The Virtues of Old Fashioned Class Resentment

The Times has a new poll today - with Labour on 16%, three points behind UKIP. That's specifically for next week's Euro elections - but they're only on 21% for the subsequent general election. Electoral Calculus says the Tories would double their seats in the Commons, and both Labour and Lib Dems lose over half of theirs, if the Times general election poll proves accurate.

Just for comparison: Labour got 30.8% of the vote and 52 seats in 1931, and 27.6% of the vote and 208 seats in 1983. On these figures, Electoral Calculus suggests, they'd end up with 163 seats.

The legitimacy crisis is far from fully played out as yet. There are likely to be other twists and turns. But it seems obvious that it a crisis of the legitimacy of politics, not of individual venality by this or that MP. So any government is likely to suffer more than any opposition - but particularly a Labour government, as the Tories have the age-old persona of being the 'natural' party of leadership, untainted by the exercise of crude 'politics', to fall back on. This remains true, duck ponds, moat cleaning and extensions for servants quarters not withstanding.

I am increasingly of the view that there is only one way out of this for the Left - and the Labour Party is certainly welcome to join us if it feels it can stomach the somersault. It's got absolutely sod all to do with state funding of parties, Alternative Voting schema or the hurried coronation of a former postman.

It is simply to generalise the widespread public disgust at the behaviour of our masters from MPs to bankers. Old fashioned class resentment. Might not work, I quite agree. But nothing else seems to be working either so let's give it try...

Lustration on Thames?

It was a new word to me. But go look at how wikipedia defines it, and then ponder on the idea that what we're living through might just be a kind of inchoate but profound demand for a milder, kinder but just as determined British version.

New Euphemism Sighted in Frozen North

It translates from the Icelandic as 'rationalisation'. Specifically, rationalisation of the education system.

Representatives of the Association of Local Authorities in Iceland (SÍS) recently met with Minister of Education Katrín Jakobsdóttir to examine the possibility of temporarily reducing the number of elementary school days as a rationalization method.....the idea is related to the so-called five-percent method, which has been discussed among local authorities recently. Municipal employees can then take ten additional days off per year in exchange for five percent lower salaries.

(via). I particularly like the use of the sly 'temporarily' in the first sentence. This is McKinsey grade euphemism. Dilbert got there before them of course...

"If we’re lucky, it won’t be any worse than Thatcherism."

There's a new benchmark in journalism about the economic crisis and the failure of the banks: John Lancaster's long but incredibly rewarding, incredibly clear and incredibly angry piece in the current London Review of Books. He brings a novelist's clarity to the necessary unpicking of otherwise arcane banking euphemisms. Go educate yourself.

I'll restrict myself to two delicious quotes. First, here he is summing up after a long, penetrating description of the nature and origin of toxic assets and Anglo American governmental attempts to deal with the crisis:

"Many of the banks will turn out to be insolvent. In that case the bank is nationalised, or at the very least goes into administration and receivership. Then, a number of options become available, one of the principal ones being to break the bank up into the viable part of the business, which will eventually be refloated back onto the market, and a ‘bad bank’ of dodgy assets which must be sold off (or arguably held until the values recover) in whatever way makes the most possible money for the taxpayer.Nobody in power wants to do that. Nobody with power in the banking system, and nobody with power in government. Both the British and the American plans to help the banks are very, very, very expensive variations on the theme of sticking their fingers in their ears and loudly singing ‘La la la, I’m not listening.’ This is what’s happened so far."

Second, here he is on the meaning of the disaster:

"....the cost of the financial crisis is going to be paid not over a few years but over a generation, we have a perfect formula for a deep and growing anger. Expectations have risen a lot, over the last three decades; that’s going to have a big impact on how furious people feel about the hard years ahead. The level of future public spending cuts implied in Darling’s recent budget – which included the laughably optimistic idea that the economy will grow by 1.25 per cent next year – is greater than the level of cuts implemented by Thatcher. Remember, that’s the optimistic version. If we’re lucky, it won’t be any worse than Thatcherism."

It's worth remembering this when you hear different economists or politicians comment on this or that latest tactical development. Take that business of the threatened S& P downgrading of Britain's creditworthiness for instance. Basically the siren voices of the Right claimed this was a sign we were heading for a Sovereign default and having to go cap in hand to the IMF. On the other hand people from Left and Centre tended to say, no, this is about a recognition of what we already know and, in any event, there is absolutely no chance of Britain going bust because it will, in time, balance its books through cuts and raised taxes after the election. But that last quote is Lancaster saying what the future is going to look like if the second set of voices are correct - in other words, that's the optimistic scenario.

While We're On the Question of Living Over High On The Hog

Pop over here and check out the salaries of Housing Association CEOs, including John Belcher of Anchor Trust and his £327K.

This is the Third Sector we're talking about - the supposed Saviour of public services from the dread inheritance of top down Fabian State do-goodery and provider capture.

The Hold of Reality TV and the Legitimacy Crisis

Q. How do I know this expenses thing ain't going away?

A. Because the non political people around me keep voluntarily raising the matter for discussion. Normally any one with a political bent, be they activist or simply someone used to viewing the world through that particular prism, has to work out a modus vivandi with other folk. They'll make allowances, sure, but at the end of the day you're just another person with a particular bee in your bonnet to them. Matters political might be endlessly fascinating for you, but to them it might as well be West Bromwich Albion or Clarice Cliff teapots. They'll talk to you about your obsession, but only if there is a unstated agreement on your part not to always keep banging on about it to the exclusion of anything they want to talk about. But, right now, they do want to talk about the expenses fandango.

Q. So what are they banging on about then?

The TV news seems to have got this about right: there seems a huge degree of disbelief at the apparent excesses of Westminster culture, and a general 'plague on all their houses' feeling - which seamlessly merges into a 'just string the lot of 'em up' mood at extremes. But there is one other factor I think worth mentioning. There is a undercurrent of disbelief that they can't immediately vote these people out. I don't mean they want a general election - though a few do. But general elections are a part of the very package of 'politics as normal' which many people are reacting against. No: I have a very real sense that the apolitical public is so used to 'reality' TV shows like Big Brother and the Apprentice that they can't believe you can't just ring someone or click on a website and get these shysters booted out.

From The Banks of The River Irwell...

"The qualities of Salford men and women shine through the adversity of their everyday lives. They were, and still are, people with courage, determination, wit and compassion, and they have an unrivalled ability to see through falseness and to expose insincerity."

From Squirrel Nutkin's maiden speech in the Commons (via).

Aye lass, 'appen they are. But t'question is, can they read chapter 5 of the Labour Party Rule book, t'one that's all about reselection?

Addendum: "In 2006, her constituency was one of three hacked down to two by local boundary changes - which led to a new seat of Salford and Eccles, and the current MP for the latter, Ian Stewart, challenging her for the nomination and losing by 174 votes to 79".

So I make that only about 48 people who need to change their minds.