Everybody is talking about the TIG. The so-called Independent Group emerged this week. And I have already summarised my view of its economics, which I very strongly suspect will never change, which is why I will never have much time for it. But what is its significance?
I have struggled with this question. The best answer I can come up with is that it is an indication of frustration. And, maybe of self-incrimination by those involved that they cannot yet come to terms with.
The scale of frustration at the state of UK politics is, I suspect, unprecedented. The failure of the UK's two largest political parties to provide anything close to leadership over Brexit overwhelms all other concerns. The result is alienation at unprecedented scales, that cannot but have political, economic, social and further constitutional consequence in due course. The TIG just typifies that.
What do I mean? Simply that I think the MPs involved have simply walked away. I know there are other concerns, and Luciana Berger has a special and apparently well-justified concern. But I do not think that this would have happened but for Brexit, so I believe it fair to consider it the unifying element.
Now, it so happens that I share a desire with the TIG to stay in the EU. I think it rational to do so, I know those who disagree. But since this does not make me a supporter of the TIG this cannot be sufficient reason for its creation. So what is that?
And this is where any discussion stumbles, because answers are hard to find. Can it really be that the TIG is about glorifying the politics of 2010-15 as Anna Soubry and Chris Leslie both imply with their barking back to the halcyon days of austerity from Cameron, Osborne and Clegg, feebly opposed by Ed Miliband? Surely not?
But what then? And the answer is apparently absent. It is simply about managerial politics. That is the argument that ‘the world would be better if people like us were in charge'. For too long this is what the people of the UK have bought.
As I have already argued this morning this may still be true for Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, but in each of these cases ‘people like us' will now mean politicians from those places, and not England. But for England, long the home of the middle manager who can only function well in a system made by committee that removes all chance of flair being displayed, what does this now mean?
The answer is the doldrums. And the TIG is evidence. For all those involved the reason for leaving is that the committee of which they are a part has ignored them for too long. There is no evidence they have an alternative plan. They're just bored with being ignored.
And why the remorse that I also suggest exists, with which they need to come to terms or fail? That is the sense each must have when the initial euphoria of liberation passes (as it will) that they have been wasting their time.
This they will only appreciate when they have to say what they are about. And I simply don't think they know that. There is no sense of purpose amongst them.
I thoroughly dislike the ERG. I do not think Corbyn's old style socialism has the answers needed to deliver the changes we need that are best described as a Green New Deal. But both at least have principles and ideas, even if they are misplaced. But the TIG? That has nothing to offer at all. They are a new committee, but one that will forever be in search of a purpose. That is what will drive the members' remorse when they look back on their past political careers in time to come when they have ceased to hold any political office.
The UK needs massive political transformation. It has to be principles-based. It has to answer real need. It has to be sufficiently pragmatic to take people with it. And the narrative has to be compelling.
What is very apparent is that in England right now the major parties (including the LibDems and the TIG) cannot provide this.
Maybe no one can without electoral reform.
But whatever the answer is, it will have to be green. There is now no other way. Every other party is simply going to fringe that green to provide emphasis. The narrative of saving the planet will have to prevail for all. That is the paradigm shift that has to come. And the TIG is nowhere near appreciating it, which is why it is irrelevant.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
The emergence of the party is a response to the tories being too far right, labour lurching too far left under momentum and the electorates preference to elect a party broadly centre. it really is that simple. Neither Labour nor the Conservatives reflect the wishes of the majority of the electorate. At this stage TIG is a reaction to this and probably won’t provide an answer. But it might morph into something that will.
I admire your optimism
It won’t with these people leading it….
TIG =
Totally
Inconsequential
Grandstanding
I agree – this group may have some useful say in preventing BREXIT but other than that they have a potentially very short shelf life – one for the deli counter I think.
What is deeply worrying for me is the lack of reflection in the group about what has gone on previously? A lack of self awareness?
If you are that unaware and unquestioning about the past, what exactly are you setting out to change?
Maybe they don’t want to change anything
Maybe that is the secret we’ve missed
Maybe they think this is as good as it gets
As usual d’ Ancona in the Guardian gets things wrong quoting people like Berlin saying that history ‘has not direction’.
Obviously d’ Ancona has not read Piketty who has charted the long run rise the wealth of the rich and their share of economic output. There is your ‘historic direction’ Matthew right there mate is all I can say. Pathetic.
Even Jonathan Freedland thinks TIG might have some impact other than BREXIT and Rawnsley – well he’s lost the plot completely.
And they say that Chukka wants to be the architect of a new movement? It’s just a centrist version of UKIP really – feeding of the public’s desperate desire for change in politics.
The only way to get around this sub-division is through PR surely? That would smoke them out policy wise I feel.
Excellent . Latte drinkers no doubt . The’re just a bunch of left over Blairites who want to be down and dirty with the millionaires ( Chukka Umanna especially ) and corporations ( Angela Smith supports fracking – yes really ) . They can’t bear the idea that it’s over for the Blairites . They don’t give a shit about Brexit or anything other than their careers . When Shirley Williams and the ‘ gang of four ‘ broke with Labour back in the day they were genuinely ( Shirley was our MP and a more principled politician it would have been hard to find, then or now ) trying to create a social democracy in this country. They failed, but it was a heroic attempt. Had they succeeded maybe we wouldn’t have the god awful mess we have now.
I give them some credit.
It takes some courage to walk away from your career. But I suspect all have Plan Bs.
I also have some time for pragmatism. But it has to know what it is compromising to achieve the objective.
Here, as you suggest, there is a void. And that is why this will not work.
The TIG. A Scottish perspective:
https://wingsoverscotland.com/every-rat-for-themselves/
( For non-Scots readers, ‘Fluffy’ is shorthand for the UK’s Scotland Secretary)
🙂
This afternoon we heard the depressing news that the final Brexit vote will be less than three weeks before the leaving date. Despite all these trips to Brussels, there has been no change in the stance of the EU.
I also heard Andrew Bridgen talk about putting pressure on the EU. By threatening to shoot ourselves in both legs if they don’t give us what we want?
We can only hope the Commons votes to stop leaving without a deal-but I am not sure this is binding on the government. I won’t hold my breath.
Surely with this lack of political leadership, the leaders of industry, finance and trade unions will, at last, make their voice heard loud and clear? Why don’t they?
I wish I knew
“But whatever the answer is, it will have to be green. There is now no other way….The narrative of saving the planet will have to prevail for all. That is the paradigm shift that has to come. And the TIG is nowhere near appreciating it, which is why it is irrelevant. ”
Well said.
A taste of that irrelevance can be seen in the meeting between a condescending Democratic party grandee and GND-supporting school children in the US….
https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/feb/22/dianne-feinstein-sunrise-movement-green-new-deal
TIG can replace the DUP to give the Conservatives an effective majority at Westminster. How that affects the outcome of Brexit remains to be seen.
Brexit is the defining issue of the day. I think the formation of TIG make a crash out/hard Brexit less likely and second referendum or soft Brexit more likely. Every other consideration is secondary.
I suspect that their political careers won’t last past the next general election but we may remember their sacrifice fondly if we end up remaining in the EU.
Richard,
Is there a formal process or route that could be used to lobby the TIGs grouping to adopt MMT and the Green New Deal?
It seems to me that anyone with a grain of common sense can see the relevance and need for both.
What about an open letter to TIGS published in the Guardian prepared and signed by suitably qualified individuals?
What needs to be done is:
1. Negotiate a fee with a national newspaper to publish the letter – I would be willing to organise funding for this, even if I have to pay for it myself.
2. Gather together a list of “names”, signatories.
3. Write the letter
Could even make it a general appeal to all the parties to focus on what is needed.
Follow up with approach to the BBC, Channel 4 etc to produce a Panorama type counter argument to “household” economics and the great need for climate change to be the principal driver of political and economic activity?
I feel the time to despair has lost its relevance, I need to find some way to act with purpose. I mentioned many months ago the trim-tab theory. If you want to change the direction of a large vessel you first need to use the trim-tab to move the rudder.
Bob
A letter is obviously possible
With the right support these things do not need to be paid for
A television programme? That’s nigh on impossible, I would suggest. I sense no appetite for that
Richard