July 2022 – Page 2 – davelevy.info

Subsidiarity, representation and human rights

Despite the picture above, this is a short piece of comparative politics, comparing the US Constitution with that of the EU, taking in some lessons from the UK. I have just watched The Original Intent of the [US] Constitution by Prof. Mark Stoler. This taught me some things and this essay reviews these points and looks at lessons for the UK, the EU and the rest of the world.

I look at the “Separation of Powers” vs “Parliamentary Sovereignty”, note that checks and balances are designed to protect the [untitled] aristocracy against the mob, that without the Bill of Rights, the US Constitution may well not have been agreed. I note the desirability of a basic law, with the ability to amend, but not as flexibly as is the case in the UK. I look at constitutional inflexibility in the residual construction of the US Senate and the EU veto. I look at the need for federal taxation powers. I have concluded that parliaments need a freedom of action, and the freedom to negotiate between party programmes. The paradox is that they need to be constrained which is why we need human rights law.

The lecture to me reinforces the need for a subsidiarity guarantee within a constitution, including taxation powers, and a human rights guarantee, remembering that human right law is designed to protect you from the Government. Vetoes are a topic for another day, although much of the failings in the US Constitution can be placed at the door of single seat constituencies, including the Presidency, elected by simple plurality, or indirectly in the case of the Presidency. I say more overleaf ….

Back to the single market?

I have been published on Brexit Spotlight. The article reviews the macro economic reporting and increasingly obvious failure of Brexit, it critiques the Labour Party leadership’s recent response reported at least by me in these two blog articles, Sensibleness Postponed, and my take on Lammy’s speech a week earlier , looks at other political forces within and outside the Labour Party. It highlights the Redfield Wilton opinion polling showing growing support for the single market and rejoining the EU and ends with a warning, that Labour “is terrified of setting out a principled case that seeks to lead, not follow, the electorate. Ironically, he i.e. Starmer risks losing Labour voters – especially young and working-age voters – with this strategy”. …

Equality branch autonomy

I had a couple of requests to look at the Labour bureaucracy’s refusal to allow equality branches access to the membership lists leaving old men to convene meetings of the women’s branch and young labour. This borrows significantly from the current rules in Appendix 2 and it would be hard for the NEC to argue it was poorly written or badly motivated.Too late now, but here it is …

Proper access to membership lists

Insert New C2.III.6 The NEC shall issue procedural guidelines on issues relating to access to the membership system or systems from time to time. These guidelines will ensure that the following members/member roles have access to the membership list,

A. For CLP’s: Vice Chair/Membership and CLP Secretary, or other designated CLP officers

B. For Branches: Secretary or other designated branch officer; this is to include Women’s Branch & Young Labour secretaries.

C. For LGC’s: Secretary or other designated LGC officer, where required for selection purposes or other activities in pursuit of its aims and objects

D. MP’s,, members of devolved bodies, elected mayors, councillors, Labour Group leaders on principal authorities, for the area they represent

E. Members of Party staff appointed by the NEC

Officers of relevant Party Units, elected public officials and staff appointed by the NEC shall be provided with access to the membership data or relevant party systems for the purpose of informing members of events, meetings and other activities or business relating to that role. It must not be used for the purpose of campaigning in internal elections, candidate selections, promoting personal opinions or collecting information and data for a third party i.e. through surveys/petitions. …

How wrong was I four years ago?

I was tidying up my hard disk and came across the notes of a speech I gave GB 2019. I reported the speech on this blog but while many are saying that time moves on and things of changed, I feel the speech is prescient in its prediction of the failures of Brexit and the collective failure of much of the Trade Union movement to represent its membership. I wanted to say that the pusillanimous position of the CEC should be rejected as you can see in the speech. The 2019 European Parliament elections had just taken place showing the compromisers that the nation wasn’t willing to do that. It was make your mind up time. The Union leaderships allowed themselves to be captured by the Party. Anyway, this is what I planned to say, as they say on press releases, check on delivery.

President, Congress, Dave Levy, London Central General Branch, London Region, 1st time delegate, speaking in support of the CEC Special Report on Brexit

Brexit is poisoning politics and stopping us from addressing the issues that matter to people. It stops us talking about how a radical manifesto can heal the country from the ravages of both Thatcherite and 21st Century Tory austerity.

Not only do Labour’s promises of investment in infrastructure and education offer hope, the answer to low wages is labour marker reform, stronger minimum wage legislation, and to empower the Trade Unions and regulate management. It is not to blame migrants and to extend the hostile environment to another 3m citizens, our neighbours & fellow members and continue the Tory’s voter suppression, excluding them from votes to which they are entitled.

It has been clear since June 2016 and the failure of Leave.EU to articulate an exit model that there was always going to need to be a final say referendum. At the time, or shortly after I argued that the negotiations should be done by those that believe in it. That’s what happened but now we should be asked, all of us, those who voted leave, those who voted remain, those too young to vote last time, citizens abroad denied their vote and EU citizens resident in the UK, asked with humility if that is what is still wanted.

Constructive ambiguity is no longer an attractive position. It loses both remain and leave votes. This is proven to all except the most blinkered by last month’s EU Parliamentary results, the worrying subsequent polls and for those of us that have been out there, personal experience.

Labour lost nearly 60% of its vote, mainly to explicitly remain parties. In my home in Lewisham, despite the Council’s position of strongly supporting a 2nd referendum, the Mayor would be a LibDem. The inconvenient truth is that loosely aligned Remainers leant us their vote in 2017. We should also remember that most of labour’s members and presumably ours and voters want to remain.

While I can respect the voters who voted leave, the result is so criminally flawed that courts would have ordered a rerun if it had been deliberative. i.e. not consultative.

The CEC paper does not go far enough and while stating we oppose a no deal Brexit is welcome, that’s where we were in 2016 and yet we are now in an extension period and running out of time to get a satisfactory deal.

Imagine a worse case situation in the spring, a chaotic Brexit has led to queues on the M20, factory layoffs, food & medicine shortages and high inflation after a currency collapse. We will be telling people that all this is very terrible and should be fought, but, oops… if we actually facilitated Brexit, we won’t be heard. It won’t wash.

It maybe time to make up our mind if we want to alienate the majority or minority of our voters.

Labour’s Conference has been clear since 2016, on the basis of GMB motions that its position is to oppose leaving on inadequate Tory terms and now is the time to say that the Tory’s terms fail to meet our needs. Both May’s deal and No-Deal fails to meet Conference 16 policy; it fails to meet the six tests and fails to meet Conference 18’s thresholds. There’s no protection for jobs, employment rights, environmental protection or consumer rights. And no deal means the reimposition of a border in Ireland.

It’s time! We need a public vote and Labour should declare for Remain. There’s no other option on the table. I’d also urge delegates to look with favour on M xxx. . It’s not a London Region motion so we will listen to the debate before deciding which way to vote.

The picture is not of that speech, may equally not be the correct conference. …

The Tories, the leadership, tax and Brexit

Phil Burton Cartledge analyses the political platforms and accountabilities of the Tory wanabee leaders and their fetish with reducing tax by which they mean corporation tax. The FT reports on business’s response to the proposal, which is lukewarm. They point out that only businesses that make a profit pay corporation tax and that for a business of any complexity^[1] and with decent accountants, corporation tax is voluntary. The FT article calls for broader support including demand stimulation albeit through tax cuts, but importantly they raise the issue of VAT on energy (but they pay that too) and also investment incentives. VAT at 20% is ridiculous and the Govt. should reduce it; it can now we are out of the EU.

Phil talks about the conflicts in Johnson’s electoral coalition and the victory of the rentier capitalists in gutting any meaningful levelling up programmes, which have been reduced to crude electoral bribes. This is a long-term trend. We used to call it Regional Policy and I looked at New Labour’s failure to put this right; they were driven by unproven meso-economic theories and then polluted the programme with concerns about welfare to work and regional assemblies.

I should add that another cause of the failure of a levelling up programme is the loss of EU funds. While business is arguing for re-joining the R&D fund, Horizon Europe^[2], some local authorities are now lamenting the losses of the European Regional Development Fund & European Social Fund. This was worth about €4bn^[3] p.a. to the UK. The UK Government has never it seems been particularly good at getting EU money for business and people and yet the UK has many of the poorest areas Northern Europe.

It’s another necessary dimension of the ‘closest possible’ relationship. The regional programmes were first launched on the UK’s accession to the EU as a means of reducing the UK’s net contribution to the EU. It seems we’re missing them now.

[1] This does exclude most patron personal services companies so perhaps the policy is designed for them.

[2] Horizon Europe has rules that create an enhanced ‘multiplier’ effect.

[3] This includes UK Gov matching funds.

Image Credit: Ilovetheeu, CC BY-SA 4.0 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0, via Wikimedia Commons …

Squatting in No 10.

Johnson gave his agreement to elect a successor as Tory leader, but has not resigned as P.M., and plans to be the caretaker while the election takes place. This is wrong. His speech was not exactly gracious, and even John Major suggests its a high risk idea for Parliament and the Tory Party to allow him to remain. Sir Kier Starmer says he’ll move a vote of no-confidence if Johnson plans to stay; evidence is that he does and the Tory race to replace him has already started. I see get on with it. Table the motion on Monday. …

A long time in politics

I wanted to write about something else, but I can't. Boris Johnson comma, Prime Minister full stop , has resigned or has he? It seems he has agreed to go and they are now as ever haggling about if he can hang on to September as a caretaker while the Tories elect a successor. It's been an exciting 48 hours, started by Savid Javid and Rishi Sunak resigning in both gentie and savage terms. They have been followed by over half the government and counting.

The rest of the article comments on Johnson's amazing performance at the Parliamentary Liaison Ctte where he admits to meeting Lebvedev, his decision to resign but act as caretaker pursuing the same delaying tactics in the hope people be they voters or commentators will get bored. There is a quote from the New European, and from Michael Heseltine. The article finishes with a look at Prof Mark Elliot's, the UK's top constitutional lawyer, views on the constitution.

For this article, there is more to read overleaf, please use the 'Read More' button ...

What I did in Harrogate at GMB22

I have now uploaded most of my notes and comments from #GMB22. They can be found on this blog using the tag #GMB22. There are notes on the Ukraine special report which was not presented and on the finance report and debates which I have not yet decided how to publish. The finance debate I will definitely publish, but probably after the GMB submits its AR21.

My branch took nine motions to conference, on training, sick pay, housing crisis, where we enhanced GMB policy on no fault terminations, non-compete clauses, fair votes (i.e. PR), the Future Trade and Co-operation agreement, campaigning against the Tory hard Brexit, restoring legal aid, supporting the Human Rights Act and Sick Pay. Of these motions, only the motion on fair votes failed to carry.I also drafted London Region’s emergency motion on the Rwanda refugee deportations, which was also carried albeit with a qualification.

My report also includes comments on the Energy industry debate, Rachel Reeves’ speech, a motion, carried on GMB supported councillors and I also wrote a piece on my general impressions calling out my highlight speeches.

It was a busy and successful week. …

Sensibleness postponed

Having let David Lammy, and to some extent Rachel Reeves trial a new Brexit line, Kier Starmer is planning a speech with a five point plan, which has been previewed (£) in the FT.

Trade is down the plughole (£), as is inward investment and our GDP is set to flatline for the next 18 months and we have labour shortages which are crippling various industries but most obviously agriculture and inflation is now running at 11%. The economy is not in a good state (£). All of this is caused by Brexit, When studying macroeconomics in the ’70s, we thought these dimensions of the economy were choices and a trade off, and while popular theory has changed, it’s quite an achievement for them all to be wrong and yet another not to want to fix it.

Meanwhile the FT article (£) states,

Starmer will insist that a Labour government would not seek to rejoin the EU’s single market or customs union or reintroduce freedom of movement — let alone seek to reverse the 2016 Leave vote.

I say “why not?”. All three of these measures are obvious and growingly popular solutions to the macroeconomic problems we face today.

The five point plan is important, but leaves glaring holes, does Labour propose to put import checks on products not included in the new agreement, will it try and ease the Labour shortage by allowing workers from Europe to return, why would the EU agree to freedom of movement for the professionally qualified only?. Does any of this help jobs and the environment in the east coast and southern port cities?

Meanwhile, Redfield Wilton report that a majority of voters would vote to rejoin the EU although just as with the original referendum the terms of entry are not clear. Starmer and kitchen cabinet are going to be left behind and are in danger of driving their own core votes into the hands of other parties. RW show that the majority of working age people (at least those under 55) support rejoining.

Image: the port is from unsplash, the plughole is public domain …