What on earth is ‘radical federalism’

BBC – ‘Labour leader Sir Keir Starmer has said different approaches across the four UK nations to tackling coronavirus are not going to “help us out of this crisis”.’ and ‘Sir Keir said it reinforced his call for “radical federalism” across the UK.’

I have a measure of sympathy with the first statement (although I feel that the island of Ireland should have a united/consistent approach) but is it not completely at odds with the second? And what on earth is ‘radical federalism’ anyway?

A definition of federalism – it’s a type of government in which power is divided between the national government and other governmental units. It contrasts with a unitary government, in which a central authority holds the power, and a confederation, in which states, for example, are clearly dominant.

A definition of radical – advocating or based on thorough or complete political or social change; representing or supporting a progressive section of a political party.

Actually both words are often used to define Liberalism but I can’t say I’ve seen them used as a single phrase before. I think on one level Starmer may mean more power to the regions and countries of the UK which as a Liberal you’ll not be surprised to hear I agree with.

But and it’s a big BUT that aim is completely at odds with wanting something, anything, dealt with on the same basis everywhere. Commonality and devolving power are all but the opposite of each other. You devolve decision making so that power is exercised at the lowest level of government. That means, for example, that you empower Parish Councils with as many powers as possible which can sensibly be exercised at a community level. You only give power to a higher level of governance when it can clearly be seen that it can’t sensibly be exercised at a lower level. But this means that different communities will do things in different ways. At a regional level it will lead to differing approaches too. You can’t have conformity and devolved power.

Yes I’m a political radical and a federalist (I identify myself as a Social Liberal) but I’d love to know what Keir’s definition of ‘radical federalism’ actually is. I fear it could mean federal when it suits and the very opposite when it doesn’t, which sounds very much like a traditional Labour approach. If it does mean that then command and control at a UK level will still be alive and well under a Starmer leadership and sadly it also means he’s neither a radical nor a federalist. To be clear and for the avoidance of doubt I’d like him to be both politically radical and a federalist.

When political parties all go wrong at the wrong/same time

The more I think about the 2019 General Election the more I realise what a terrible choice the British public had on offer in terms of potential Prime Ministers. On that basis is it any wonder they picked (with the more than significant help from our warped electoral system) the politician to lead them who is probably best summed up as a populist entertainer.

If Corbyn had been really credible he would have won in 2017. That he didn’t and went down hill from there makes you wonder what on earth the Labour Party was doing keeping him on as they must have known they were on the road to nowhere with him. And so it proved with a shocking electoral performance in December 2019 – Labour losing many seats to a Tory Party under the leadership of someone that no one trusted.

The Tories had been in a right old mess ever since David Cameron found himself calling the EU Referendum having surprisingly gained a majority in 2015; a majority which privately he must have very much hoped not to have for it forced his hand to go where he did not want to go with the EU.

The Lib Dems recovered some ground in terms of vote share in 2019 but bizarrely ended the election with one seat less than they won in 2017. Our wonderful NOT electoral system at work of course. But their leader Jo Swinson proved not to be an asset to the Party as on balance she wasn’t liked by voters and yes I do realise there will sadly have been some misogynist views at play in her downfall.

And then within a couple months a huge crisis envelopes the world, one that the UK reacted to far too slowly and which because of our obsession with austerity we have been incapable of addressing well. Here we are 6 weeks after lockdown with only a few brave Tories willing to wave the flag for Boris Johnson; the rest of the population wondering how on earth we ended up where we are with a shockingly poor government at the very time we need a strong one.

Oh for an Obama, a Blair, a Merkel or a that wonderful young lady from New Zealand whom we all struggle to say the name of (Jacinda Ardern) in our hour of need, but true leaders in UK politics are hard to find anywhere. The blood letting in both the Tories (over Brexit) and Labour (over Brexit, antisemitism and Corbynism) has led to the loss of many credible politicians and the Lib Dems have failed to come up with a leader the public really can take to since the demise of Charles Kennedy. That someone as credible as Dominic Grieve has found himself unwelcome in the Tory Party or that Louise Ellman walked away from Labour tells us that our politics is far from healthy and that dogmatically driven sects are far too powerful in our two major political parties.

That Labour has finally sobered up is a given in that they’ve now elected a reasonably credible leader in Keir Starmer although the jury is clearly still out. He’s no charismatic leader and worryingly seems still wedded to too many of the faults within Corbynism such as Brexit (he opposes the transition period being extended). He needs to become a true progressive as Blair clearly was in his early years, before he fouled up big style over Iraq. Yes it’s hard as Labour’s core working class supporters can easily swing to the right into regressive politics (as they did to deliver Brexit) but if Blair could be progressive and keep them on side Starmer has to as well. It will be no good appeasing them by throwing in a few ‘hang ’em and flog ’em’ policies Keir.

As for the Lib Dems, who for reasons no one can quite get their heads around have contrived not to have an elected leader in place since the December 2019 GE, there is hope that someone like Layla Moran can come through to be a truly progressive Social Liberal Leader. I hope so as I want my Party to be placed not between the Tories and Labour but to the left of Labour on many social issues/policies as we were in Charles Kennedy’s day.

What will become of the Tory Party is a very big question indeed. You can’t see Johnson surviving or indeed wanting to survive as PM in the long term. His popularist entertainer position which he’s carved out over many years is clearly unsuited to a country in crisis as is his legendary personality fault-line of not doing detail.

Politically the UK is in a mess, England probably more so than the Scottish and Welsh devolved administrations. There’s room for some optimism but it will be a long road before our main 3 political parties become fit for purpose again.

Merseyside Labour – They didn’t learn Kinnock’s lesson so Starmer’s sent more learning pills

I’ve seen a number of social media postings from journalists, political commentators and politicians in the last couple of days regarding there being no Merseyside MP’s in Starmer’s new Shadow Cabinet.

Here’s my take on it. Merseyside Labour Party decided to indulge itself in another round of Militantism, only this time it was called Momentum/Corbynism. And just like the previous time (1980’s) they got slapped down; last time by Kinnock now by Starmer. It really is as simple as that.

Yes of course there will have been MP’s and indeed councillors who pretended to be Corbynistas to either avoid deselection or to garner favour from the former leader’s sect. But whilst that gave them cover during Corbyn’s time as top dog it created the very opposite at the end of his reign. So what do you do as a Social Democrat, centrist or moderate within Labour who decided to take Corbyn’s shilling? A sudden about face (not very credible) or more likely keep your head down for a while whilst slowly emerging with differing beliefs.

But of course that also works in reverse. If you were an ardent Corbynista, where do you go now? Walk away from a party which now seems to be all but embarrassed by by what it believed in until the electorate said not on your Nellie in December 2019. Alternatively, do you change your spots and start to cheer-lead for the new more moderate and very much establishment man at the helm?

So is it really any surprise that Starmer has calmly put Merseyside Labour on notice? No of course not. But will they learn. No of course not!

Me ‘sanctimonious’?

I was accused of this the other day because I called out Keir Starmer and Lisa Nandy for enabling the dead end of Corbynism by not themselves calling it out. Additionally, I pointed out Nandy in particular for her failure to call out how Brexit would make the poor poorer.

My accuser was of the view that they were just being loyal to the Labour Party leadership and that in effect I would have done the same in their position or words to that effect. My accuser clearly knew nothing of my lack of political loyalty and that I often take opportunities to say to folks that they should not necessarily believe or indeed promote what those in any form of power want. We need to be sceptical of them rather than blind to their faults.

Was it me who as Lib Dem leader on Sefton Council called out indeed called for the resignation of Nick Clegg during his time ruining the Lib Dems, why yes it was and in the Times newspaper too.

Blind political loyalty often gets us the political leaders we deserve i.e. bad ones and too often party members and supporters get behind bad leaders instead of getting those bad leaders out; it’s a fault-line in our far too tribal UK politics.

Me sanctimonious? Well not on this occasion:-)

Brexit – Boris talks more nonsense and Labour, who back Brexit, attack him!

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-42698981

The BBC has the story on its web site – see link above

That Boris is off on one again is no surprise to anyone but what on earth are the Brexit backing Labour Party up to? They are either with Boris or against him; can’t they make up their minds?

On votes in Parliament Labour nearly always back our Bluekip/DUP Government over Brexit yet they then attack the very same Brexiters they vote with over the appalling consequences of us leaving the EU. What a mixed up and muddled world the Labour leadership must live in.

With thanks to Roy Connell for the lead to this posting

Brexit – Labour’s been backing it but wants to stop the consequences of it – Yes I know that’s just nuts

That our Bluekip Government, propped up by the right wing DUP, have been driving us ever nearer to the Brexit cliff edge is bad enough but with Labour embarrassingly hanging on to May’s Brexit shambles of a coattail is just too much.

Yes I know Labour’s right wing working class supporters mainly voted for Brexit but the sad fact is that they, being amongst the poorest in our society, will in all probability come of worst when May (together with Corbyn?) really do jump off that Brexit cliff.

Have Labour forgotten that the Official Opposition is there to oppose – it’s what our democratic processes have been all about for donkey’s years!

But what started my latest Brexit rant? Well I don’t read newspapers much these days but I happened to come across a copy of the Sunday Mirror the other day – it was from 12th November. And here’s the headline my eyes lighted upon:-

The point being that Labour’s Keir Starmer is trying to amend Tory legislation so that workers rights are protected when Brexit hits us because those rights are under great threat from Brexiters who are using the EU Referendum result to attack them.

It’s not that Starmer is wrong to try to amend the legislation but what is wrong is that Labour continues to back Brexit which in turn presents our Bluekip/DUP Government with the opportunity to bash workers rights!

You really could not make this up, it’s as though Labour support the Brexit principle, despite the damage it’s going to do to us all (the poor in particular), but they plod on backing it whist trying to change the consequences of it. Have they not thought it’s time to stop backing the process that’s causing all the trouble in the first place?