Corbyn’s a long way from winning
We seem to playing a game of political Russian roulette in the UK.
Labour’s pseudo victory in 2017 general election is more Arab Spring than Attlee collective enlightenment. If Labour don’t realise that they will lose a lot of the ground they gained against the Tories. Perhaps even to a reanimated UKIP as the issues they channel have not died.
Since 2010 all British elections have followed a surprising and unforeseen pattern including the Scottish independence and Brexit referendums and even Labour and Tory leadership elections.
Neither the professional commentariat nor their close brethren, political strategists, seem able to bottle the zeitgeist adequately. Instead, left and right continually (re)generate narratives, which maraud as insight and solutions until they are subsequently unmasked by the reality of plebiscite.
The instability engine is our failed financialised economic system and the distortions it perpetuates and accentuates. No-one has yet sold a convincing alternative solution. Unpredictability continues to accelerate rather than moderate. It’s extraordinarily hopefully naive to believe Corbyn’s Labour have found the policy and ideological stabilisers for the UK in the space of 7 weeks and that their impressive 15% gain in vote share from early predictions is epoch changing. It’s merely proof of our extraordinary ongoing flux. To date the Tories have actually been a relative rock of polling stability in all the flux and they increased vote share in 2017.
Corbyn has been under reportedly influential in parliament as Labour leader. His influence comes from adherence to both clear principles and a human ear for real issues. However, I’m extremely sceptical that he has succeeded in selling a solution to the British people that can see him move from principled opposition leader to Prime Minister for a mix of both circumstantial and substantial reasons.
Circumstantially, he has profited at least as much from populist sentiment as from ideological commitment to his cause. He was the non-establishment protest candidate (he should probably thank Nigel Farage for clearing the way for him) facing off against what proved to be a very wooden establishment hugging (“strong and stable”) incumbent. In the next episode of UK politics he will no longer be the underdog and the bar of approval will be higher in all regards.
More substantively, whilst the electorate do want his investment and hope, they simultaneously need to understand in a very practical and non-ideological way the problems and ‘rot’ he will cut away. A nation of overextended homeowners, low savers, tapped out renters, JAMs and insecurely employed people will only invest in hope if they understand his vision at a personal rather than macro-ideological level. Solution? He needs to go for a mega sized vision blend of pragmatism and collectivism to win over the middleground.
Political, economic, academic and commentariat sorts got too hung up on the financial literalism of the ‘magic money tree’ war that erupted post manifestos. The public do not care about the technicalities of whether there is or isn’t a magic money tree. To them the ‘magic money tree’ is figurative and broadly represents that an uplift in living standards for everyone cannot just be waved into being by redistribution “for the many, not the few”. Call it a sort of wisdom of crowds whereby no-one is individually correct in their economic comprehension but as a collective average they approximately get it.
The crowd wisdom of the electorate can believe that the government does have some powerful magic at its disposal and that a real choice to do things differently is possible. They can be sold something more positive and economically literate than austerity.
However, the crowd won’t believe that ‘fairness and magic’ is the whole solution. I’m very sceptical the electorate will vote for purely tax (and blame) the rich. They need to hear what role ordinary people and institutions (like schools and hospitals) play other than receiving more money. Most of us use these services and greatly appreciate them…but we also know from personal experience that they are flawed, dysfunctional and with frequent poor service. We won’t believe a fix is provided by just more money. Labour (and the unions) need a vision that blends tangible hands-on pragmatism alongside their collectivist hope-ism.
What could a new pragmatism look like as strategic policy? A focus on cost cutting that reduces the cost of living whilst improving its quality for the many. The one and only starting place is housing. It is inconceivable that any UK government can pay public servants sufficiently well that they can afford decent status housing in many populous parts of the UK. The government should provide a new deal of better housing in exchange for lower pay. This is a route to both productive investment and sensible management of financial resources and goodwill. Hope with cost cutting.
Deepened and extended this can be a strategy to reclaim Adam Smith’s ‘Commons’ for C21st UK. Making public service noble and aspirational again is a difficult problem to address if we are to retain the substance of a society most of us like, value and rely on to significantly enhance quality and security of life. Government spending as percent of GDP has stayed quite stable since the 1950s but transfer payments like welfare have squeezed out productive investment. The solution cannot be just to pay more tax. There must be a smarter trade-off too.
More generally, a policy of a decent house for all in decent proximity to work regardless of means could be the mega strategic political and investment vision the UK needs. Is there a better way to begin to overturn our dismal productivity problem or shore up our creaking yet extraordinarily expensive welfare state? Afterall, what’s the point in more skills or education if you can never really expect to live well unless you are at the economic pinnacle of society? And wouldn’t it be great to be able to make schools better and spend less money on them?
Whether its left or right that wins the chance to set the new non-Thatcherite non-neoliberal agenda for the next 20 years is still there to be won. Corbynites need to ice the champagne and roll up their sleeves otherwise the Tories will go chameleon and sneak in again. The next vote will come soon. Which party will find a bullet in their chamber?
