The Bewilderness

Volatility and unpopularity in the polls

All three mainstream leaders are now suffering from low ratings. All that has changed is that Cameron now joins Clegg and Miliband. Perhaps it was only a matter of time and adverse publicity. As Mike Smithson points out it is unprecedented for all three leaders to suffer from such disillusionment on the part of the electorate.

Yet, this may prove most dangerous for Miliband. With a Labour lead in the polls and an unpopular leader, the temptation to look for a more popular candidate will increase. An unpopular budget and a week that undermined notions of competence have wounded the Coalition. None of these indicate that we have faced a change in polling or a swing to Labour, when Galloway's victory points to increased volatility.

The Liberal Democrat Shriek 2012

The Liberal Democrats faced a stormy Spring Conference. Activists were vocal in their antipathy to the health bill and wished to see the legislation withdrawn. They also wished to ram through the 'mansion tax': a tax on property over certain values, and a dealbreaker with the Tories. The collectivist base: a party rooted in the producer interests of public sector professionals, proved as reactionary as their Labour counterparts.

Since their entry into the Coalition, the Liberal Democrat activist base has shrunk and moved to the Left. Faced with electoral defeat, they are shouting at a higher octave on the values and policies that they belive people wish to hear. But they cannot square the circle between public services and tax: playing the envy card has not worked either.

The more that the Tory leadership provides Clegg with figleafs; the more will be demanded by the Liberal Democrat activist base. A fear of electoral defeat outweighs coalition needs and encourages this irresponsibility. Since the cycle of feeding cannot continue indefinitely, will a new dynamic sustain Coalition politics? Or will a leftist Liberal Democrat purge split the party between 'Yellow Tories' and 'Real Labour'?

Right now, the Liberal Democrats seem to be Labour as they used to be....

The House of Lards

The process of constitutional vandalism will be completed under this nominally conservative government. Whilst questions of democratic validity are left unanswered, Nick Clegg demonstrates his contempt for the 'ancient constitution' by comparing us with Belize (our former colony) and Jordan. And the cure: senators on 15 year terms, giving certain parties a potential stranglehold over process, elected by single transferable vote. 

Here is the quid pro quo that underlies the coalition: the secret deal which will have to be whipped through Parliament. Tories gain a more equal distribution of seats in the Commons and Liberal Democrats gain a modicum of influence through the Upper House. 

And how will this play out?

Mark Harper, the Cabinet Office minister, said it would be possible for the powers to change organically over time, and there was no need to set out those powers in legal form at this stage. He said a 15 year timetable has been set out for the reform, with peers elected for 15 year terms introduced in three tranches, so there was no need to rush into decisions on Lords powers.

An elected body will challenge Commons supremacy; will try to amend finance bills and will create a constitutional crisis. Imagine a left-wing Upper Chamber challenging the Commons...Clegg's reforms will feed parasitism, jobbery and partisan politics.

We should thank ourselves that he did not achieve his ultimate wet dream: bringing all MEPs back to Westminster as a second chamber...on second thoughts, UKIP would have stronger representation in London. 

Waiting for events.....

Record from a recent anecdote on quantitative easing: its effects. One hundred loaves at £1 each and the central bank releases a sum of £100 to combat a lack of growth; one hundred loaves now cost £2. The simple and clear link between money and inflation is not replicated so easily in our economy. Yet, the lack of evidence that QE has helped prevent recession and its distortion of the gilt market has led to cries of anger over its longer term effects.

By depending upon the reliance of aggregated savers for predicatble returns via their pooled funds, the Bank of England and the Tory party have collaborated in grand theft auto by stealth inflation. Frugal Peter has been robbed. But has that helped Profligate Paul? Compared to the United States, our deleveraging process in the private sector has not even commenced. After three years we are further away from making the necessary adjustment. And at what cost? By damaging savings, returns and investment, the Bank of England has crippled the economy and impoverished pensioners. No wonder companies are sitting on cash refusing to invest; who would, with such a government: reward scroungers, penalise thrift!

This may have been designed to erode the public sector deficit, but as a consequence and contra to the majority opinion, QE may have prolonged stagnation. The private sector has been handicapped at the expense of the public domain, accentuating the impact of austerity and dousing animal spirits. 

It is a one time offer from this government. The lack of urgency, the unwillingness to reform, the lack of bite in cutting expenditure, suggests that Osborne's complacency and micromanagement will come back to assault him. None of the political will to deal with this is displayed and the coalition's courage from 2010 is beginning to look like rigid rails, unable to turn aside or reverse if terms of trade worsen.

The coalition will defer to the ghost of Macmillan: events...

 

  

Stagnationalism: UK in the age of austerity

The coalition is entering a phase of division of backbiting, where the differences between leaders and parties are becoming much clearer to the public. The Liberal Democrats have moved towards a pernicious narrative of public sector protection: promoting the smallest reforms necessary to curb the public sector borrowing requirement and preening themselves as guardians of the vulnerable. Whether it be health, education or social rights, they attempt to outflank Labour at the expense of Liberalism.

The Liberal Democrats are divided between Left and Right. A predictable Tribune article notes that the strategy of differentiation has silenced the Orange Book wing and upplayed the profiles of Huhne and Cable. Yet frustration must be mounting within the Tory party. To continue postponing the necessary reforms on the supply side, reducing the cost of jobs and regulation, because Vince Cable is a thorn in the side of the economy, must be galling (And the Liberal Democrats are old Labour for the public sector professionals). To find that our policy on Europe is subjected to policy paralysis because do-nothing is better than undermining the coalition breeds anger on the right.

Will the coalition find a better configuration, easing pressures through shared policies in other areas? Both parties have an incentive to play up differences in order to appeal to their base. Yet, the pro-market liberalism identified in the early days of the coalition has certainly been submerged. Is this a reaction to the political needs of each party and the polling evidence, as Tory dominance in numbers begins to count? Was the classical liberalism wish-fulfillment on the part of the media? Or does this disappearance herald dissent amongst the Liberal democrats, who find that they share more common ground with socially liberal Tories than they realised?

The stresses in the coalition may ebb and flow: but the real calamity for this government is that Liberal Democrats footdragging on reform may have reduced the flexibility needed to deregulate. We are in the worst of all possible worlds: facing the necessity of austerity with an economy hobbled by the legacy of New Labour's regulation, defended by the ultimate insiders of the producer interests. Stagnation beckons...

Events versus the inertia of coalition

The Tories can congratulate themselves on a somnolent meeting where backbenchers and rebels were bored into submission. Even away, the waves of tedium were palpable on dead tree and live panel press. No doubt the bubble appeared lively within the conference event horizon, irrelevant outside.

Even the comparison of Tory discipline with Liberal Democrat handwringing was dispersed by the kind of dispute on associates with the yellow flush. Was Ken Clarke swinging his handbag to keep himself awake? Yet this policy-free zone heralds paralysis. Once the honeymoon of coalition was over, implementing agreements only take you so far. Breaking left has only rendered the Liberal Democrats look irresponsible whilst clinging protectively to the deficit reduction renders the Tories impotent as the tsunami breaks about them.

If the question "what can we do?" is posed, the answer appears to be all the wrong things. Further QE, more regulation and the greenest job-destroying policy on the planet. Something will flip and flop and flip again. Politicians always do and for this coalition: the events will keep on coming. A wonderful experiment: change versus the inertia of coalition. Maybe they will call themselves a National government.

Libdem pipedreams come out of a bong

Nick Clegg is now damaged goods, perhaps beyond repair. Signing up to the pledge for short-term advantage has ruined their position within the Coalition. The anger at the government is genuine: and university reforms harness the worst of both worlds. A pricing policy for a centrally planned system, denying competition in higher education. Only innovation, productivity and competition can reduce costs in this sector.

The anger at the Liberal Democrats may be bad for the left-wing of the party. We could see a number of defections at local and national level to Labour, reminiscent of the departure of opportunists from the Tory party in 1997. Now they have had a taste of power, they search out a would-be successor. Yet, this could be good news for the coalition: as liberal wings in both parties shore each other up. Despite the storm over tuition fees and the mess, common ground and electoral weakness may drive the Tories and Liberals even closer.

That suggests Clegg’s leadership cannot be guaranteed for the duration of the first Coalition Parliament but is conditional on the LibDem grassroots being unable to find themselves a credible leader to find a way back to a discarded Liberal faith.

The parliamentary party may value power, but the grassroots does not have the stomach for compromise. Thereare more dreams to be crushed before we get through this. 

A 'coalition of the disaffected'?

The Liberal Democrats are facing unprecedented division over the issue of tuition fees, a level of disagreement that could lead to a spilt within the party. Yet, the leaks and torture whilst the parliamentary party agonises is not the main show.

The number of student sit-ins continues to spread. Many major universities have witnessed sit-ins, with the protests ending after legal moves and police action. The issue of the tuition fees has catalysed a process of radicalisation amongst a group renowned, until now, for its apathy.

Despite the defection of some Liberal Democrats to the abstention party or Labour (expect a few now!), the tuition fees increase is expected to pass. Will this period of protest then fade away?

The dangers this poses for the coalition are probably twofold. Something which will be key, and probably needs to be polled, is the scale of broader public support for students. If this wave of protest can be coalesced into a broader movement involving other public-sector unions - and make no mistake about the level of student desire to make that happen - things have the potential to get very uncomfortable indeed for the Government. It may not even necessarily require a national figurehead like the NUS to achieve, depending on how unions feel about demonstrating solidarity.

The distributional coalitions that have developed over the last thirty years during the Gramscian reinvigoration of the state are key for the development of the coalition. The Tory party wishes to avoid a coalescence of opposition forces acting via extralegal means and testing the governability of the current administration. 

The public sector unions and the students are aware of the power that lies in unity. Whilst student radicalism has outstripped the National Union of Students, we have not seen a similar level of mobilisation in other parts of the public sector. Nor is it clear that a wider movement of students and local council workers would increase public sympathy. Parents have a soft spot for their children, not their binmen.

As of now, public protest is a useful guage for testing whether coalition cutbacks are effective. If it isn't hurting, it isn't working. Cameron, Clegg and Osborne will wish to avoid a 'coalition of the disaffected' in opposition to them, a position that Ed Miliband hints that he could support but is not opportunistic (or principled enough) to stand his ground on. He was insulted as a student politician but this tacking to support people, not policy, would be more populist, hence more popular.

The outlines of the coalitions are hinted at this autumn.

Individuals with soft neural tissue damage may 'protest' again

Sir Paul Stephenson, the Metropolitan Police Commissioner, was embarrassed by the lack of police protection at the demonstration by students two weeks ago. A smaller level of violence was witnessed at yesterday's protest: a decrease that can be attributed to the larger police presence. Attempts by the students to occupy property and carry out a similar trashing as two weeks ago were prevented. The marches do not fit my definition of peaceful: since they result in the destruction of property and attacks on police and innocents.

The condemnation of the violence on the Left has been half-hearted and replaced by opportunistic encouragement. Through voicing opposition to tuition fees, Labour hopes to garner support from the universities and supplant the Liberal Democrats.

Sir Paul Stephenson has stated that this could herald a new era of unrest. This has been attacked as a "self-fulfilling policy" by Labour and Green politicians. Since the role of police commissioner was politicised under Blair, Stephenson is in the realm of management expectations: anticipate a higher level of unrest and hold hands up if it causes error in policing levels.

Yet, this is a single issue campaign; already tarred by the violence of the student protests. Whatever sympathy, the National Union of Students may have sought, has been eroded or removed by the violence. If students can protest, they can work; if they can work, they can pay for their own education. It is a line of argument you hear more often. No government will cave in to such demonstrations and, therefore, the campaign has already failed. The political party which will suffer the electoral damage from the tuition fees protest is Clegg's. Unpopularity will force them to cleave more tightly to the coalition, unless the uncompromising Left under Simon Hughes opt for principled oblivion and try to bring the government down. The subsequent schism will prove that the Liberal Democrats could not be a party of government.

Discounting this unlikely option returns us to the prophecy that we are entering a new era of unrest. For now, this still seems unlikely. It depends upon two further developments: the radicalisation of a proportion of the student body, turning to the hard left and, perhaps, following the nihilistic path to terror (the "the class enemy don't listen to us, let's bomb anyone through cleansing violence" school of argument); and, the move towards more violent protests and wildcat strikes on the part of the public sector unions.

Unless we see clear signs of radicalisation in these areas, I suspect that the single issue campaign will eventually follow comparable predecessors and fizzle out. A pity for Stephenson; perhaps he wanted some excitement...

   

Clegg's progressivism heralds an aggressive secularism

Nick Clegg gave an interview, highlighted in the Independent, about Liberal Democrat policies on gays. Policies that in contemporary vernacular are labelled progressive, and yet are deeply illiberal in their consequences.

Force all schools – including faith schools – to implement anti-homophobia bullying policies and teach that homosexuality is "normal and harmless".

This unwillingness to respect the values of different communities was justified by Clegg in one of the most disturbing quotations from a political leader:

But last night Mr Clegg asked: “If we don’t want to discriminate, why do we make differences in language? Language is a hugely important signifier of how we segment society and how you seek to create differences between people. Since we don’t want to make differences on this and the law has moved a great deal to do that, we should be linguistically the same too.”

Standing foursquare in the postmodern forum, Clegg identifies language as the key to meaning, power and discrimination. To avoid discrimination, law, language and education should all seamlessly reinforce each other. The unspoken inference is that multicultural Britain is gradually being replaced by a set of values, labelled 'progressive'. Relativism was a respectable position in the last century but an aggressive, secular ideology has gradually been coming to the fore, with overtly anti-clerical consequences. Clegg is the latest unwitting representative of this trend.

The new progressivism is an illiberal doctrine. It does not respect the space required for freedom of conscience and promotes a system of values that must be indoctrinated through education, relying upon the state to inculcate these in the country's youth. The intolerance of self-styled progressives has been mounting in recent years: and it is unclear if they can maintain an incoherent programme incorporating identity politics and progress. It works for gays but not for religion.

We have already seen a parting of the ways in other countries: such aggressive secularism has rapidly moved towards populist stances, as the Pim Fortuyn phenomenon in the Netherland demonstrated. Eyebrows are raised that Clegg's statement implicitly heralds such a realignment in British politics. Do we hear echoes in Labour?