Clapham Quotes

Especially on Sundays...

Ed Miliband's New (make belief) Reality

The lackluster leader of Labour, Ed Miliband, delivered a speech yesterday to the people's organisation London Citizens. It was billed as his nth relaunch, and he focused mainly on how his party would work to create a "New Reality" for Britain. This UK would be based on fairness and it would be one where vested interests are tackled head on so that the proceeds of growth are not just accumulated by those at the top, but also by low earners and the so-called squeezed middle. 

In what has unfortunately become his trade mark style of bland delivery with little substantive content, Mr Miliband also argued that the Coalition had failed by its own measure of getting rid of the deficit over this parliament, and that it was doing too little to stimulate growth while also cutting too much government spending. He accused the government of "shrugging its shoulders" while the UK's economic predicament deteriorated further, which, he argued, was the direct the result of their failed policies.

Hero or zero?

Ed painted a picture where David Cameron and the government were of the opinion that "fairness is a luxury you can't afford in tough times", while Labour would instead be "fighting for fairness", "fighting for justice", and "taking on vested interests." This was Labour as Superhero, dressed in tight red spandex, fighting for you, me and everyone - that is, as long as we fit into his particular concept of fairness.

Granted, there are few successes that the Coalition can boast about, the notable exceptions being Michael Gove's work in delivering choice and freedom to the education system, and George Osborne's sweet talking of the credit rating agencies into letting the UK keep it's AAA status - as a result of which his government is able to borrow with historically low interest rates. The latter in particular is a nothing less than a coup, considering that, in reality, he's spending and borrowing more than the Labour government did before him (although had Labour's Alistair Darling, or, heavens forbid, Ed Balls become Chancellor, the profligacy would most likely have been far worse).

But the Tories in particular, for all their failings - of which there are many - have actually come to love Ed as a result of his inability to convert the unpopularity of the Coalition's cuts into more Labour voters. Some Tories have even said that he's the "gift that keeps on giving", and that the most important thing for the Tories next election campaign is that Ed remains the Labour leader. Labour's woes under his leadership have also not been helped by the seemingly unending barrage of embarrassments from within the party, with a few own goals thrown in for good measure.

How will Ed save the UK?

Policy-wise there was little meat on Labour's policy bones. Ed said that he wanted to begin by "patching up the unfairness of the old economy" by taxing bankers' bonuses and using the proceeds to help those out of work. Noble idea, but it doesn't take into account how banks have already begun switching their remuneration policies from big bonuses to salary increases and other benefits in order to sidestep such money raising measures from HMRC.

His government would also undertake a review of "corporate short termism." As an example of this modern malaise he gave us the Quarterly Review, but he then failed to elucidate what the problem was - should they be annual, then? Or should companies only make Five Year Plans? - nor did he provide any clues as to how this "problem" would be solved.

He then advocated a policy whereby seekers of council housing would be bumped up the list if they were actively engaged in helping their communities. This is fair enough, but what exactly constituted "helping the community" was left to the imagination.

There were, however, some good ideas as well: Labour would set new rules to promote long term and fair wealth creation by looking at plans for a British investment bank to help small business grow - better that than ever more QE. They would also legislate so that government procurement contracts would only go to companies that provide apprenticeships, thus safeguarding jobs for the next generation. And a Labour government would make sure that energy companies give all pensioners over 75 the cheapest tariff - and if you don't, he said, we'll legislate to make sure it happens.

Ed went to great lengths to emphasise that if his party were in government, he would make choices that favour the hard working majority, over those - by implication skiving wasters - who earn enough to pay the 50p tax rate, which, he said, should stay in place.

But a good example his distinctive brand of what we could paradoxically call "Targeted Fairness" was that everyone in the country must pay for improvements on train lines in remote areas, rather than those who actually use the service and will therefore benefit from the upgrade. So Ed's is a fairness that espouses the rights of a "1%" over the "99%", in that the few would profit on the backs of the many.

So, that's how he'll create fairness. Where the money will come from is a mystery as he didn't say, other than the aforementioned bonus tax.

It wasn't us, guv, honest

But what made for truly interesting listening came from Ed The Historical Revisionist. According to him, the crisis that got the UK into its current state of high unemployment and near zero growth came from abroad, like an overwhelming global storm which even the UK was unable withstand. In stark contrast, however, he placed all the responsibility for the UK's continued economic hardship squarely on the shoulders of the Coalition government. A textbook case of what cognitive psychologists would call Actor Observer Bias - and the rest of us would call bull###t.

But Ed still managed to keep a straight face when he promised that Labour would not shirk away from "using the power of the government", and that Labour wouldn't cut the deficit as fast the Coalition, but would do so in a more balanced way - which translates roughly into "I would just borrow more than they are borrowing."

Hardly surprising, that. After all, he was part of the government that presided over a decade long splurge in public spending - one of the main reasons for the economy's current ills and uncompetitive state - paid by a) borrowing, b) the sale of gold reserves at the bottom of the market, c) using up the North Sea oil reserves, d) increases in tax revenue from the real estate bubble and e) the rise of the financial sector, both of which were the direct result of Labour policy decisions. (See the graph below from this excellent overview of the New Labour economy.)

Ed also accused the current government of having failed by their own standards because they promised to eliminate the deficit over this parliament (but not the debt, mind you, as that wouldn't even be touched). It wasn't to be, however, and, as the Chancellor admitted in his Autumn Statement, the government would have to borrow an extra 111 billion. And according to Ed's speech the figure now stood at 158 billion. (The Coalition's spin on why they needed to borrow more than first thought was that they just hadn't realised earlier how bad a state the economy was actually in. Well, it's of little use complaining now, Georgie Boy: you screwed up your figures or were naive when forecasting, or both, so your bad and your responsibility, simple as that.)

And while admitting that there has been an ongoing economic crisis, in Ed's world it's a crisis of the free market, where our governments apparently played no role. What an incredibly lazy analysis this is considering the sovereign debt crisis that is crippling Western governments and which has even lead to the overthrow of two European governments (so far).

Less honest reflection in favour of more cowardly deflection

But at least he knows how to dodge questions from the press and how to deflect blame - thus proving his credentials as a politician. According to Ed, "its the result of the [current] government not being able to get rid of the deficit over this parliament that we will inherit one." Well, putting aside his admirable optimism, what a porky-pie that was! After all, the government that counted Ed Miliband as a Cabinet Minister was the one that overspent and overextended the country's credit card, without putting anything aside for a rainy day (like a real Keynesian would have done), while making the economy less competitive and less effective even when the going was good!

Also, when asked about the note "there's no money left", and why has he only now, 18 months later, come to the realisation that, actually, there really is no money left, Ed parroted the same line again, that "Remember what this government said? They said we are going to clear the deficit over this parliament - now what's happened is that they've failed. They've lost the argument, and now we're going to have to win it. We will clear the deficit in our next government." Words are cheap, Mr Miliband - but why should we trust the party that racked up the underlying debt in the first place?

Another questioner asked that, while you say you will take on the energy companies, as Energy Secretary in the previous government, why did you not do so then? Ed's reply left the whole question unanswered: "we clearly didn't do enough. We didn't do enough. But I'm not here to defend everything the last Labour government did. We weren't strong enough taking on vested interests, but it's part of the recognition about how the world has changed that we now need to take action." Oh, OK, then. Times have changed - so no need to take any responsibility over the "last government" in which you happened to hold office.

One thing Ed got right, though, was that Labour are much closer to where the people are. This is no doubt true, but it's mostly so because they set in place a client welfare state and presided over a huge increase of people on the public payroll - the price of which is a deformed economy, the deficit and the huge mountain of debt underneath it, which we and our children will be paying off for a long, long time to come.

But that's no longer Labour's fault, apparently, because they're offering a "New Reality", based on not taking responsibility and planning to do the same thing again, only this time with a new outfit, and expecting different results.

Election debates à la Finland's channel Nelonen

The Finnish presidential election takes place next week and, as an expat, I need to catch up on politics in dear old Pohjola. Luckily, though, I just got a bit of help from my good friend, Joe, who sent me this video of Timo Soini (True Finns) and Pekka Haavisto (Greens). It's from a series called "Alone at last!", and each episode shows two presidential candidates going head to head in a debate on defence, employment, the Euro, foreign policy, etc. The format is simple yet ingenious: a 35 minute informal discussion without a moderator, with no breaks or any other outside interference.

I'd never seen an "election debate" like this before – and it sure was refreshing. It could hardly be more different from the extravagant set pieces seen in American presidential races, where such is the intensity of the limelight that candidates resort to making $10,000 bets on policy issues. There was no spectacle in Nelonen's debate, no lights, fireworks nor music. Just two candidates talking like normal people, albeit ones with highly formed opinions on current affairs.

This novel format was also a lot more interesting than the largely artificial debates that took place for the UK's general election, where none of the candidates really said much of substance for fear of upsetting some portion of the electorate. Britons were simply offered platitudes and play-doh politics with the same things being said, regurgitated, refashioned and repeated with a slightly different twist, over and over again, ad nauseaum.

Perhaps the best thing about Nelonen's "face-off" format is the way it takes away from the politicians the comfort of breaks, when the cameras are on their adversary, for example, during which to regroup their thoughts. A constant conversation with a single interlocutor also forces them to keep up with the game without recourse to notes. While they've no doubt prepared and been given some kind of framework for discussion and topics they are expected to cover, a lesser politician could easily find themselves in trouble having to perform, discuss, debate, argue, retort, provide evidence and, simply, be cool, natural and approachable for over 30 minutes without any respite.

It's a bit like the difference between rugby and the NFL. The former is a drawn out affair that flows on its own momentum, providing few chances for the team to revise battle lines or change tactics once play has begun. The latter, by contrast, requires action in bursts, with the game stopping every few seconds, giving both sides the opportunity to redraw formations and revise strategies at every possible turn.

Now, which would you say provides a better approximation of real life and the real world: a constant flux, like rugby, or dispersed events with precise intervals, like American football? Well, I would argue that both life and politics are in a constant state of movement and change. Anyone wanting to succeed in either best keep up with the blooming buzzing confusion or be prepared to suffer the consequences.

Anyway, watching this debate, I soon realised that I'd never before seen politicians behaving in this way: like normal people discussing stuff mano a mano and debating policies over a cup of java. It was in stark contrast to how we are used to seeing our elected leaders: in the spotlight at press conferences, being interviewed, giving speeches, or electioneering on the campaign trail – all of which are situations that we the public don't have much experience of.

Indeed, as a result of its familiarity, the mundane set up made it far easier to gauge these two candidates, and not just their politics but also their personality and character: are they easily flustered or do they come across as arrogant? Are they able to provide facts and figures to support their arguments? Do they stay on topic or do they try to weasel their way out of questions? Do they resort to ad hominem attacks? In short, do they stay cool under sustained fire from their opponent and do they know their stuff?

As long as the participants don't conspire to agree their conversation in advance – but as they represent different parties and are all after the same position, it wouldn't make much sense for them to do so – dare I say this new format might even be better for democracy. 

Firstly, it forces our decision makers to actually engage their competitors one-on-one and, as we see in this video, to their surprise, the pair find themselves agreeing on more than they previously thought. Second, as it's an organic discussion, there is less chance of others influencing the proceedings, whether it were the Party, the network airing the debate, or lobbyist who may be able to sway the process of picking questions and/or the audience. Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it sheds our elite of at least some of their trappings of power (stage, lectern, spotlights, audience, prewritten speeches, etc.), and shows them for what they – and we all – are, just normal blokes and lasses.

So, good on you Nelonen – and other channels take note.

***

I certainly won't be voting for Timo Soini, so repulsive are many of his views and so short-sighted are the majority of his policies. That said, one has to give the man credit for his uncanny ability to create easily digestible nuggets of political propaganda that will surely appeal to a whole lot of Finns. Mr Soini is remarkable in his ability to encapsulate complex issues into commonsensical soundbytes, but they are, however, nearly always factually incorrect or incomplete, and often morally reprehensible. As a result, watching this video makes me even more nervous that he might win, but I trust the majority of us will see through him and the shallow worldview that he and his close minded ilk represent.

Pekka Haavisto comes off well in the video. His grasp and experience of foreign policy shines through strongly. He may yet become a surprisingly strong contender. 

... but needs must I continue catching up on the other candidates, starting with the conversation between Sari Essaya v Eva Biaudet from the same series. And here's Sauli Niinistö v Paavo Väyrynen. And here's Arhinmäki v Lipponen.