Local elections: mass movements and agenda for change

Thoughts on the English local election results:

Expectation management and the mass party

Poor expectation management may be the biggest problem for Labour in communicating the results. Since the 1990s brought the era of media-focused campaigning we have become used to parties playing down their chances. This move was based on parties raising much more money from wealthy donors.

Parties could campaign in this way because their campaigns were delivered by paid staff supplemented with small numbers of very committed activists. Those staff and activists didn’t need to be energised by the possibility of big wins.

The need to energise campaigners can leave you with an expectation management problem. But it means that you can run campaigns that don’t rely on big donors, and the corporate capture that so often accompanies the need to do big fundraising.

Much of the current confusion in politics originates in the tensions around this approach. It’s much messier having big campaigns that excite people. But it is a necessary corrective to the sort of elite politics that divides ‘strivers’ from ‘skivers’ or cynically denies people housing or – maybe worse – cancer treatment to pander to racists.

Turnout and an agenda for radical local government

Local elections are never going to be as easy for mass movement parties, who require big ideas to motivate their voters. The enthusiasm gap will always be bigger for local elections.

These elections took place in a context where there was no national campaign. That makes it more difficult for parties making a big offer. Labour did well in 2017 with polarising policies on issues like student funding and housing. Greens did well in 2015 with issues like rail renationalisation and moving politics to the left. Local elections don’t give scope for that sort of approach so easily.

We need to build strong ideas of what voting for a radical party in local government can achieve. The right can point to lower taxes and the punitive removal of services from the ‘undeserving poor’ as a reason to elect them. Since the era of new municipal socialism in the 1980s, it’s not been clear what a radical council would do. The councils of the 80s made public transport more affordable (Fares Fair), pioneered anti-discrimination on race and sexuality and campaigned on issues like apartheid. We need that spirit back.

Advertisements

Community and Economy: on the success of Highlands and Islands Enterprise

Highlands and Islands Enterprise (HIE) is a rare beast: an economic development agency that enjoys widespread popular support amongst the population of the area in which it operates. First set up as the Highlands and Islands Development Board in 1965 it has been successful in reversing the economic decline of the Scottish highlands and islands. And not only has it been successful, its success is widely recognised.

This is extremely unusual. Industrial policy is littered with the corpses of long-dead and largely unlamented agencies. From the inward investment approach of the 1980s to the ‘connected economy’ approach of the 2000s, the changing winds of policy have swept away a range of agencies. In Wales industrial development was taken back into the competencies of central government. In England, the Regional Development Agencies were replaced by Local Economic Partnerships that enjoyed substantially less resource.

In Scotland and Northern Ireland the equivalent bodies, Invest NI and Scottish Enterprise survived, but are regularly the subject of political opprobrium. In the run-up to the 2016 Scottish Parliament election, the Scottish Government launched an Enterprise and Skills Review in which the intention was strongly signalled that Highlands and Islands Enterprise and Scottish Enterprise would be merged to form a single body.

The mantra of the Minister needing to be seen to do something is all-too-often merging the unmerged and demerging the merged. So it seemed would be the fate of Highlands and Islands Enterprise. But a groundswell of support for HIE – the “Keep HIE Local” campaign – meant Ministers chose not to merge it with Scottish Enterprise. Indeed, such was the success of HIE that Ministers ended up committing to a new development agency, on the model of HIE, for the south of Scotland.

hie local

So why is HIE so popular? Why did Highlanders fear its abolition so much they campaigned to save it? The answer lies in the unique element of its mission, that gives a pointer as to what successful inclusive innovation might look like. Almost every other economic development agency is tasked with growing businesses, seeking inward investment from transnational businesses and other economy-specific activities like knowledge transfer. HIE does these things too. But it also has a mission to support community development.

It is this twin commitment to economic and community development that has allowed HIE to support the hugely successful transfer of crofting estates into community ownership. It has allowed Highland communities to enjoy the benefits of widespread development of community renewables and it has helped to reverse depopulation and retain communities in many remote and rural areas. So much so that other areas of rural Scotland want a similar agency.

And HIE faces new challenges. Adaptation to climate change and the impact of the data economy and automation will change the way the rural economy works. As will the widespread deployment of drones, which could both threaten the much loved rural postie, but could also facilitate true just in time delivery.

Of course, seeing community and economy as interlinked to the point of indivisibility makes HIE’s job more difficult. But it also seems to be more effective than a separation of community and economy that risks appearing reductive and locating the economy outside the scope of the society in which it functions. HIE shows we can build a successful economy in a way that reduces alienation. And it does so in a way so successful that people are prepared to fight for HIE’s ongoing survival.

Some thoughts on the failure of the Sinn Féin-DUP deal

Here are some brief thoughts on the failure of the Sìnn Fein-DUP deal yesterday. At every stage of this process Sinn Féin have driven the agenda. At every stage the DUP have played into their hands. Sìnn Fein collapsed the Assembly and have set terms for agreement that Unionists would find it very difficult to agree.

1. It is partly a function of the limited devolution allowed in the nations of the UK. The job of any NI Executive would have been the administration of London-imposed austerity. It’s easy to understand why Sinn Féin were unenthusiastic about this.

Theresa May’s call for a ‘red, white and blue Brexit’ compounded Sìnn Fein’s antipathy to her government. Brexit looks very much like an attempt to reinvigorate exactly the British Imperial sentiments that repel Irish republicans.

2. Brexit brings the prospect of a united Ireland back onto the table in a serious way. There are only 3 solutions to the Irish border problem. Ireland leaving the EU and joining the UK – which (despite the DUP’s fantasies) can’t and won’t happen. Brexit failing – which might happen. And Irish reunification.

With Sinn Féin sensing the possibilities for a united Ireland they hold the whip hand in any negotiation.

This is why they’ve played so hard on marriage equality and the Irish language. The worst they could hope for was a humiliation of the DUP.

3. The imposition of direct rule from Westminster on the north of Ireland will trigger a great deal of pressure on the Irish government to defend minority interests in the north. With a veto over any deal for the UK over Brexit this is a perilous position for unionists.

It seems likely the Irish government will ask for joint authority. With the UK government’s capacity to actually govern deeply impaired by Brexit this may mean a gradual absorption of the north into an Irish political system and demos. This is the republican strategy and gets to a united Ireland without the need for a border poll.

4. This is an almost inevitable outcome of the Northern Irish electorate’s decision to polarise politics. Both unionists and nationalists gambled that they would win the peace – having concluded that they couldn’t win the war.

The era that started with the Civil Rights movement and ended with the power-sharing agreement had no clear winner. Both sides felt they had lost. This meant the political centre was ripped apart. The more moderate Ulster Unionist party and SDLP lost out to the DUP and Sinn Féin. That was a gamble for each side.

It looks like a gamble the unionists have lost.

How hard Brexit will play out

Today’s announcement that the UK will leave the EU Customs Union begins to crystallise the reality that will face us after Brexit.

Of course, there’s a real possibility that the contradictions with the agreement reached over the Irish border and the chaotic approach to Brexit will mean the UK doesn’t leave.

The aim of the right-wing Brexiters has always been to use Brexit to force a total renegotiation of the role of the state. That renegotiation will mean the removal of almost all protections for workers, for the environment and from corporate tyranny. Our society will become one run by a wealthy elite for their own enrichment.

There are other possible Brexit scenarios, but while the Tories remain in power, this will be the reality. Once we move from the ‘Goldilocks period’ of customs union access and an export-competitive currency onto WTO terms to trade with the rest of the world, there will be an immediate crash in our economy. Tariffs on exports will mean UK goods and services are undesirable, the tax receipts from manufacturing the City of London will collapse and there will be a crisis.

It is telling that at a time when UK goods are cheaper than in decades, and with single market access, there has been little rise in manufacturing exports to the rest of the EU.

Because trade deals can’t be negotiated quickly, the period between leaving the single market and having any trade deals in place will be used to asset strip the UK, and put the country in a position where it is desperate for access to other markets. This will mean any trade deal comes with the requirement to meet the lowest possible standards for workers, consumers and the environment.

The response could be a reorientation of the UK economy to meet domestic needs, while trade deals are negotiated. But it is more likely that the response will be the abolition of all working-age benefits, curtailment of pensioner benefits and a fire-sale of the remaining public assets. The NHS will be privatised, and become a fee-charging service. Schools will become a paid-for service, and charging will be introduced for all previously public services.

In order to rebuild the economy, all consumer protections will be removed, Trade Unions will be banned, and all workers rights repealed. The only way the UK will be able to compete internationally will be to remove all vestiges of a civilised society and effectively enslave the population. This is what the right Brexiters have always wanted.

Everyone with access to citizenship of other countries will leave the country.

It’s a nightmare scenario – but a Tory government that has always wanted to immiserate the population, and a scenario that makes this the easiest path, it seems inevitable that this is how Brexit will materialise.

Zimbabwe: the securocrat, not the kleptocrat

Over the past 3 months, the power struggle within Zimbabwe’s ruling ZANU-PF party has come to a head. On one hand. there was long-time lieutenant of Robert Mugabe, Emerson Mnangagwa, who has been vice-president since late 2014. On the other was Robert Mugabe’s second wife, and the mother of his living children, Grace Mugabe.

With Robert Mugabe approaching his 94th birthday and needing to go regularly to Singapore for medical treatment it was clear that this struggle couldn’t run for much longer. Since the poisoning of Mnangagwa at a ZANU-PF youth rally in August, it’s been clear that the end was near. On the 6th November Mugabe fired Mnangagwa. who fled the country. It looked like Grace had won.

On Monday the 13th November the head of the military Constantine Chiwenga (thought to be a long-term Mnangagwa ally) gave a press conference against Mugabe’s orders. He said that the military would act to stop a purge of veterans of the liberation struggle from the government. Last night the military put Mugabe under house arrest, while claiming that it wasn’t a coup. Mnangagwa re-entered the country.

It now seems that the succession in Zimbabwe will have Emmerson Mnangagwa become the next President, possibly initially as a de facto leader, but after next years election, almost certainly as President. I am assuming that ZANU=PF, the party from which Mnangagwa was recently expelled

This is a bad thing. From the massacre in Matabeleland in the 1980s (the Gukurahundi) to the economic collapse of the late 2000s, Mnangagwa has been at the heart of everything that has gone wrong with post-liberation Zimbabwe.
It is, though, a relief that this situation appears to have come to a head. The uncertainty has been catastrophic, and that damage multiplies the longer the uncertainty continues.

From the suspicious death of Josiah Tongogara in 1979 to the equally suspicious death of Solomon Mujuru in 2011 challengers to both Robert Mugabe and Emmerson Mnangagwa have often ended up dead. It’s not clear whether their deaths were murder, and if they were if it was Mugabe or Mnangagwa that ordered them.

But there was a thing that would have been worse than a Mnangagwa ascendency and that would have been the only realistic alternative: Grace Mugabe.

Where Mnangagwa is a securocrat, Grace Mugabe is a kleptocrat. It was clear that the state would move, under Grace, into a phase of unprecedented looting.
The military, the South Africans and the Chinese obviously decided that they couldn’t countenance a Grace presidency.

What we can hope is that Mnangagwa’s experience gives him an appreciation of the need for a focus on development and a consensus about the importance of investment in basic human services in Zimbabwe. We must hope that Mnangagwa’s experiences of the end of Mugabe’s time open him to such an approach.

I’m apprehensive about the future, but that apprehension is tinged with relief that it seems Grace Mugabe won’t become President. I hope the next chapter can be a better one for Zimbabwe.

The end of a long-running succession battle within ZANU-PF should resolve the uncertainty that has haunted Zimbabwe since the early 2000s. The question is what comes next?

#IndyRef 3 years on: another world is possible

Three years on from the independence referendum, politics is moving ever faster. In looking back we must look forward.

“In some decades nothing happens, in some weeks decades happen.”

It feels like we’re living in a decade of weeks in which decades happen. Political change keeps accelerating – from the student protests in 2010 to the ongoing mess the UK government is making of Brexit. 

There’s much to regret in this. It’s been a decade of right-wing rule in the UK, people’s lives have been very badly damaged by austerity, the NHS in England is close to collapse, and the ongoing attack on immigrants is a political stain.

But the 2014 Scottish independence referendum stands apart from this. It was here that the left began to learn how to win. The issue of independence isn’t one that is necessarily of the left. For much of the campaign opponents of independence tried to characterise it as a right-wing cause. That characterisation didn’t stand up to much scrutiny, and the reason behind that is what was so invigorating about the campaign. We believed that another Scotland was possible.

For the first time in my political lifetime ideas had the space to breathe on the left. We weren’t campaigning to have ‘our people’ cut taxes, remove regulations and privatise things, rather than letting ‘their people’ do it. We moved from opposing austerity to building support for alternatives.

Ideas that had been fringe and underappreciated gained new currency. We talked about the opportunities for a Citizen’s Basic Income, for a Land Value Tax, for a profoundly different type of government. People became engaged in a popular debate about the benefits of a Scottish currency.

Through 2 years of public meetings we moved from a triangulated set of proposals to tweak the post-Thatcherite consensus of British politics to a lively carnival of ideas. This was the first time I’d seen movement politics truly manifested. The old, neoliberal politics was knocked sideways. There were repeated calls to stop such debate, because it was distasteful.

And that way of doing politics hasn’t died. The ideas popularised through the referendum have worked their way into the latest Scottish Government “Programme for Government.” The Women for Independence campaign against a new national women’s prison quickly secured victory. The work of organisations like Common Weal has put a National Investment Bank on the agenda. But most of all, it created a new way of doing politics: exciting, progressive, idea-rich and transformative for society.

Armed with more access to information than ever before, with a combination of online and offline meetings, and faced with a ruling hegemony deep in crisis this way of doing politics may change the 21st century as the pamphleteers changed the 17th century, or trade unions changed the 20th century.

Of course many people found this difficult. The neoliberal consensus came with a comforting disdain for debate, disagreement and discussion. Learning to do politics again can mean people take their passions too far. The answer was not to exclude debate, it was to find ways to channel those passions constructively. During the campaign that was, I think, a success.

It’s hard not to see echoes of this movement-politics in the campaign to elect Bernie Sanders and in the Corbyn movement. It is far from perfect, but if we are to create a better world democratically we need to learn from this unforgettable political moment. With more access to communication tools at lower cost than ever before, the weeks in which decades happen will come more and more frequently. Popular movements can help harness those decisive moments for progressive change. It’s not just another Scotland that is possible. Another world is possible.

Neoliberalism began on the 11th of September. Now it’s time to end it.

People love stories that have a beginning, a middle and an ending. On this day, the 11th of September, in 1973 the CIA backed a coup that overthrew the democratically elected Popular Unity government of Chile.
 
It wasn’t new for the US to overthrow governments in what it saw as its ‘sphere of influence’ – in which it wished to prevent the election of leftist governments. Chile had one such government. It had a manifesto to tackle inequality through agrarian reform and by nationalising industries.
 
This was intolerable to the US government who backed a coup. The coup was bloody and brought a military dictator, Augusto Pinochet to power. His notoriously murderous regime governed well into the 1980s.
 
But the story that begins here isn’t that of US imperialism. It’s the story of neoliberalism. For the first time, the US government provided Chicago University trained economic advisors to a country who pursued a policy programme of privatising state monopolies, introducing the market into previously social relationships, removing protections from workers, driving down wages, reducing social security and allowing vast accumulation of riches by the wealthy.
 
For all that the state was a dictatorship, the neoliberal ideologues claimed it was a democracy because the market determined more and more of how society worked.
 
This way of working came to dominate Chile, and after the fall of the Soviet Union, it came to dominate the world. For a decade neoliberalism came to be the way the world worked. Progress meant privatisation, removal of social and environmental protections and the introduction of the market to places where it doesn’t belong: health, education and social protection.
 
And the more the wealthy accumulated money, the more they sought new places to make money. They captured governments. The market extended its tentacles ever further. Innovation became harnessed by big finance. Politics became a choice between different approaches to managing the exhaust fumes of the free market, in which new ideas all too often suffocated.
 
The middle of this story also starts on the 11th of September. In 2001 the well-documented attack on the World Trade Centre in New York. This attack was carried out by a terror group based in Afghanistan. The US again toppled a regime. But with a President backed heavily by the interests of the oil industry, Afghanistan was only a prelude.
 
In 2003 the US, backed by the UK, invaded Iraq. And the invasion of Iraq marked the peak of neoliberal power. It was an utter failure, bought at the expense of authority and trust in government. When, in 2008, the financialised world economy suffered a shuddering credit crunch, neoliberalism’s decline began.
 
Everything that has happened since then has been a symptom of neoliberalism’s crisis. The old certainties have melted into air. Establishment politicians have been beaten by insurgents in election-after-election. Space has opened for new ideas and new politics.
 
The end of this story is yet to come. But it will surely come soon. As Salvador Allende, the Chilean President killed by the CIA, famously said: “history is ours and history is made by the people.” Neoliberalism will be finally overthrown, and we will overthrow it.