Jeremy Corbyn' nativist dogwhistle

Given the mountains of economic garbage we’ve been served up by both right-wing and left-wing Brexiteers in recent years, the words “benefits” and “Brexit” used in the same sentence inevitably sets off alarm bells.

So it was disconcerting to see them juxtaposed in a Jeremy Corbyn speech. “Our exporters should be able to take proper advantage of the one benefit to them that Brexit has already brought, a more competitive pound,” the Labour leader told industrialists in Birmingham on Tuesday.

“After the EU referendum result, the pound became more competitive and that should have helped our exporters. But they are being sold out by a lack of a Conservative government industrial plan, which has left our economy far too reliant on imports.”

The framing is unfortunate. The reason for the record drop in the pound on the night of the referendum was a rush of expectation across financial markets that the UK economy will be considerably weaker outside the EU’s single market and customs union. There’s no long-term economic benefit implied in the currency slump – only cost.

Yet, in fairness to Corbyn it’s not mad to suggest that a weaker pound should be providing a short-term lift for manufacturing firms. Even the Bank of England has suggested that UK manufacturers have been in something of a “sweet spot”, with sterling weak but Britain still, for now, remaining in the EU’s economic institutions.

More troubling are Corbyn’s comments on imports. “We’ve been told that it’s good, advanced even – for our country to manufacture less and less and instead rely on cheap labour abroad to produce imports, while we focus on the City of London and the finance sector,” he lamented.

There’s nothing wrong with promoting a rebalancing of the UK economy away from its 30-year over-reliance on finance. Yet the implication that the UK would benefit from churning out manufactured products domestically that are currently made in the developing world is nonsense.

New research from the Resolution Foundation this week shows incomes for the worst off in Britain are no higher than they were 15 years ago. A major part of the reason is that low-skilled men have seen their weekly hours collapse. Reshoring low-value manufacturing will not help such people. Nor will it restore depressed communities to economic health. That is the kind of con artist’s fantasy that Donald Trump has been spinning to US steel workers in the American rust belt.

The only sensible and feasible vision for the future of UK manufacturing is a high value added one, using skilled workers, cutting-edge equipment and, if necessary, foreign investment and expertise.

Corbyn’s reference to “cheap labour abroad” smacks of the beguiling creed of economic nationalism. His remarks may not be explicitly anti-foreigner but they are still resonant of Trump-style tirades against corporate outsourcing.

And, in this context, his talk of keeping government contracts in the UK, rather than allowing foreign firms to bid for them, was also disturbing.

Yes, all nations already do this to some extent. But one has to be extremely careful about turning it into a general principle of government. For if you shut others out of your market, they will, inevitably, shut you out of theirs.

Corbyn joined the Daily Mail, of all publications, in complaining about the fact that the contract to manufacture new British passports has been awarded to a French firm, rather than Gateshead’s De La Rue.

But De La Rue does printing jobs for many foreign governments. Make no mistake, if all contracts were awarded on nationality grounds British firms – and British workers – would ultimately suffer more than they would gain.

In truth, the overall tone of Corbyn’s speech was more than a little alarming. The protection that UK workers need is from destabilising globalisation of “hot money” capital flows and undercapitalised multinational banks, not the globalisation of manufacturers’ supply chains.

They need protections from macroeconomic mismanagement in the form of self-defeating austerity, not from “cheap labour abroad”.

The problems of the British economy stem from under-investment, deficient training, short-termist bosses and shareholders, unbalanced regional development, an official blind eye turned to inflows of dirty money, and poor macroeconomic management – and Corbyn was justified in raging against all of these. But he was quite wrong to blame the UK’s general policy of economic openness.

At best this speech was an unwelcome distraction from the dominant challenge of protecting UK jobs in the face of the catastrophe of a “no deal” Brexit and the long-term pain of a hard one. At worst it was a cynical dog whistle aimed at already grievously misled Leave voters – and the dipping of Labour’s toe into some very dangerous waters.

Capitalist? Socialist? It’s time to drop the meaningless labels from our political debates

The American essayist Ralph Waldo Emerson once observed that a foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds. Swap "foolish consistency" for "foolish label" and one has a good description of our contemporary political discourse.

Theresa May defends "free market capitalism". Jeremy Corbyn makes the case for "21 century socialism".

So the headlines and the news reports yell at us. So the party leaders themselves inform us in their speeches. But what do these labels actually mean? What economic policies do they signify? What sort of societies do they describe? The concept of capitalism dates back to the Industrial Revolution, when wealthy entrepreneurs owned the new physical "capital" that was made possible by advances in technology. The boss of the new textile factory was also the owner. And that ownership conferred immense economic power and social authority, as factory bosses could determine the wages and conditions of the workers.

But who owns the physical capital, the "means of production", of our modern economy? It's no longer the people who run the large organisations in which a great many of us work. Millions of us will be invested in these giant companies through our pension funds. Does that make us all "capitalists", like little 19 century mill owners? Hardly. Economic power has been divorced from corporate ownership. But that doesn't mean it's been broadly shared.

Another wrinkle is that today's most dynamic companies - think Google, Amazon and Uber - actually have very little "capital" in the classic meaning of the word. The value of such firms derives not from tangible equipment or commodities, but from their intellectual property: the expertise of their high-skilled employees and, increasingly, their networks and brands.

"Socialism" is a similarly problematic label, dating from the era of political struggles between newlyorganised workers and the established economic elite. But the workers won many of those battles, establishing workplace protections, universal voting rights and state welfare systems. So what does socialism mean in a modern context? Soviet Union-style central planning and the abolition of private property? Venezuelan-style price controls? Cuban-style suppression of civil liberties? Or does it simply mean the state ownership of certain natural monopoly utilities? This seems to be the justification for the use of the label in relation to Labour's election manifesto. But, following that rationale, should we describe the Netherlands as socialist because its rail system is state-owned? Is France socialist because it has a national energy company? Is Germany socialist because it has rent controls? In fact all these countries are social democracies - a variety of developed-world market-based economy.

Britain has another variety. So does Japan. So do the Scandinavian nations. These are all mixed economies, where markets coexist with some degree of state ownership and intervention. Even America, with its state-funded scientific research programmes and New Deal-era social security system, is really a mixed economy.

The idea that Theresa May and the Conservatives are offering a set of policies that can be usefully summed up as "capitalism" and Labour are offering something entirely distinct called "socialism", is fatuous. There are certainly differences between the two major parties in their view of the proper borders between market and state within our mixed economy (bigger differences than there have been for several decades) - but their positions plainly still lie on a recognisable continuum.

Theresa May herself says she wants a louder voice for workers in company board rooms, and stresses that markets must operate "with the right rules and regulations". And Jeremy Corbyn, for all the attempts by the right-wing press to portray him as a bloodthirsty revolutionary, is not calling for the nationalisation of supermarkets and car manufacturers.

People are time-poor, and labels can be a useful shorthand when we all know roughly what is being referred to. But these particular labels - "capitalist", "socialist" - don't facilitate understanding: they shortcircuit it. They don't encourage us to think seriously about the challenges of making our complex and rapidly-evolving economies work in ways that will raise living standards and opportunities for human flourishing. They are essentially a spur to mindless tribalism: an invitation to take part in the political equivalent of an English Civil War battle recreation society.

The best advice is to banish the hobgoblins. Ignore the labels and focus on the merit - or otherwise - of the policies.

Populists are a grave threat to democracy – and Jeremy Corbyn is no populist

Jeremy Corbyn is a populist: that seems to be the emerging consensus across the political spectrum.

"Corbyn was the torchbearer of British populism," writes Freddy Gray in the Tory-supporting Spectator, who goes on to liken the Labour leader to Donald Trump. Conservative MPs are reportedly thinking of swapping Theresa May with Boris Johnson on the grounds that "to beat a populist, you need a populist".

Corbyn fans seem pretty comfortable with the idea of their leader as a populist too. His lieutenants are said to have embraced the concept last year. Corbyn has presented a "positive version of populism", one of his supporters wrote for The Independent last week.

But it's wrong. Which is to say, this is a terminology that's, at best, empty of content and, at worst, dangerously misleading.

What theory of populism are those who describe Corbyn as a populist using? How would they define it? That populists enjoy mass support? Any successful politician has that. It's the objective of democratic politics, after all, to win the most votes, to whip up the most enthusiasm. That populists are charismatic and inspire an unusual level of devotion? Again, this is what all politicians hope to achieve.

That populists pose as political outsiders and insurgents, decrying economic elites and the political establishment? Such rhetoric is the staple of many mainstream campaigns. US presidential candidates almost always promise to shake up Washington. And when was the last time any political party adopted a platform (rhetorically at least) of looking after the establishment?

Is it that populists pledge to divert money from the well-off to the common man? This doesn't really work.

Was New Labour, which performed considerable redistribution, a populist movement? Was the welfare state founder Clement Attlee a populist? Was the former French President François Hollande, who put up taxes for the highest earners, a populist?

That populists offer simplistic solutions to complex economic and social problems and make incredible promises that are bound to disappoint? The sad reality is that all politicians do this to some extent or other, particularly during election campaigns.

To get a serious, rigorous, theory of populism it's necessary to consult an expert. Professor Jan-Werner Mueller of Princeton University, synthesising the consensus of political science, says modern populists have two essential characteristics.

First, they conceive of "the people" as a unified and morally pure whole - and claim for themselves the exclusive right to speak for this group. Second, they are intrinsically anti-pluralist, meaning that they don't recognise opposition as legitimate and have little respect for democratic norms.

They act as if those who are not part of "the people", as defined by them, are corrupt enemies to be vanquished rather than reasonable citizens to be persuaded. If they fail to prevail in elections it's never because they have lost the people's confidence but because they have been thwarted by nefarious elite conspiracies.

Neither characteristic is sufficient on its own. Stalinists and religiously inspired authoritarians don't respect democratic norms or democratic opposition, but that doesn't make them populists because they don't claim to speak on behalf of a morally pure people.

And Corbyn doesn't satisfy the latter condition. Yes, he inveighs against elites, complains about a "rigged system" and places a heavy emphasis on his own definition of an oppressed British majority. "For the many not the few", as the party's election slogan put it.

But he's never threatened to lock up Theresa May. He doesn't claim that it's illegitimate for the Liberal Democrats or the Greens, for instance, to challenge him. He doesn't hint at armed revolt in the face of electoral setbacks. Indeed, Corbyn's final Twitter message on election night was the benign observation: "Whatever the final result, our positive campaign has changed politics for the better".

Boris Johnson, of course, isn't a populist either by this rigorous definition. But someone like Nigel Farage, with his sinister talk of the "real people" of Britain, his intolerance towards any opposition to Brexit, his weakness for conspiracy theories and his dark allusions to impending popular violence can fairly be so described.

Farage's friend Donald Trump is plainly a populist for all the same reasons. Think specifically of Trump's pledge to prosecute Hillary Clinton if he won the presidential election and his refusal to say whether he would respect the result if he had lost. Contrast that behaviour with that of Bernie Sanders, the Democratic primary challenger to Hillary Clinton who, despite often being described as a populist, respected the result and even urged his supporters later to vote for Clinton.

This isn't a left-right distinction. The left-wing Five Star Movement in Italy has the characteristics of a populist movement under its demagogic leader Beppe Grillo. The late Hugo Chavez, in Venezuela, was plainly a populist, consistently seeking to shut down opposition. The Islamist Recep Tayyip Erdogan in Turkey is manifestly a populist, as is the secular Viktor Orban in Hungary and also Marine Le Pen in France.

The crucial point is that populism is a profoundly anti-liberal political style, not a specific economic or social programme. Populism is a description of how political actors conduct themselves, not the nature, or breadth, of their support base.

Depending on your judgement, one can legitimately call Corbyn an existential threat to the economy, a socialist saviour, or a bog-standard European-style social democrat who is likely to prove a crashing failure if he ever accedes to power. But populist isn't right, because populism is a very specific category, a distinct threat.

Democracy provides a framework for peaceful power struggles between vigorously competing parties with divergent views of the good society. The values of pluralism and tolerance lie at the system's heart.

Disagreement over the appropriate distribution of economic resources is the normal substance of democratic political debate.

But populism is something different. It is a political virus that attacks the very core of the system. "A danger to democracy" is how Professor Mueller sums it up. Definitions matter. Open societies need to have an unclouded view of their true enemies.

Labour is acquiescing in Theresa May’s hard Brexit

Labour’s dam has broken.

For several weeks now, the party’s shadow Brexit Secretary Sir Keir Starmer has been saying that freedom of movement for European workers into the UK cannot – and should not – continue. Various Labour MPs have been lobbying along the same lines.

And now the party leader Jeremy Corbyn, who previously said he would “defend” EU free movement, has fallen into line.

“Labour is not wedded to freedom of movement for EU citizens as a point of principle,” he will say in a speech today in Peterborough. “Changes to the way migration rules operate from the EU will be part of the negotiations.”

Whatever your view on immigration and pan-European freedoms, let’s be abundantly clear what this all means. It means Labour is now acquiescing in Theresa May’s hard Brexit.

The main opposition party – a party which styles itself as a protector of the interests of ordinary working men and women – is giving the green light for the Prime Minister to pull the UK not only out of the European Union but entirely out of the single market for goods, services, workers and capital.

This is a destination that the overwhelming consensus of expert economic opinion holds will inflict severe damage on the economy and hurt the living standards of ordinary working men and women relative to a scenario in which Britain stays in the single market as, for instance, a member of the European Economic Area.

But how can we be categorical about all this? Corbyn is also stressing today that he wants “full access to the European single market” and criticising the Government for jeopardising the economy through not having a plan. Starmer slams May for dragging Britain towards a hard Brexit.

Doesn’t that show that Labour’s position is not so clear-cut as this conclusion suggests?

Isn’t there still hope?

There are three reasons why the answer is no: European political realities, weasel words and archaic ideological fantasies.

If Britain wants to remain a part of the single market, a watering-down of freedom of movement – “managed migration” as Corbyn puts it – is simply not on offer.

The German Chancellor Angela Merkel made that clear for the hundredth time in a speech in Cologne yesterday. All those who are expert in European diplomacy insist this is not a bluff or a bargaining position, but a genuine red line.

And indeed it stands to reason. Why would the 27 other nations of the EU allow Britain to enjoy all the benefits of the single market while allowing Britain to opt out of the free movement of people?

They don’t allow Norway or Liechtenstein – who are part of the single market but not members of the EU – this privilege. Both have to accept free movement in return.

Even Switzerland – which is not part of the single market but has a comprehensive web of deep free trade deals with the EU – has to accept free movement as a quid pro quo.

It’s possible to assert that Europe’s leaders will ultimately be prepared to pull down one of the fundamental pillars of the single market to suit Britain.

But it’s also possible to assert that the moon really is made of Swiss cheese. Asserting something doesn’t make it true.

By making a red line of EU immigration control, Corbyn is aping the position of Theresa May.

And sterling is falling because traders are increasing their bets that we are heading for a hard Brexit thanks to May’s insistence on immigration control.

And then there are Labour’s weasel words. Any mention of “access” to the single market should be banned. As has been widely noted, every country on earth has “access” to the single market, in that trade can and does take place between Europe and the outside world. The question is what are the terms of that access.

By claiming that he wants “full access” to the single market, Corbyn is giving the impression he wants Britain to remain a part of the single market, in the manner of the non-EU member Norway.

But in reality, that formulation gives him leeway to settle for something as weak as a Canadian-style tariff-abolishing trade deal with the EU.

Starmer is engaged in a similar legerdemain. The former director of public prosecutions is an intelligent man and will be well aware that his position on free movement means he would have to be prepared to see Britain leave the single market.

So by railing against a hard Brexit, he is implicitly redefining hard Brexit to exclude single market exit, leaving it as merely the conclusion of an unsatisfactory free trade deal.

To put it bluntly, whenever Labour says hard Brexit, bear in mind that they now do not regard single market exit as hard.

Finally, the ideology: Corbyn is arguing today that leaving the EU will liberate Britain to intervene in struggling domestic industries such as steel, something that is currently restricted by state aid rules. His team has argued in the past that exiting the single market will remove an obstacle to Britain becoming a fairer and more socially democratic state.

But this is a nonsense argument, as the existence of occasionally interventionist social democracies in France and Germany demonstrates; the EU does not prevent those states being fairer in many ways than the UK.

This spurious line of argument from Corbyn suggests he still holds the Bennite view from the 1970s that the EU is a form of capitalist conspiracy. In other words, his position today is being influenced by a fossilised left-wing ideology.

But let’s cut to the fundamental point: if you feel that Britain remaining part of the single market after 2019 is in your economic interest, do not look to Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour Party to be your champion.

This article was published in The Independent 10/01/17