As Politico reports this morning:
All anyone's been talking about is the Sunday Times' bombshell splash on plans by “senior government figures” to put Britain on course for a Swiss-style relationship with the EU over the next decade. The idea, according to the paper, is to negotiate a bespoke agreement whereby the U.K. joins the EU single market without accepting free movement. (If only someone had thought of this before.
I admit I managed to discuss other things as well yesterday, but that's just a reminder that Westminster and the real world do not always coincide. Nonetheless, this story is significant for a number of reasons.
First, there is the question as to who leaked it?
Second, there is the firmness of the denial.
Third, it shows how little the Tories have moved on, and how wrong David Cameron was to think a Brexit poll would solve the issue in the party.
Fourth, that the story has traction makes it clear how remote the Westminster parties are from the majority of people in the country on this and other issues.
There is no doubt that the majority of people in the UK now think Brexit was a mistake. There is equally no doubt that the lack of willing by either Labour or the Tories to debate this issue leaves that majority feeling almost wholly unrepresented in a two party political system.
The pretence by both leading parties that this issue has been settled once and for all is very obviously wrong. It leaves both, and Labour in particular, lacking credibility. No one expects sense from the Tories in this area.
But this issue is more significant than that. When it is obvious that part of the economic woe we are suffering is down to Brexit - and this is undeniable - then it makes anything else said on that issue that by a politician who is in denial on Brexit lack credibility as well.
The result is severalfold. Confidence in politics falls again. Alienation from Westminster grows. The obvious failings in our democracy become clear. Belief that there are any solutions to our predicament in the face of such intransigence fades. We enter a state of resignation. And the attraction of extremes grows, which is one of the most worrying aspects of this political failure.
I feel as though I exist in the political void that Labour and the Tories have combined to create now. They combine to deny choice on Brexit, the type of economic policy we might have, almost all constitutional issues, and even civil liberties, which both seem willing to trash. There is even little between them on green issues and migration.
It's not extreme, or even particularly left wing to feel this alienation. You only have to be what was once called a social democrat - and so a relatively centre ground politician - to feel as if politics has chosen to abandon you and all you think of value.
My fear is nothing good can come of this. With the Labour leadership opposed to PR no change is in prospect. Unless, quite extraordinarily, a new party willing to fill this void emerges we are consigned to a desperate, neoliberal, right wing led decline. But I will still shout in opposition to that because I can't see another available course of action at present. Political sanity demands it.
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:
Spot on, Richard. My guess is that Labour will win the next election (albeit probably not with a huge majority) but a new force will emerge on the left with a politics most similar to Labour during the Jeremy Corbyn era, but more progressive in certain key aspects (for example, they will be pro-PR, and pro-EU, or at least pro-single market). Quite similar to Yanis Varoufakis’s Diem25 in Europe, in fact. I think Labour will collapse in popularity when in government (because they are very short of progressive ideas for governance) and will be largely wiped out in the 2029 election, with the new left-wing party (which may well feature some defectors from the left of the Labour party) doing very well, even under First Past The Post.
I hipe you are right
There is another party already in existence – the Green Party.
You are right. The Greens. My My parents voted lablur ever since the 1935 and 1945 elections, and I voted labour throughout the 60s to 2013, ever cince Wilson challenged Douglas Home. Now, I an disillusioned by Labour. The most convincing MP in England, to my mind, is Caroline Lucas. So the Greensare the ones to get my vote. BUT, with the FPTP system, I believe that the best chance of getting a non Tory majority, and indeed of ousting the present Tory in my local constiuency, is to vote tactically for Labour, or possibly Lib Dem, then to hope that whichever non-Tory party gets into power, we switch over to some form of proportional representation. guarranteeing that NEVER AGAIN would there be a Tory government and that the smaller progressive parties could be included in a coalition government . Starmer has made the right noises about getting rid of the House of Lords and creating a second more democratically representative upper house, but we are hearing nothing about PR repalcing FPTP. Some weeks back in the Guardian, John Harris pointed out the foolishness of Labour continuing with FPTP and urged Labour to recognise that a priority ought to be to ensuring a more democratic and equitable systm of voting; unfortunately, we are not hearing voices of agreement from anyone in Labour. What’s the matter with them?
I wish I knew
We could have fewer things decided by Westminster politics if there was a massive programme of devolution. Then it would not matter if people lacked confidence in the Westminster lot or not, and the Palace can be pulled down and rebuilt on a smaller scale.
I propose a Constitutional committee that examines the Powers retained by the States (USA) and cantons (SWI), and that every power, revenue raising ability, spend and responsibility that they have is likewise devolved in the UK.
I note that as a constitutional principle that you prefer centralisation to Brussels. If the people have little confidence in Westminster just think how much less they will have if told to trust in the lobby-milked and unelected EU Commission again.
“….a new party….”. This has been (and remains) the central debate among former Labour members since the arrival of Starmer. Should the Enough is Enough campaign form the basis of a new party or act as its recruiting ground? With so much involvement from well-known and respected senior trade union heads, no small proportion of the SCG and the Green Party leadership it would seem very likely that this gigantic organisation will have significant impact on a new left-of-centre party. With a membership that exceeds 700k there must be an embarrassment of riches in terms of motivated, sincere people. This entity has also attracted portions of some other minor parties (TUSC, NIP etc.) so should a new political party arise from EiE it wouldn’t be much of a stretch of the imagination to accept that several of these political minnows would be absorbed. If a new party is being considered, then the EiE campaign group almost inevitably seems to be its place of origin.
There is of course an existing political party that has reasonable national recognition and one that ( albeit rather hazily) occupies that positional void on the political spectrum that you refer to Richard: The Green Party. They’ve performed superbly in the local elections over the last few years – although they do have serious issues though with political naivety (Corbyn’s stint as Labour leader provided us with a prime example of this and just how easy it is to fail even with a plethora of good policies when let down by this lack of experience) and all too frequently, an inflexible and unreasonable attitude on certain policies that truly angers voters. Unfortunately, The Green Party still has a definite air of protest vote to it rather than a potentially serious political heavyweight. There are groups several thousand strong calling for an ‘ecosocialist’ party to be formed from these two elements that I’ve mentioned here. It could work but judging by the opinions I’ve encountered on social media (some say not the most reliable source of information) this kind of party isn’t going to appear anytime in the near future.
Whether its a new party of social democracy, democratic socialism, green or some combination thereof there certainly is no lack of desire for this to happen. Personally I do not think that we will see a new mass political party being formed before the next GE. I would also think that at least some members of the SCG (and maybe others too) would need to be involved for this new party to take-off, none of whom are likely to leave the relative safety of the Labour Party this side of December 2024.
Beyond this, I genuinely cannot see anyone attempting another new centrist effort. The ghost of Change UK does occasionally haunt some of the online discussions I read. Regardless of where their policies would actually place them on the political axis, both the current Labour Party and the Lib Dems loudly proclaim the ‘centre ground’ as their territory. That this is the accepted narrative, even among some of the Tory red tops, only proves that these claims have established tenure in our mass media and therefore in the minds of the majority of the electorate. Any new party serious about representing working class interests and challenging the current political homogeneity are going to have to stake their claim definitively to the left of centre.
There is a problem with the EiE leadership
They are hardcore Stalinist / Marxist
No thank you, very much
What is EiE? I’ve never heard of it.
Enough is Enough
Seamus Milne is a key driver – and I have never trusted him
“There is a problem with the EiE leadership
They are hardcore Stalinist / Marxist”
Do you have proof of the leadership being “Stalinist / Marxist” Richard? I see Mick Lynch and Eddie Dempsey of the RMT, Dave Ward of the CWU, Zara Sultana and Ian Byrne of the SCG, Acorn etc. as well as The Green Party of England & Wales having officially affilliated with EiE.
Not exactly a set of hardline Stalinists.
And Seamus Milne
Nor do I trust Dempsey to be candid
No one who thinks we need class warfare for the working class only has got much clue what the current problems are about
His willingness to litigate is also not good
Agreed about Dempsey; he’s not exactly been covering himself with glory. I’d forgotten about his comments from the back end of summer. Then again, as a representative of the RMT he is very much overshadowed by Mick Lynch and his (Dempsey’s) statements have lost him a very significant amount of good will and support.
Seamus Milne isn’t a name I’ve seen or heard connected with the EiE campaign until today. I’d have thought that his influence would be all but spent by this point.
Considering the rest of the leadership of the group, I’d still not refer to them as being “Stalinist / Marxist” but these two (Dempsey & Milne) are gifts that the right-wing press could (and in all likelihood, would) gleefully wield against a new party emerging from the EiE group. With the other high recognition names and the sheer magnitude of the membership I still can’t see how any new left party could entirely avoid input from EiE.
I’ve a strong feeling that Howard Reed who’s earlier post here predicted a small Labour majority in 2024 followed by a collapse in its support leading to a new party might be on the right track.
I have just been watching a webinar organised by the SCG and Labour against Austerity. It was called Tax the Rich. Those speaking were Prem Sikka, Oslem Onaran and Richard Burgon. A question I asked which was not answered was why the SRG had not been proscribed by Starmer. The answer is obviously because he cannot afford to lose 35 MPs, or 34 if you exclude Corbyn who is a member.
If you decide that you cannot belong to a party or group because of a single person, you will never belong to any group.
However, I think the socialist campaign party would be a good name for a new political party. Either that or the Peace and Justice Party, which is getting quite close to becoming a party. Whatever is chosen needs to happen before the local elections next year.
They can talk about a closer relationship with the EU either inside or outside of the single market until the cows come home, but nothing will come of it.
What they have decided to do with Solvency II is a more realistic indicator of the direction in which we are headed.
Described exactly why Scotland must exit this dystopian future as soon as is possible.
Has anyone bothered to ask the EU how they feel?
They have spent the last decade trying to regularize/rationalize the the piecemeal nature of the “Swiss style” relationship with Switzerland. I rather doubt they will be interested in letting the UK go down that path.
But, in answer to your question, YES, decline is inevitable.
It is
But progress towards change is not
I too am a denizen of the political void that has been created by the narrow consensus that is our politics.
We are living in a world that has become legalised plunder. A gravy train for the rich who see most people as nothing but a herd of animals beneath them to be beasts of financial burden.
Money is the evil of our times, yet it was conceived as something much more useful than that.
Wealth generation now is seen as OK if it is as Michael Hudson says an ‘overhead’ on someone else’s life – a rent, a fee, an interest rate.
Earning your crust through a real job is now a wealth facilitation factor for who is charging you – not a long term plan for yourself.
I make one more observation though: it’s not necessarily the politicians that we need to be targeting. It is their advisers and whom they are in hock to that we need to coax out into the open and debunk. These to me are the real policy mongers and deniers of reality. It is this group that needs a hefty tackle or too and exposing.
Like you I wonder where this information came from, and whether it represented serious thoughts or was just someone “flying a kite” to see what the reaction was.
The other thing is what the informant meant by “Swiss-style”. It is clear that anything like Switzerland’s current relationship with the EU would not be acceptable within the Conservative Party. However picking off problem areas on a topic-by-topic basis might be. It seems to be the pragmatic approach favoured by other parties, explicitly so by the Liberals (aiming in stages for close alignment and ultimately rejoining in their case) and hinted at by Labour when they talk about resolving things like SPS/food standard equivalence in order to unlock the Northern Ireland impasse.
However Labour doesn’t currently dare to say boo to a goose, and stating their EU intentions unambiguously just doesn’t happen. Or indeed what their vision is for anything else.
Unfortunately I fear a new party (or rise of a current minority party) wouldn’t help – assuming it corresponded to sensible social democracy it would drain votes from Labour primarily and under FPTP allow another Conservative administration. Although I assume there must be a large pool of historic Conservative voters who currently feel unrepresented in parliament, the question is whether enough of them could overcome their tribal loyalty.
Might it be that the major political parties are in a cartel?
Might it be that they are in a cartel which benefits rich donors to political parties?
Might it be that more the wealth in a country polarises, the less democratic it becomes?
As you have said many times Richard, the answer to your question is yes, it is the way that our Democracy is structured that means that so many problems, with known solutions that would be highly beneficial to the UK, cannot even be discussed let alone solved.
The ways in which UK companies are owned in the UK/USA being a perfect example.
When the UK car industry was owned by the City of London/Wall street it was seen as the epitome of everything that was wrong with Britain.
The Workers were Lazy.
The Unions had too much power
The cars produced were poorly designed and nobody wanted British Brands.
The factories weren’t suitable for modern production methods.
Then in the 1980s they were bought by foreign owners, or new foreign firms moved in and the car industry suddenly became Britain’s most successful industry, (although Brexit may be putting an end to that).
All that had changed was that the companies were owned by people who saw and understood business as a long term project. Not parasites who saw a business as a way of making a quick buck before moving on to the next victim.
Under foreign ownership the things that changed and the things that stayed the same are very instructive
The same workforce was now amongst some of the most productive in the world\
The Unions are still very active within the companies with little conflict.
In many cases the companies have built massive international brands based on UK designs from the 1960s and 1970s.
In several cases they are still in the same factories.
To paraphrase Bill Clinton, It’s the Ownership stupid. That is the problem we need to solve and the solutions already exist with the UK.
The only problem is the hollowed out, dilapidated state of our political system, that means that nothing important can be dealt with and we are in the power of fantasists and some of the most anti-social people on the planet
By way of a finish, I was struck by Lidl’s recently announced 2021/22 figures.
Sales £7,8 Billion.
Pre-tax profits of £41 million
£50 million assigned for pay increases in order to retain experienced staff.
50 new branches opened in the UK in the last year.
The sort of figures that would have The City/Wall Street screaming for a takeover.
Thanks
Good points
I like ‘it’s the ownership, stupid’
There is another level of detail in ownership; those takeovers that were by other manufacturers or ‘real businesses’ rather than financial institutions are the ones that have really prospered. Notably German and Japanese in the case of auto manufacturing. Lidl is of course family owned. Those that have been taken over by foreign financial interests have generally been ‘financialised’ and treated to the same process of wealth extraction and low investment, as would be expected from the City.
In the words of Rana Faroohar in her excellent book, the ‘makers’ rather than the ‘takers’.
we seem to be back to cherry picking. Freedom of capital, goods, services YES but not for people. The EU are not going to agree to that-why should they?
Immigration is probably the issue that swung it for the Brexiteers.
Events have shown we needed the European workers, many of whom returned home but we didn’t count so we can’t quote figures.
When the issues is raised with Ministers the interviewers don’t mention that it worked both ways. Our people had the right to work, live and study in the EU plus Norway, Iceland and Switzerland , that is all of Europe other than the Balkans and Belarus. An Irish passport is now worth more than a British one as holders can work anywhere in Europe and in the UK.
The Ashcroft survey showed that people under 45 had a majority to remain and that better educated people also voted to remain.
Brexit is not giving more opportunities. It is taking them away from people.
> The pretence by both leading parties that this issue has been settled once and for all is very obviously wrong
I’m not sure I understand this.
Even if Labour were to come out and say Brexit was the mistake we all know it to be, what will that achieve?
I doubt there is any inclination in the EU to consider readmitting the UK, or even allowing reentry to the single market or customs union. Even if the UK wished to reopen the issue, they’re not going to find a receptive response.
Sad as it is, politically, reopening this debate is a non-starter for at least two decades I’m afraid.
There is a many stage process to returning, including constitutional reform
Of course it will not be overnight, but it can begin, but not as Labour is
The folly of Brexit is gradually being revealed- being both heightened and covered by Covid & Putin’s invasion of Ukraine.
What is predictable is that due to demographics of Brexit vote twice as many Leavers are leaving us as are Remainers every year. Indeed there were more people who had voted Remain than Leave alive when we actually officially left the EU. (One must wonder at the morality of over 80’s voting in Brexit Referendum when they were not going to have to live with consequences.)
Add into equation the fact that 2 out of 4 nations in UK voted to Remain and how that is playing out in NI plus how a hard Brexit is being implemented on Scotland and the true scale of AngloBritish exceptionalism is mind boggling in it’s arrogance and incompetence.
The fact that Tory party temain so ifrightened of Farage to extent they are still controlled by Brexiteers and Labour seems mute on subject makes you realise how deep Brexit has effected body politic in UK.
David Goodhart on ‘A Point of View’ on Sunday seemed to be making the same point Richard, though he seemed to think it a good thing. Both major parties accepted there was a ‘fiscal hole’ that needed higher taxes and spending cuts, both were going to ‘make Brexit work’, our politics was now less extreme etc, etc
So those of us who don’t accept politics based on lies and delusions are now political extremists? Brexit can’t be made to work for 99.9% of the UK, as it is based on lies and delusions. Similarly, the current narrative accepted by Westminster is false as you’ve shown. Exactly how is local government, the NHS, state education and the civil service going to work wth yet more cuts after 12 years of austerity, Brexit and covid?
“I feel as though I exist in the political void that Labour and the Tories have combined to create now. They combine to deny choice on Brexit, the type of economic policy we might have, almost all constitutional issues, and even civil liberties, which both seem willing to trash. There is even little between them on green issues and migration.”
Exactly. I think the likelihood of Scotland, and then Wales deciding they’ve had enough of Westminster can only grow.
I knew David when he founded Prospect
I would not willingly associate now
Am with you Richard. Alienation indeed – dont think have felt this level of despair over the decades. Somewhat relevant discussion on r4 this morning Zsuzsanna Szelényi , Maria Ressa, ‘Tainted democracy’, ‘How To Stand Up To A Dictator’.
As Will Hutton said in the Observer
‘Babble about exploiting Brexit opportunities is just babble: trade is shrinking and with it private investment. There is no plan, no vision, no strategy, no institutional architecture that might offer better, and none anticipated. Government is a pantomime horse…..there will be no cut-through until the wider political conversation is truthful – impossible in the current political climate’
He seems to be saying that elements of ‘the truth’ – on brexit, on access to EU market, a sovereign wealth fund, adequate funding for NHS – are beginning to surface – from some business leaders, think tanks, senior civil servants, the occasional politicians.
I still think maybe best to get just two or three key thoughts into Labour heads – through public debate , union leaders, the movement for inflation matching pay.
Maybe PR and ‘if we can do it we can afford it’ to force them to talk and think about tax and spend.. Keep banging on and banging on so Starmer and co have to respond.????
I will be banging on
Inevitable decline? Does not have to be that way.
Most people would not have given Ukraine a snowflakes chance in hell against Russia this time last year. What made the difference is a people acting as a nation.
UK could be similar, but the politicos have all but given up – potential is still there – the Uk has enough RES potential to power itself, plus much of Europe and supply all the energy/feedstock for the petro-chem sector (needed even if you don’t have cars).
Problem is – the politicos don’t know enough and there is an almost total lack of can-do.
Talent is there. Trivial example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speed_sailing_record – designed and built in… the UK.
An interesting article on ownership: https://www.common-wealth.co.uk/reports/power-to-the-people-the-case-for-a-publicly-owned-generation-company
If it’s good enough for Orsted & the Danish people – why not the UK? No significant political party is even asking the question. The follow-on being that this could/should lead to UK manufacturing jobs. What do I hear?………..nada
In terms of PR, the discussion needs to broaden out from “how politicos are selected” and into “how to involved UK subjects in the political process” – at the moment, the mainstream parties are a zone of silence on this subject. All the above is trivial to address, leaving the open question… why are Liebore and the LyingDems not looking at these areas?
I wish I could answer that question
My understanding of the relationship of Switzerland to the EU is that is is the result of 20+ years of painstaking negotiations developing a raft of agreements. I can’t imagine the Brexit team, or anyone else in UK Government, being remotely capable of this sort of effort! Joining EFTA might be possible and would be in my opinion the best way for an Independent Scotland to re-establish trade ties with Europe. Definitely prefer the latter option, but perhaps this leak is a precursor to sounding out public opinion about UK joining EFTA?
you’re right to blame FPTP. it is an anti-democratic straightjacket on political discourse. it traps us within the confines of a two party system which artificially limit and constrain what is politically feasible.
the argument for FPTP is that it creates strong government. i disagree. it seeks to disenfranchise the views of most people in the country, who almost always do not give the governing party a majority share of the vote.
PR, on the other hand, because it leads to coalition governments, means that decisions have to be taken in consultation and agreement with multiple parties. you have to bring more people along with you. you can’t just say “our party won and only our view is what matters”. that stinks.
FPTP i think also limits the diversity of backgrounds, experience, interests of people going into politics compared with PR.
It rewards careerist politicians who kiss arse to climb the internal party machinery of one side or the other.