thoughts – davelevy.info

Backwardness of Glamour

State Opening of Parliament – FCO – OGL1.0 2015

Sometimes one’s feeds actually throw up some golden nuggets. I came across this facebook video reel from Andi Shehu. It’s not very long, but packs a lot in. He argues that much of the support for the Brexit vote was based upon nostalgia for an empire that had already been dismantled and one that today’s voters cannot possibly remember and that that this political nostalgia is fuelled by outdated Victorian traditions at the core of British government, maybe even from pre-Victorian times and that true improvement requires democratic reform. The reel led me to look at some earlier theorists who first articulated these ideas and suggesting that the British state never adopted democracy and remained the instrument of old wealth based on land.

In many ways what came after 1945 was much better and much more democratic and served the mass of the population better than its predecessor. The UK built houses, formed the NHS and developed its manufacturing capability to provide jobs wealth and income to the bulk of the population. People’s memory of the poverty of the Great Depression led them to build a comprehensive welfare state guaranteeing social security and a limited freedom from poverty. This was dismantled by reactionary conservative movements, and the engine of the economy moved back towards finance and the City of London, institutions that have no patriotism and yield no investment in the wellbeing of the British people. These changes were not the fault of Brussels, but the project designers needed a scapegoat as the factories, steel works & mines were closed, and relative poverty, ably illustrated by the work of P. Danny Dorling, ensued.

Shehu then argues that much of the nostalgia is focused on the pomp and ideology of the British State. He quotes Tom Nairn’s ideas about the “glamour of backwardness” where the “mother of parliaments” & the pomp of the monarchy become to be seen as desirable and sources of pride. There are many recent examples of this constitutional exceptionalism, but one egregious example was Andrea Leadsom’s criticism of the European Union as having five presidents that no one could name; at least they’re not hereditary monarchs and the European Parliament is wholly elected by proportional representation. The conclusion is that the British state is no longer fit to run a 21st century society and that it remains a tool of control of the economy and its people in the interests of an economic elite, which in the UK . looks very much like the old, 18^th century one.

I recommend you look at the Facebook reel as he is much more economic in words than I am.

However, watching the video reminded me of the conclusions, or maybe the premise of “Capitalism divided?” by Stuart Ingram who sought to examine why the British state did not act as “the executive committee of the bourgeoisie”; I found the book fascinating, and I’ve promised myself to review it on this blog.

At the centre of his argument, is the proposition that the funding of the original industrial revolution was based upon the wealth of the landed aristocracy. The British economy became a commercial economy and the centre of world trade finance; the British state was optimised to defend the power of landed wealth and gave birth to the development of a mercantile economy not a manufacturing one and so it never served the capitalist class. It’s for these reasons that the post 45 reforms were required and the victory of the People’s War gave the working class the confidence to build a “land fit for heroes”.

My two takeaways from the video and my brief limited reading since then, is that democratic reform is a critical part or attempting to build a society free of poverty where people can fulfil themselves in the world of work and avoid alienation and appropriation. Proportional representation, devolution and subsidiarity and the abolition of the monarchy are not side issues to economic fairness. The second takeaway reinforces the idea that the British economy’s continued reliance on global finance is a weakness in delivering for the mass of people in the UK.

Simplicity is power

a robot giving off sparks, in bue tones (AI)

The events that made me write Rejoin the need for speed reminded me of Robocop II, where Robocop’s three directives were augmented to over 300. In that case, they were deliberately designed to reduce Robocop’s effectiveness.

In the world of resolutionary politics, too often, the special interest demands of part of a majority voting bloc are accepted weakening the powerful simplicity of the motion’s original design.

Work out what you want and keep it simple. (It also makes it harder for opponents to nit pick). …

A new 5 point plan on Europe

The European Movement write to Andy Burnham on his arrival at Downing St.. They call for the Government and Labour Party to,

Drop the red lines on Europe,
By the end of 2026, publish a strategy for cementing the UK’s place in Europe
Make the UK Europe’s closest security partner
Launch a national conversation on the UK’s European future
Put a route to EU membership in Labour’s next manifesto

They now have a petition to support their demands, I have signed it, it would be great if you did too.

Image Credit: By me! CC 2022 BY-SA 2.0 or via flickr. …

The Cruel Sea

I went to watch the cruel sea on HMS Belfast on 13th June; the show consisted of the film followed by two selections from the Imperial War museums film archive. There was a question and answer session, chaired by James Taylor and Charlotte Ross of the IWM. During the Q&A, I made a contribution, and have transcribed my notes as a comment on the original article. …

There’s no useful half way house

Earlier this month, Michel Barnier made a speech in which he suggested that the European Union would welcome the United Kingdom rejoining the EU even with some of the opt-outs previously negotiated. Barnier is very clear that he is only talking about Schengen and the Euro. The huge problem with the speech and the suggestion that opt-outs remain on the table is this will be interpreted by lukewarm supporters and political weathercocks as permission to haggle on the terms of re-entry.

Michel Barnier – European Parliament cc 2019 BY

The unacceptability of UK opt-outs within the EU, specifically, staying out of Schengen and the Euro, is illustrated in a recent You Gov poll. Unfortunately, for rejoiners, the French and Germans will only accept a UK application if it includes Schengen and the Euro, while support in the UK falls if we do not rejoin on the terms we had. It would be interesting to note what people believe those terms to be, as apart from Schengen and the Euro, they include a partial opt-out from the justice pillar, together with the famous rebate.

I am concerned that while a number of campaigners have been trying to prove their cleverness by suggesting there’s ways to rejoin without agreeing to the Copenhagen Criteria, others have been encouraged to consider EU membership as an a-la-carte process. It is not.

On the question of opt-outs, we, i.e. rejoiners need to show some leadership. Schengen comes with the right to freedom of movement. This is a popular and positive benefit of full membership of the European Union. Politicians, particularly Labour politicians should be showing some leadership. The opt-outs are gone; there may be some technical reasons why Schengen and the Euro will take some time but being a net contributor is one reason why we’re wanted and full membership of the justice pillar gives each citizen access to the Court of Justice of the European Union acting as a backstop against the authoritarian instincts of the British State with judges appointed by the children of opponents of fascism and Stalinism. Being members of the Digital Single Market would have the benefit of defending our democracy against US Oligarchs and Putin.

I want my European citizenship back, I want to vote for MEPs and a Parliament that appoints a Commissioner and Judge, and has a seat on the European Council. And since this is a metaphor in common use, I want it in my lifetime. I also want to participate in improving the democracy of the EU to make it accountable to the views of citizens and residents.

Another reason for pace, is that the EU is about to move on in a big way. Many argue that its changed too much to rejoin anyway; it’s not yet true and just something that Brexiters say but if the industrial policy takes off, it will damage the UK’s ability to export and further damage supply chains. …

On “Stop killing video” games

The ECI “Stop killing video games” was accepted as having reached its one million signature threshold earlier this year. The initiative seeks to prevent the remote disabling of videogames by their publishers. They also say, this prohibition can be met by providing means for the game to continue functioning independent of publisher. This article looks at the Commission response, the campaign’s next steps and questions the Commission’s strategy in responding to ECIs. …

On Labour’s rules on the election of a Leader

A short note on how Labour’s Leadership election rules work.

Rule Ch1.Vii establishes the roles, and delegates the election process to Ch4.II.

This from C1.VII, is quite amusing given the history of the last few years, underling is mine.

The Leader shall, as a member of the NEC, uphold and enforce the constitution, rules and standing orders of the Party and ensure the maintenance and development of an effective political Labour Party in parliament and in the country.

Chapter 4.II defines the nomination and election process. The first clause is the now sadly common rule that claims to establish a principle but actually allows the NEC to vary the process and either bend or break the rules. Any such variation would need to be conformant with Wedensbury reasonableness rules, but this is unlikely to be ever tested in a court.

The rules specify process to be followed in the case of a vacancy, or where no vacancy exists.

To be a valid nominee, a candidate requires nomination from the PLP, CLPs and affiliates. In the case of a vacancy, the rules are silent as to the order these are to be sought.

In the case of a challenge, someone would have needed to have collected the 20% of the PLP supporters, and then others would need to be given the opportunity to do so too. The timing of the making of supporting nominations by CLPs and affiliates is also silent.

The rules state that nominations shall be made by all three classes of nominators.

The election consists of a one member one vote and is designed to include union political levy payers, who are not members of a political party. This I thought interesting,

4.II.C.vii The precise eligibility criteria shall be defined by the NEC and set out in procedural guidelines and in each annual report to conference.

as yet again neither members nor candidates know the rules until after the election has been called and nominations made. See also the Rule Book 2026 and/or My Repo, which holds mirrors …

Only full membership works!

Rafael Behr writes a trenchant statement about the weakness of Labour's "Fix Brexit" policy. It's titled, "The Brexit delusion is dead – so now Keir Starmer doesn’t need to pretend any more" with a tag line, "To rebuild relations with Europe in a dangerous world, the prime minister needs to win big arguments, not hide behind outdated red lines".

He criticises the timidity of the manifesto, Starmer's apolitical approach to dealing with Europe, and everything really, points out that cherry-picking can never succeed and that membership is the best answer even for the economic questions.

Today's debate amongst Labour's leadership, is whether its possible to pursue a sector-by-sector negotiation without compromising the red lines. It is not! Unless the UK gets on the train, the next tranche of EU reforms will make it harder for an incrementalist approach to succeed. Furthermore the EU are not going to give better terms to an ex-member than to current or acceding states. Also the five year review is due to start, there is no reason why the EU will want to put more on the table, and Behr's eloquent statement, that the only model that truly works is membership is now obviously true, made more so by the changing geo-political circumstances. I would add, that until we begin to talk about the need for mutual social solidarity with the peoples of the European Union, again progress will be slow.

To me, this is a great article which you should read yourself, for those short of time, I have book marked the article in diigo, and made the following notes. These can be seen overleaf, by using the "Read More" button ...

Checks and balances in Poland?

I attended the Citidem seminar, on Poland. It was addressed by Professor Maciej Kisilowski, who has authored a book/paper collecting his thoughts. The paper is called , Introduction: A Polarized Country in Need of a New Social Contract, Let’s Agree on Poland. A Case Study in Strategic Constitutional Design. The paper is available at the University of Warsaw site. The seminar is available on youtube.

I made a contribution, here are my notes.

Professor Kisilowski spoke of the centripetal forces in Poland and argues that to combat these forces there needs to be new foci of power. He proposes Mayors, who will also meet in a national senate. He described the mayors as guardians of the constitution which reminded me of Labour’s proposals, for a basic law, enforced by a reformed upper house, in the Brown Commission, a topic on which I blogged, and on which little progress has been made.

The problem with populist politics is the winner take all nature of the liberal democracies and their parties. Electoral systems that reinforce the winner take all culture do not serve democracy. In elections of Presidents and Mayors, there can only be one winner which reinforces the anti-democratic tendencies of politicians and weakens ‘loser’s consent’. One counter model is found in Switzerland, but parliaments and committees can and have to negotiate in the open and often they will find more acceptable solutions from the various stakeholders second and third choice preferences. I question whether directly elected presidents and mayors are the superior democratic answer to government.

It was argued that the EU could act as a guarantor or underwriter of human rights law, although it may be that there are those who oppose human rights law, and certainly human rights laws written by foreigners. This is certainly the case in the UK. I can see a role for the EU in this role and have supported the opposition and implementation of measures that the UK parliament would have wanted or not. The EU is operating its own agenda of centralisation which if desirable needs changes in governance rules.

Within the Aquis of the EU, subsidiarity is a relationship between the Union and the States. We, the people, need that subsidiarity to become a right; and that decisions are taken as close to the people it effects as possible.

Devolution is hard to implement because it means the meaningful transfer of power. If devolution is a gift, then it can always be taken back. We can see imperfect implementations of devolution in the UK in Scotland and Wales and in Spain in Catalunya & the Basque country, but also in Italy, Belgium and Finland.

On writing this piece, I add this as a conclusion. The arguments about a new constitution and the necessary conflict resolution mechanisms raises the issue of the freezing of inter-community dialogue and the embedding of the cultural polarisation. This can be seen in a number of places in the world, including Northern Ireland, Belgium, the Lebanon and Bosnia-Herzegovina. In Northern Ireland, which I know better than the other locations, the power-sharing has led firstly to increased polarisation as the Unionists moved from Official Unionists to the DUP, and latterly, a structural inhibition on building cross-community parties.

My conclusion is that constitutions needs both flexibility and boundaries and that representative parliaments/councils are superior to presidents and mayors.

Featured Image: The Polish Sejm by Polish MFA cc-by-nd-2011 via flickr; w750 …

Labour’s Brexit tanker is turning

On the Great Reset with the EU, things continue to move, if not between the EU & UK, at least inside the Labour Government. I look at the important events over the first quarter of 2026, including new deals, the Foreign Affairs committee report, the EU Commissions reaction to the Parliamentary Partnership Assembly, the reactions of some of Labour's Mayors, Reeves' Mais lecture 26 and reactions to it, finishing with a report on Sir John Curtice's views on voting & opinion.. For more, use the "Read More" button ...

« Previous