Corbyn which were guaranteed vote losers. For the record, I am a university contemporary of Starmer and remember him standing as a student politician on a moderate Labour platform at a time when the party was run by left-wing zealots.

Whilst I maintain no party political affiliation it is important for the health of democracy that a strong opposition is able to put pressure on the government to act in the interests of all the people and not just its supporters. The abject performance of Johnson and his government is a reminder what happens when the opposition enables a poorly organised government and fails to hold it to account. But as bad a prime minister as Johnson is proving to be, few people believe that Corbyn would have been any better. Aside from having to deal with the Covid-19 crisis, which would try any leader, Labour’s position on Brexit was extremely muddled and it is far from clear how they would have handled it. Politicians on all sides are to blame for the disjointed position in which the UK finds itself. Naturally the government has to carry the can. But Jeremy Corbyn’s failure to provide leadership when it was most needed should neither be forgiven nor forgotten.

Johnson's jamboree

Wow! That was the election result the pollsters did not see coming. It was seismic for a number of reasons and it is hard to refute the view that Boris Johnson emerged as the most attractive candidate in a contest of the ugly. Even Johnson’s victory speech acknowledged that many voters who have not voted for them before may simply have loaned their votes to the Tories because: (a) they had no interest in backing Corbyn and (b) they really do want to “get Brexit done.” A big majority of 80 seats – the largest by any government since 2001 and the largest Tory majority since 1987 – gives Johnson a mandate to do more than deliver Brexit. If he plays it right, he could potentially cement the Tories in power for another decade, such is the catastrophic state of the opposition.

Labour lost it in more ways than one

Indeed, this was a result which requires Labour to reflect on where it wants to go next. This was its worst showing since 1935 in terms of seats (chart above), although its share of the vote was higher than in 1983, 1987, 2010 and 2015, But it nonetheless underscored the extent to which Labour has lost touch with its core voters and Thursday’s result was a damning indictment of the direction the party has taken under Jeremy Corbyn. I pointed out in 2016  that Corbyn was the wrong man at the wrong time and I was not taken in by the 2017 election result, attributing this to a  backlash against Brexit, particularly amongst younger voters who looked for Labour to oppose it. However, I was astonished by the extent to which his unpopularity amongst voters was even cited by his own MPs. Labour’s problems with anti-Semitism and the perception that Corbyn is a terrorist sympathiser do him no favours amongst ordinary voters. His inability to take a position on Brexit lost him the youth vote and he was roundly criticised for signing off on Labour’s tax-and-spend policy.

But Corbyn is merely one manifestation of Labour’s drift to the left. To hear some of his fellow travellers deny the reality of the party’s position in the wake of this resounding defeat is to realise that it will be a long way back for Labour before it can be considered electable. The party has traditionally performed well when it tacks towards the centre, as it did under Tony Blair. But when it drifts to the left as it did in the 1930s, 1980s and under Corbyn this tends to be a recipe for electoral disaster. Blair was a proven winner who tapped into the national Zeitgeist and it is a measure of how far Labour has moved that party activists would rather criticise Blair for his involvement in the Iraq War than recognise his election-winning genius. When Labour loses long-held seats in my native north-east England, you know the game is up.

Lib Dems demonstrate the ineptitude of the centrists

Whilst on the subject of opposition parties, the Liberal Democrats’ failure to capitalise on its centrist credentials was a spectacular indictment of its own failings. Slightly less than half of voters supported Remain but the Lib Dems managed to capture only 11.5% of votes and won just 11 seats – one less than in 2017, with leader Jo Swinson losing her seat. Let us not forget that the Lib Dems were the enablers of this election. However, their promise to revoke the Article 50 notification was a serious policy mistake as it reinforced the perception of a party that was prepared to ignore the wishes of those voters who favoured Brexit. Many people have asked me why they would do something so dumb. I think the answer is that they assumed Labour would back a referendum and they simply wanted to differentiate themselves. 

But by ruling out any cooperation with Corbyn, the Lib Dems are directly responsible for scuppering any chance of a Remain coalition that might have given them a fighting chance of achieving their goal of overturning Brexit. To put it bluntly, both the main opposition parties made too many strategic and tactical errors that were evident to anyone with more than a passing interest in politics. One does have to wonder who was in charge of the election strategy for both the main opposition parties, for they were spectacularly incompetent. Next time round, folks, I am available for hire - I certainly could not do any worse.

The Tories could not lose against this level of opposition

The Conservatives did not exactly fight a stellar campaign but they kept their message simple and did not tackle Labour head-on on their own ground. Johnson largely avoided making too many gaffes and his promise to move beyond Brexit clearly resonated with a large part of the electorate. My views on Johnson have been well documented on this blog over the years and they have not changed. But I have to admit that the Tories fought a well-disciplined campaign and they were canny enough to pick a fight they could win. The party knew that it had a good chance of beating a Corbyn-led Labour Party. It might have struggled against a more credible leader, although it would almost certainly not have pushed so hard for a winter election if they thought they might lose. As it is, their vote share of 43.6% has not been bettered since Margaret Thatcher’s 1979 victory (chart below).

I will deal with the outlook in future posts. But the key concern right now is whether we will see a party that tacks to the right, as many of its more prominent politicians appear to want, or whether a more centrist version of Johnson will emerge that permits a broader church.  Johnson has a big majority which means he will be far less reliant on a small number of MPs to ensure the passage of legislation. This raises the possibility that he may not need to push for a hard Brexit in order to keep his MPs onside – a luxury that Theresa May did not enjoy. He may also be more emollient on the question of extending the transition period than he sounds today.

 

Holding the union together will be a challenge

But there are some big issues on the horizon. The SNP won 48 of the 59 Scottish seats, implying that neither the Conservatives nor Labour will have much representation north of the border. It is clear that Scottish voters, who voted 62%-38% in favour of remaining in the EU in 2016, do not buy into the policies espoused by the main Westminster parties and the push for a second independence referendum will gather momentum.  Similarly, nationalist politicians now outnumber unionists in Northern Ireland for the first time, indicating a possibly more favourable view towards a united Ireland. Future Conservative governments will thus have to devote more attention to maintaining the union. It can no longer be taken for granted.

Can the Tories demonstrate they are about more than Brexit?

The mould has also been broken in another way. Whereas in the past Labour could rely on the votes of working class voters in the former industrial heartlands, that may no longer be true in future. A generation of Labour voters would not countenance voting for the Tories after their policies were deemed responsible for triggering a wave of deindustrialisation. That changed this week. This is a sign that the old tribal certainties are breaking down as younger voters are no longer influenced by the historical conflicts that shaped their parents’ generation. Maybe Boris Johnson still has the old magic; Heineken Man refreshing the parts that other politicians cannot reach, rather than Marmite Man who is loved and hated in equal measure. Maybe! Johnson has the potential to be the unifying candidate that the country needs. But he carries so much Brexit baggage that he will have to redouble his efforts to prove that the Tories are more than a single issue party. It is going to be an interesting ride.

"Politics, bloody hell"

Following Manchester United’s dramatic Champions League final victory over Bayern Munich in 1999, Alex Ferguson’s surprise and delight was expressed in his post-match comment “football, bloody hell.” Substitute politics for football and that encapsulates events of the past 24 hours in British politics. The most dramatic event was the decision by the Supreme Court which found Boris Johnson guilty of unlawfully preventing parliament from fulfilling its constitutional function of holding the government to account. Under normal circumstances, that would be sufficient to render a PM unfit for office – indeed, most employees losing a court case in such circumstances would expect to be fired – but these are not normal times.

In 62 days as Prime Minister, Boris Johnson has lost six parliamentary votes; a by-election; his parliamentary majority; 23 MPs and a major court case in which he was found guilty of flouting the UK’s democratic conventions. These are the actions of a serial loser and were he a football manager Johnson would surely have been fired by now. But for all that, when Johnson finally does get the election he has long wanted – probably before year end – I fully expect him to win (or at least lead the largest party in parliament). And that is because he faces the least competent leader of an opposition party in the history of modern British politics.

Not what you are for but who you are against

For those of you not following the details, the Labour Party conference which is taking place this week shows a party which is in disarray and is remote from the concerns of the electorate. Jeremy Corbyn rejected efforts by party members to adopt a clear stance on Brexit before any general election by gerrymandering the process (par for the course in modern British politics). By packing the conference hall with supporters and calling for a show of hands, rather than allowing the trade unions to put their support behind moves for a second referendum, Corbyn has adopted a position which effectively amounts to “vote for us and we will tell you what our position is after the election.”

Those younger voters who flocked to Labour in 2017 in the belief that the party opposed Brexit will not vote for Corbyn again. The wider electorate is suspicious of a party which has what can only be described as a socialist agenda, and if it will not address the concerns of voters on Brexit, the moderates will desert in droves. I wrote in September 2015, soon after Corbyn was elected leader, that he would never be elected prime minister (“the general consensus at this stage is that Mr Corbyn is unelectable”). I believe this to be even more true today and this week’s conference decisions will go down as the moment Labour lost its chance to win an election.

Keep calm and carry on

Therefore, as bad a PM as Johnson is, all he has to do is hang in there and he will be returned to Downing Street at the next election. Indeed, although Johnson has been thwarted at every turn in his efforts to deliver Brexit, he is pulling out the stops to make it appear that he is prepared to do whatever it takes. This sort of stuff plays well with the half of the electorate that voted for Brexit and just wants to get on with it. It almost does not matter whether Johnson is successful in his efforts to prorogue parliament: By promising to deliver “do or die”, he has made himself into a martyr for the Brexit cause which will suit him as he tries to win back those Conservatives who have defected to the Brexit Party.

In my view, the government now does not have to take the risk of pushing ahead with a no-deal Brexit on 31 October as it can point to the various efforts by other parties (parliament and the courts) to prevent such an outcome. Johnson has already established his Brexit credentials. Indeed, the government would be breaking the law if it decided to push ahead with a no-deal Brexit.  Much of the excitable commentary suggesting that the government might ignore the court and try to prorogue parliament for a second time is probably wide of the mark (or at least it should be. The PM would be well advised not to listen to his advisers).

It is also not inconceivable that a deal can be struck that ensures the UK can enter into the transitional arrangement with the EU on 31 October, as Johnson undoubtedly desires. After all, there have recently been signs that the DUP are apparently softening their opposition to the prospect of an all-Ireland solution to the Irish backstop problem. In short, Northern Ireland would be much more closely aligned to the EU’s customs rules and would mean rather different treatment to the rest of the UK. If this hurdle can be overcome, then the problem of imposing a hard border between the Republic and Northern Ireland falls away. The EU would certainly be open to this option. After all, they originally suggested it in 2018 only for it to be rejected by the UK government which did not want to see different rules being applied in different parts of the UK.

Far from the finish line

If, however, this cannot be achieved then an extension to Article 50 seems inevitable. But this will open up a whole new can of worms. There is already a huge backlash underway against “unelected judges,” which totally ignores the fact that the courts actually opened the way for parliament – the representative body of the people – to take control of the issue. Whilst it is unsatisfactory that the judiciary has become involved in politics in the way that it has over the past three years, it is even more unsatisfactory that the executive has shown such contempt for the democratic process. We are sailing ever deeper into uncharted waters as the government tries to square the unresolvable circle of Brexit. As Brexiteers continue to look for the knockout blow that will resolve the problem “once and for all” they simply create more collateral damage and heighten the risk of an even bigger backlash.

We do not know where it will end. Nor do we know when it will end, for it is often forgotten that delivering Brexit on 31 October simply means entering into a harder set of negotiations with the EU as the two sides seek to determine the longer term nature of their relationship. There is no pot of gold at the end of this rainbow. And even the rainbow now looks more than a little tarnished.

No good options (only bad ones)

Regular readers will know that I am no fan of Boris Johnson, having been critical of his actions over the past three years. Johnson has a long history of lying when it suits his interests (here for a list of issues which renders him sufficiently untrustworthy to take his public pronouncements at face value). Brexit has brought out the worst in him: Remember the weekly savings of £350 million splashed all over the side of that bus? Or what about the fact that he constantly undermined his prime minister whilst sitting in her cabinet?

Despite all of this – or perhaps because of it – I have been of the view that Johnson does not want a no-deal Brexit. Even last week’s execrable decision to prorogue parliament could be justified as an attempt to put pressure on MPs to sign up to the much derided Withdrawal Agreement. As I pointed out in my last post, one interpretation of the strategy was to ensure that it was impossible to reach a deal with the EU so as to put pressure on MPs to ratify the Withdrawal Agreement and dare Labour to block it, knowing that they could be blamed for a no-deal Brexit in any subsequent election. I still think that is a plausible strategy.

But over the weekend, it has become evident that the government is prepared to trample over democratic norms to an extent that was previously unthinkable. We had the unedifying spectacle of Michael Gove refusing to commit the government to complying with any laws passed by parliament. This was followed up by the threat to deselect any Conservative MP who votes against the government in order to block a no-deal Brexit. I do not want to describe what is happening as a coup – a word which has been bandied around a lot recently – but there is a new strain of authoritarianism in British politics, the likes of which we have not seen before (at least in peacetime). This is not the Conservative Party of Margaret Thatcher or Winston Churchill (Johnson’s political hero). 

The sheer hypocrisy of the deselection policy beggars belief. As Tory MP Alistair Burt pointed out in response to the government’s call for MPs to support its Brexit policy, “I did. I voted for the conclusions of the negotiations brought to Parliament in the WA [Withdrawal Agreement]. JRM [Jacob Rees-Mogg], his friends and current Cabinet members did not. Why am I, having loyally supported, now being threatened and not them?” It is hard to dispute the logic of this claim. On 15 January, 118 Conservative MPs voted against the government’s stated policy of ratifying the Withdrawal Agreement. On 12 March this number was reduced to 75 and by the time of the final vote on 29 March there were still 34 recidivists. The 196 Tory MPs who voted with the government on three occasions will not be inclined to be threatened by those who have consistently showed a lack of loyalty to the former prime minister. What comes around goes around, and Johnson’s lack of loyalty in the past means he cannot count on the support of those who he has previously let down. 

Nor does the deselection tactic make a lot of immediate sense. The government has a majority of one: withdrawing the whip from Conservative MPs means that they are effectively excommunicated from the party, increasing the likelihood that they will vote against the government on a range of other issues. But if the ultimate objective is to hold an election sooner rather than later, there may be some method to the madness – why else would a government want to operate without a working majority? As David Gauke MP said in a radio interview this morning, “I think their strategy, to be honest, is to lose [an attempt to rule out a no-deal Brexit] this week and seek a general election having removed those of us who are not against Brexit or leaving the EU but believe we should do so with a deal.” Indeed, newspapers this afternoon were full of headlines suggesting that Johnson would be prepared to trigger an election if he lost a vote ruling out a no-deal Brexit. However, an election can only occur if the government loses a vote of no confidence in parliament or if two-thirds of MPs vote for it. Either way, it will require the consent of Labour MPs.

Former PM Tony Blair has warned Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn against falling into the “elephant trap” of calling for an election. Blair’s words should be heeded. As much as people are opposed to Brexit and the way in which Johnson has ridden roughshod over the British constitution, there is no guarantee that voters will flock to Corbyn as an alternative. In fact, I am pretty sure they won’t. Obviously Corbyn does not see it that way but I would be prepared to bet that he will not improve on the relative success of the 2017 election result.

If Corbyn really wants to put pressure on Johnson, his strategy should be to get as many Tory rebels as possible to sign up to a motion which commits parliament to ruling out a no-deal Brexit, whilst refusing to rise to the bait of any vote which would trigger a general election. This has the disadvantage that if Brexit can be delivered without collapsing the economy it will hand Johnson an electoral boost. But a more likely outcome is that since the EU will not cave in on the Irish backstop, which the hardliners in the Conservative Party will not be able to accept, a disciplined Labour Party can hold the Tories’ feet to the flames for a much longer period and possibly even force the party to split which would be to Labour’s electoral advantage.

Unfortunately, this would mean a continuation of the political wrangling that has characterised the last twelve months – and that is definitely not in the electorate’s interest. But an election is not in the country’s interest either. The Fixed-term Parliaments Act of 2011 was designed to prevent governments controlling the timing of elections for their own purposes (which it spectacularly failed to do in 2017). If the terms of the Act had been adhered to, we would not have had an election since 2015 and would not have to face the prospect of another one until summer 2020. The 2017 election was a device to suit the government’s convenience – as will any plebiscite in 2019. If there is another election this year, it will further undermine the claim that a second EU referendum would be to disrespect the “will of the people.” 

Is there a way out of this political nightmare? It is hard to see one. We are paying the price for a litany of past mistakes – from the decision to hold a referendum at all; to drawing red lines around membership of the single market and customs union, to Johnson’s plan to resolve the issue by 31 October.  Whatever happens now, half the electorate will be left disaffected and angry. There are no good options – only bad ones.

Burning down the house

In newsrooms, this time of year is known as the silly season for the fact that there is little of note to report and as a consequence the media is often dominated by trivial news items. As the Brexit debacle continues to unfold, the news is far from trivial but the adjective silly continues to apply.

This week has seen the Labour Party put forward plans to form a temporary government if the current government loses a vote of no confidence, which Labour has promised for September. To that end, Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn sent a letter to the leaders of all the other opposition parties and senior backbench MPs calling on them to support his attempt to bring down the Johnson government and delay Brexit. This raises two questions: (i) is it right that MPs should try to prevent the government from delivering a no-deal Brexit and (ii) what is the best way to ensure that?

With regard to (i) it is highly likely that the government will face a no-confidence motion in September. If it wins, we carry on down the current path to destruction. If it loses, the Fixed-terms Parliament Act of 2011 allows a grace period of 14 days to allow the current administration to form a government which is acceptable to parliament. If after this time no such government can be formed, a general election must be called. If Tory MPs were to vote against their own government, it is constitutionally possible to put a firebreak in the process. Quite how this will play with the electorate is another matter. Brexit supporters will be up in arms, accusing MPs of thwarting the will of the people, and such a course of action will do nothing to heal the divisions that have widened over the course of recent years.

Clearly this process will have to be handled very carefully. Unless instructed to do so by the electorate, a new government would not have a mandate to stop Brexit altogether so those hoping that a new administration will turn back the clock to 22 June 2016 will be disappointed. At best, a new government would only have a temporary mandate to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. Anything else would open it to the same accusation that has been made of Boris Johnson’s government that it has no authority to pursue its stated course of action.

With regard to (ii), historical convention dictates that the prime minister resigns in the event they lose a no-confidence vote. But the sample size is small: the government has been defeated on such a vote only once in the last 95 years (1979). Indeed, the law is vague as to whether the prime minister will be forced to resign. Moreover, the government has control over the timing of the election date. Thus, if it were to lose a no-confidence vote in early September it would not have to think about calling an election until mid-month. If it were to set the date for early November (a seven week campaign as in 2017), parliament would be dissolved and would not be able to prevent a no-deal Brexit on 31 October. Consequently, the no-confidence motion could backfire on those trying to prevent a no-deal Brexit.

Even if a new government were to be formed, it appears that Jeremy Corbyn would not be the best option to lead it. Jo Swinson, the new leader of the Liberal Democrats, rejected his plan by suggesting, “Jeremy Corbyn is not the person who is going to be able to build an even temporary majority in the House of Commons for this task – I would expect there are people in his own party and indeed the necessary Conservative backbenchers who would be unwilling to support him.”

She is certainly right about that. In the summer of 2016, his own MPs tried to remove him and although Labour did better than expected in the 2017 election, this was as much about rejection of the Tories as about support for Labour and there is a sense that Corbyn’s time has passed. It is not as though Corbyn is a noted Europhile: The 2017 Labour manifesto indeed pledged to implement Brexit, which seemed to have bypassed many younger Labour voters who looked to Labour to reverse the June 2016 decision, and in the three years since the referendum, Corbyn has failed to take a stance on Brexit that Remainers can get behind. From a political standpoint, moderate anti-Brexit Tories have nothing to gain by supporting Corbyn for they will be vilified by party members, even those in constituencies which voted Remain.

Whilst it is positive that at least efforts have been made to come to a cross-party agreement on how to stop a no-deal Brexit, Corbyn is the wrong man for the job. There have been some suggestions that the likes of Ken Clarke could command sufficient support to lead a government of national unity. I have my doubts. But what the events of the last few weeks have shown is that the Remainers do not have a plan to stop a no-deal Brexit and appear to be unwilling to stand up and take the drastic action which would be required to necessitate this. As one Twitter user pointed out, a lot of what has been discussed “seems to be unconditional predictions about what will happen, rather than setting out what the possible permutations of events are.”

I continue to believe that Boris Johnson wants to avoid a no-deal Brexit and is looking for something to thwart his plans so that he can shift the blame elsewhere for not delivering on 31 October. I don’t want a no-deal Brexit either. But sometimes it seems as though the only way Brexiteers can be made to own the consequences of their actions is that they feel the pain of failure and endure the wrath of the electorate. It’s a bit like burning down the house to deal with a vermin infestation: You can get rid of the rats but have nowhere to live. And as I have consistently maintained since I was first questioned on the subject in late-2012, “the EU is far from perfect, but life on the outside may be even harder.”

Labour pains

The announcement that Jeremy Corbyn has been re-elected as Labour Party leader here in the UK reflects the profoundly depressing state into which Western European politics has sunk. He professes to offer "a new kind of politics." In reality he is offering the same left wing ideas which were decisively rejected more than 30 years ago. Many people do indeed want a new kind of politics. But I suspect they don't want his.

Corbyn is nothing more than an idealist, which would be great if he were not the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition charged with holding the government to account and seeking to form the next government. We know what he is against but less about what he stands for. Corbyn is opposed to the market capitalism espoused by the Conservatives and which so many people have railed against, and he taps into those who believe that the fiscal policy offered by George Osborne was brutal and regressive. Whilst it is perceived to have favoured the rich at the expense of the poorer elements of society far more than it actually did, it created the conditions for a political alternative to act as a counterbalance to try and heal some of the social divisions which it created. But nobody has a clue what sort of policies Corbyn actually advocates, and his leadership performance after one year in the job has been dreadful. Over the summer Labour MPs refused to back their leader following his dismal non-performance in the EU referendum and this was followed by the likes of Thomas Piketty, Simon Wren-Lewis and David Blanchflower, who all sat on Labour's economic advisory committee, distancing themselves from Corbyn’s team. 

In Blanchflower's words "Corbyn doesn't seem to care about being a leader of an opposition party. He seems more interested in addressing crowds of supporters around the country. It doesn’t seem to matter to him – although it should – that three-quarters of his MPs, who doubt his leadership qualities, rightly passed an overwhelming vote of no confidence against him. He should have quit. He doesn’t have enough MPs who support him to be able to form a complete shadow cabinet. Incidentally, if there were even the slightest prospect that he could become prime minister, the bond and equity markets would eat him for lunch."

It strikes me as bizarre that 313,000 of the Labour Party’s 600,000 members have chosen a leader who will almost certainly be soundly beaten in any election. If party members really  care about choosing someone who can achieve the things the party proclaims to stand for, they should at least choose a leader who has a fighting chance of winning the popular vote. When the majority of the party's MPs do not back their leader, they have no chance.

The UK’s domestic political shenanigans have not gone unnoticed abroad, and the German newspaper Die Welt notes that Labour's irrelevance is dangerous for Europe. At a time when the government is trying to negotiate an exit from the EU, the Labour Party is so self-absorbed that it is in no position to hold the government to account. When we live in a surreal world where  arch-Brexiteer Boris Johnson is the foreign secretary and he is still not the biggest incompetent in the House of Commons, you know that something is sadly wrong with the state of British politics. That said, when Beppe Grillo, an Italian comedian, can turn his Five Star movement into a national political force, you realise that the malaise runs throughout European politics.

Tony Blair may be reviled as Labour leader but he knew very well that British elections are won by capturing the political centre. As he put it, the Labour Party needs to be “the face on the placard” rather than the protester holding it for a chance in government. People in the party today "don’t really want to be in power, they want to make the people in power respond to their concerns." Until that changes Labour will not be a serious political party, they will simply be seen as a protest movement. And in the current political climate, that is very dangerous for the health of our democracy.

Malcolm Tucker had it right

The actions of politicians over the course of the past week or so have provided an ample source of ammunition to those who complain that politicians cannot be trusted. The Brexit campaign itself was an object lesson in treachery. This was followed up by the ridiculous spectacle of Jeremy Corbyn refusing to resign as leader of the Labour party despite the fact that most of his shadow cabinet withdrew their support for him. Then, to cap it all off, Boris Johnson opted out of the race for leadership of the Conservative party, whilst Michael Gove, his fellow Brexit campaigner – who had previously denied any interest in the top job – threw his hat into the ring.

Many of these politicians give the impression that they are playing a game, often with their interests in mind, whilst ignoring the fact that their primary duty is to the national interest. In a representative democracy, the key word is representative. Politicians are elected to parliament by the people and are of the people: Their duty is to the electorate. No more, no less! Nobody is saying the  job is easy: As I commented in the wake of Jo Cox’s murder, many politicians are “simply community representatives doing a job on our behalf.” But that clearly does not include Boris Johnson. He is, or at least was, the best retail politician in the UK but having effectively been the mouthpiece for the Brexit campaign, he shied away from many of the issues raised on the campaign trail in his Telegraph article last week and compounded his duplicity by shirking his duty to take on the leadership challenge because he suspected he would not win. Surely it would have been incumbent upon him to at least try to fix some of the mess he helped create.

Back in 1983, the Labour party’s election manifesto was described as “the longest suicide note in history”. Much the same could be said of the economic nonsense spouted by the Leave campaign during the last four months. The difference is that the Labour party was heavily defeated in the 1983 election and its policy was never put to the test. This cannot be said of the Leave campaign, which must now show that its inchoate nonsense can be realised. What is worse is that different strands of the Leave campaign were seeking different things from the referendum. The Farage wing were looking to control immigration. Another faction, best represented by Daniel Hannan MEP, were more relaxed about immigration and sought to regain UK sovereignty over its laws with a view to strengthening ties with more rapidly growing parts of the world. When challenged, Hannan will always deny that immigration was ever part of his platform. But it is disingenuous in the extreme to be associated with a Leave campaign in which immigration was the focal point, and then to claim afterwards “nothing to do with me, guv.”

Nothing that has occurred over the past 10 days has done anything to convince the public that politicians have any idea what they are doing. But then perhaps the electorate should hold a mirror to itself and ask what it wants rather than allowing manipulative politicians to put words into their mouths. That may be too much to hope for – it has been a feature of democratic systems since ancient times: Not for nothing did the phrase “bread and circuses” originate in Ancient Rome.

Many people are angry with the status quo, and with good reason. Politicians have repeatedly let down those parts of the electorate which needed the most help. The Brexit vote was a cry of rage against a political system that has failed to meet the aspirations of large chunks of the British electorate. Large swathes of Britain’s former industrial heartland have been stripped away by the forces of globalisation. Over the last 30 years, successive governments have told their electorate that a policy of market-oriented economics will lead to a wider range of choice, which would leave everyone better off. Well, it hasn’t. And now the people have made their choice.

As Malcolm Tucker, the spin doctor in the BBC’s superb political satire The Thick of It put it, when appearing before a parliamentary committee accused of leaking sensitive material, “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.” Amen!

The day after

A day after the EU referendum and I am still struggling to take it in. It is one of the most shattering political and professional experiences I have ever experienced. As an economist, I have made the economic case for EU membership hundreds of times over recent years, but the electorate was clearly indifferent to these benefits. It is, as Boris Johnson said, a vote for independence. But from what? The notion that Brussels dominates our lives is a pure fabrication. It sets standards to which all members must adhere, and there may indeed be some gold plating, but the basic rules are the same for everyone. It is not a massive conspiracy to defraud the British. According to the OECD, the UK already has the second lowest degree of product market regulation across the EU (after the Netherlands) and the lowest level of labour market regulation. Many of our economic problems are home made. 

Indeed, as TUC General Secretary Frances O’Grady pointed out in the final Brexit debate on Tuesday, these problems are the result of deliberate government policy. Austerity was not imposed by Brussels. Our libraries and community centres are not being closed by EU mandate. Our student fees are not shooting through the roof thanks to some shady deals done in Strasbourg. This policy of austerity emanated from Downing Street, and it is therefore hardly a surprise that David Cameron and George Osborne barely showed their face during the latter stages of the campaign because they had become electoral liabilities. Cameron at least has done the decent thing and resigned. Shame he did not do so before promising the referendum! Cameron has shamelessly played domestic politics with the national interest, and lost. The EU has many faults and who knows, it may indeed shake itself apart. But far better not to be the first to leave. In game theoretic terms, this is a game where there is no first mover advantage since we will bear all the costs for an uncertain reward. 

I won’t even bother to discuss the shortcomings of the Labour Party’s pathetic efforts. Suffice to say that Jeremy Corbyn has let down all those who have put efforts into building better relationships with the EU. He is a relic of 1970s Labour thinking, whose ideas are 40 years out of date (they were wrongheaded then as well) and who actually campaigned against EEC membership back in 1975.

But I will reserve special ire for the likes of Nigel Lawson, who talks like a backbench 1990s Tory on Europe. Lawson is never encumbered by the knowledge he might be wrong. The man is so self-absorbed that the irony of the fact he lives in France never once troubled him. But to hear an 84 year-old man tell us about the future we can enjoy outside of Europe makes me downright angry. He won’t be around to see the consequences of his actions and clearly the generation of 18-24 year olds, 75% of whom voted for Remain, don’t buy his view either. 

In many ways, the Brexit vote is the last revenge of the baby boomers. They enjoyed free love in the 1960s which ended with the AIDS scares of the 1980s; they consumed like no generation before and left us with global warming; they secured their pensions and free education and left their kids to pick up the tab. And now they want to take us out of the largest, most prosperous economic block in the world and it is their children who will have to figure out how to make it work. Generational politics may well become the biggest single issue of the next decade – and no wonder.

If all this sounds like a metropolitan view, then I make no apologies. I have spent most of my working life in an international environment, working with and getting to know foreigners and how they think. And I know that many of them share the same frustrations as the British. There are many things wrong with the EU and the single currency is an economic disaster which has done more to damage the prosperity of its members than they care to admit. 

But the UK had a sweet deal. Not in the single currency nor party to the Schengen Agreement, it broadly worked for us. And whilst some crazy numbers were bandied about, the IFS reckons that in 2014 the UK made a net contribution of £5.7bn, which sounds like a lot but it is in fact around £88 per person per year, or £124 per voter. Even if we take this upper figure, it is less than £2.50 per week. No-one thought to mention that in the debates. Instead, the Remainers argued about the lies being spun by the Leavers about what the true figure was. They should have said instead, “yes it costs, but it is less than the price of a pint per week and in return we get all the network benefits of membership.” And if anyone asks what a network effect is, tell them to imagine the invention of the smart phone. Just an overpriced piece of kit until someone works out how to put games and other useful apps on it. Then tell them to imagine how they will manage to use these apps if someone takes their phone away. 

But they didn’t do that. So what we have now is a dissatisfied half of the electorate which wanted to stay, and the other half not really sure what they have won. Meanwhile the Scots are thinking about how to maintain their ties with the EU. But according to one of my Scottish colleagues, they won’t push for a referendum because it’s not in their interest. There again, the same guy told me in 2014 that no-one was talking about independence north of the border. Go figure! Now the rest of the EU is making noises about how they want the corpse of our membership out of Brussels before it starts to stink the place out. And should anyone be surprised? 

As an exercise in healing divisions, the referendum has achieved pretty much the opposite on all counts. Way to go, Dave. Oh, but you are, aren’t you?