Guest Post by Armin Hartinger
But I shall do my utmost to articulate my points both comprehensively and concisely and hopefully adequately referenced.
Plenty has been written about the wisdom, or lack thereof, of Labour's many pledges for social reform. Also plenty has been written about the danger of putting a self-avowed Marxist chancellor in charge of a liberal market economy.
But not enough has been written about Momentum's Labour being a clear and present danger to our democracy. It certainly sounds brazenly alarmist, but ever since I've read the 2019 Labour manifesto in its entirety, have I felt compelled to try to articulate my concerns for I think they've not been given enough coverage in the media.
This is mostly based on the pledges in the Labour manifesto [1] itself, which I will reference by page and if it had been discussed in the press prior to the manifesto launch itself, also with a few links.
Let's start with some facts together with relatively fair but biased commentary.
Item 1 - The voting franchise
On page 82, it is pledged to give full voting rights to all non-citizen UK residents and lower it to 16. As the manifesto itself puts it, "largest extension of the franchise in generations". Now, the voting age has already been lowered to 16 in Scotland and full voting rights are already applicable to some Commonwealth citizens, but even discounting that, we are looking at expanding the electorate by around 8% in one go, to the tune of probably just shy of another 4M voters. With a demographic which I think is fair to say has a strong bias in favour of Labour. We all know how this plays out in those marginals under first-past-the-post.
The extension of the franchise to such a Labour-friendly demographic, while cheesy, isn't per se objectionable, even if I disagree with it, however the distinct lack of an intent to let the UK voting population decide on that themselves in a legally binding referendum absolutely is. To so radically dilute the voting franchise without a public vote on this is profoundly undemocratic.
Item 2 - Abolishing of the House of Lords
On page 81, Labour pledges to abolish the House of Lords and replace it with a Senate of Nations and Regions.
Here again, that by itself is not objectionable per se, even if I disagree with this as well. What is concerning however is the desire to not merely reform the way new members are appointed, but to completely do away with it.
The appointed Lords are typically topic experts which are critical to perform expert reviews of proposed legislation while at the same time also more politically detached. Furthermore, in this constitutional monarchy without a constitution, many of those checks and balances which guarantee our rights and freedoms are entangled in arcane rules and roles in the Commons, and the Lords! There is also the question of the Supreme Court, which established in 2005, has taken over roles formerly in the Lords. How far this was successful has seemingly never been explored.
Allowing anyone to change the nature of the roles of the second chamber of parliament requires an extraordinary trust and faith in the competency and integrity of whoever is going to attempt it.
And again, no mention of allowing the population at large an actual say in the matter if they even want this. Via referendum or any other mechanism.
Item 3 - A constitution for the UK
Also on page 81, Labour pledges to renew Parliament through a Constitutional Convention, led by a citizens' assembly and issuing recommendations.
There is no mention of how this convention will appoint its members and how much weight the recommendations will have and -again- if the people at any point will be polled if they want this constitution, or even this "renewal" process to begin with. Both items are of grave concern.
We should also note in this context the language in the manifesto "how a Labour government can best put power in the hands of the people", which clearly implies that the power isn't in the hands of the people already. That is noteworthy.
Item 4 - Brexit
On page 91, Labour pledge to negotiate their own Brexit deal with the EU scrap existing Brexit legislation and introduce their own "in line with Labour’s priorities" and to deliver a legally binding "final say" referendum. Outside of the manifesto, Corbyn has pledged a neutral stance on said referendum [2].
With this stance public, negotiations will be severely hampered. Which is noteworthy. It also must be said that even with a professedly neutral stance, any presentation of a deal after having invested time forging it and having brought it to signable state, carries an endorsement.
This is important for two reasons:
First, we should once and for all consider the Brexit stance of the Labour leadership to be pro-Brexit. The incentives of leaving the influence and/or control of the EU institutions are simply too powerful and this in my view explains this willingness to give away negotiating strength positions, for they simply pale in importance if one considers leaving the primary objective.
Second, at some point the last Labour Remain stalwarts will realise that they have been duped all along and this will cause an irreparable permanent rift within the party at which point Labour will break apart if not for extraordinary measures. But for now they are needed, so they are being nursed along. As this is a known likely outcome, it stands to reason that if given the choice between a liberal and an authoritarian path of transferring power "to the people", the latter will take precedence in the interest of the party being able to maintain power in the future.
Item 5 - Non-government seats of political power
Here it must be noted, that any new organisation, a fund, or a commission, or however you wish to call it, is subject to potentially being abusively stacked by yes-men and ideological cronies of those who created it. Something to keep in mind, not just for this election for it applies not just for when individuals are replaced in say in the US supreme court, but anywhere especially if an organisation is created or replaced wholesale. Such unofficial political appointments are typically extremely hard to dislodge.
5.1 The Unions
On Page 62, Labour pledges to repeal anti-trade union legislation, including the Trade Union Act 2016. Note that the above not necessarily refers to the 2016 act alone. On page 62, this is called "Remove unnecessary restrictions on industrial action". Outside of the manifesto, it has been reported that Labour intends to bring back sympathetic strike action [3], including in support of workers abroad [4]. Who or what decides what "necessary" actually means, is anyones guess.
On page 14, trade unions are guaranteed to be a stakeholder in each of the Local Transformation Funds, which are going to be in charge of the distribution of billions of investment.
It's anyone's guess how much will remain of the requirement for secret and fair ballots prior to any strike action. Also what remains of the requirement of 50% of work force support prior to mandatory unionisation. In that context, as per page 17 it is required that all companies bidding for public contracts must recognise their trade unions. Aside from the aforementioned 50%, the voluntary recognition threshold is 10% currently. In effect that means that the mandatory recognition threshold goes down to 10% for any company bidding on public contracts, amounting to near-full unionisation of all industry and commerce.
5.2 Utilities
On page 7, Labour pledges to bring rail, mail, water and energy into public ownership.
5.3 Internet
Also on page 7, Labour pledges to deliver full-fibre broadband to everybody for free.
By pricing all private providers out of the market, that amounts to the creation of a state monopoly no different to the utilities above. Does it need to be pointed out, that whoever controls access to the Internet, controls the entire Internet experience and is capable of complete censorship to the users? A nation-wide firewall akin to what China has, would become a real possibility, if so desired.
5.4 Private Enterprise
On page 64, Labour will require "one-third of boards to be reserved for elected worker-directors". Please note that this is nowhere close to the German system of having separate consultation boards called a "Betriebsrat" which are ensuring worker representation in decision making.
On page 60, Labour pledges to create IOFs - Inclusive Ownership Funds which will own 10% of companies and pay out a dividend of up to £500 per worker the rest being distributed to a state-controlled fund.
This amounts to a part-confiscation of all private enterprise.
Please note that the manifesto does not mention a limit on the size of the companies to which IOFs will apply. It was reported previously to be limited to companies of 250 employees and above.
5.5 Education
Aside from scrapping SAT tests stage 1 and 2 (page 39) and replacing Ofsted (p40), Labour is to create a National Education Service (p37), abolish university tuition fees (p41) and intends to integrate all private schools (p40) into the NES.
As per page 41, "Labour will make lifelong learning a reality".
A lifelong state monopoly, with entrenched teachers unions, accountable to no one but the state, with all forms of schooling subject to state control.
5.6 Social Justice Commission
As per page 64, Labour will replace the Social Mobility Commission with a Social Justice Commission, based in the Treasury, with wide-ranging powers to hold us, and future governments, to account.
Yeah sure, I could possibly find no fault with a loosely worded commission which has wide-ranging powers to enforce the so clearly defined concept of social justice.
Did this come across as cynical? Sorry. Not sorry.
TYING IT ALL TOGETHER
Let's try to weave this all together into one cohesive narrative. You might have skipped to this section after losing patience with the all the stuff listed above. It's already been the shortened version. I understand and I'll try my best regardless.
More than any manifesto by any party or any individual I have ever read, the Labour Manifesto 2019 seems to be about a transfer of power and it makes no attempts to even hide it. Hiding in plain sight, as they say. In favour of socialist ideology and with an unparallelled capacity to be abused in bad faith. It is not a coincidence that people like Corbyn and McDonnell have in the past made their intention clear to transfer power "irreversibly" in a state populated with "cradle-to-grave" state services. This should send any committed democrat a shiver down their spine. In a liberal democracy, nothing should be irreversible and the state should have monopolies only when absolutely necessary.
I wrote at the beginning that Momentum Labour presents a clear and present danger to our democracy.
Now, let's be fair. Let's call this a worst-, or at least bad-case scenario, of a Labour leadership, which instead of a group of moderate social democrats primarily concerned with the preservation of our rights and essential freedoms, were a group of radical socialists primarily concerned with establishing a socialist republic perhaps even with "democratic" in its name but not in practise, like they all were.
Like many non-violent attempts in history at taking permanent control of a country, this is best achieved by subverting and changing existing institutions to preserve a veneer of legitimacy. It would do so first by shifting the voting demographic in its favour so should any plebiscites be necessary in the pursuit of the ideological goals, or if the implementation of irreversible change exceeds the length of one legislative period and more another contested general elections (or by-elections) must be fought, that these have a high degree of success.
This is achieved by extending the voting franchise to the young and to migrants (I forgot to mention right-to-work for refugees on arrival p71) and by buying the votes of the students by scrapping tuition fees. In my opinion, not by coincidence a portion of the demographic less familiar with the working and political life in the UK than the rest of the population.
It is those students, which can be mobilised as necessary, which are a seat if not primarily one of political power, but one of force (potentially disruptive) to be wielded.
More potentially disruptive force can be wielded through the power of unfettered unions, which together with sympathetic strikes and full unionisation of all utilities can hold the public to ransom for all sorts of ideologically-driven demands.
A state-controlled education monopoly ensures that the young are suitably educated to the expectations of the state alone.
Control of Internet access ensures that alternative ideological influence is being filtered out.
Having part-ownership and part-control of nearly all companies together with near-full unionisation ensures the compliance of private industry. If that influence then reaches as far as editorial control of the press is up to anyone's imagination.
And if all that were not enough, the lack for a requirement for a super-majority (as in other countries) to make constitutional level change through a new constitution, means that our future rights and freedoms are literally up to defined by the Labour leadership. For better or worse. At this point it should also repeated, that for none of these items a public mandate via a referendum is being sought.
But we are a country with a proud long-standing legal tradition, so any possible violation of property rights or personal freedoms would be subject to legal challenge at the Supreme Court (staffed by Lords - Lords, what Lords? Whoops!), which functioning might or might not be tied to the House of Lords (Abolished! Whoops!) or subject to interference by the EU commission in Brussels (Brexit whoops!) or the EU parliament in Strasbourg (Brexit whoops!) or legal challenge at the EU court in Kirchberg (Brexit wops!). We'd have to helplessly witness our rights and freedoms being redefined without us being able to do anything about it.
So the bottom line to all this boils down to this: We are expected to have faith into a Labour Party leadership lead by a lifelong radical socialist, who is surrounded by various "ex"-communists, flanked by a Marxist chancellor, to completely rework and redefine our democratic process and our democratic framework and that in the process of these they will act completely responsibly and neutrally and will not abuse the power thus granted to the to them -by virtue of winning the election alone- to their ideological benefit.
I find that notion to be completely ridiculous and I hope that I speak not just for me, but also for you by stating:
WE DO NOT WISH TO HAND RADICAL SOCIALISTS THIS KIND OF POWER. NOT NOW. NOT EVER.
-------------------------------
[1] https://labour.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2019/11/Real-Change-Labour-Manifesto-2019.pdf
[2] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2019/nov/23/jeremy-corbyn-defends-his-pledge-to-stay-neutral-in-second-referendum
[3] https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/politics/john-mcdonnell-backs-workers-right-20935812
[4] https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/dec/08/john-mcdonnell-labour-will-let-workers-taking-sympathy-action-for-overseas-counterparts
No comments:
Post a Comment