Coverage of AIFM Directive report

A report that I co-authored for the European Parliament on the proposed Alternative Investment Fund Managers (AIFM) Directive has been picked up by the Financial Times, Reuters and Wall Street Journal.

I forgive Tatler

Johann Hari has won me over with this argument about celebrity:

“We will always have celebrities, and we will – if we are honest – always want them. If we rage against them Starsuckers-style, with an annihilating, snobbish superiority, we will lose the argument. The real struggle instead is to temper our instinct for fame – and stop it sucking up all the cultural oxygen.”

Consequently, I was probably wrong to argue that Tatler must be stormed for socialism. So, while I know it isn’t mutual, I forgive Tatler.

Tory arguments don’t add up

I know that the other day I again proclaimed the futility of negative politics, at least as far as the Labour Party at the moment are concerned. However, I was asked to comment on this letter from the Tory PPC for Copeland and couldn’t resist picking apart his arguments. I’d be amused at how weak they are, if the prospect of him being the MP for the seat where I grew up and where most of my family still live were not so appalling. This is what I had to say:

If David Cameron is so pro-nuclear, how is his close relationship with the avowed anti-nuclear campaigner and Tory PPC for Richmond Park Zac Goldsmith to be explained? Could it be that the Tories want to say one thing in Richmond Park and another in Copeland?

Irrespective of what they say in different parts of the UK, a Conservative government would not be heard in Brussels, as David Cameron has already made decisions which have, according to France’s European Minister, castrated British influence in Brussels. This materially impacts upon economic wellbeing in Copeland. Chris Whiteside speaks of removing barriers to new nuclear investment, but securing a higher and more stable carbon price would remove a key barrier to this investment. Lowering the cap in the EU-ETS is the best available policy lever for achieving such a carbon price, but this lever will only be pulled by a British government capable of commanding influence in Brussels and across the EU. The castration of British Conservatives in Brussels threatens the nuclear future of west Cumbria should we ever have a Conservative government.

It is odd that Chris Whiteside bemoans, rightly, attempts to misrepresent the policies of other parties and then proceeds not only to misrepresent Labour policy but also his own party’s history.  

As far as his own party’s history is concerned, it is one thing to attempt, as Cameron and Andrew Lansley, the Conservative health spokesman, are doing, to re-brand the Conservatives as champions of the NHS. Great is the joy for the sinner who repenteth. But it is quite another to ask us to forget the sin, as Chris Whiteside’s perplexing praise of the record of past Conservative governments on the NHS asks us to do. The NHS was on its knees when Labour came to government in 1997. We turned it around because we have always believed in the NHS and not seen it “as a 60 year mistake”, as a Conservative MEP recently described it; comments which cause one to doubt the sincerity of the repenting we are being asked to embrace.

As for misrepresenting Labour policy, since when has Budget 2009 been a leaked document? This very public document set out plans for a cumulative 6.7 percent reduction in public spending over the three years from April 2011. I can only presume that the 10 percent figure that Chris Whiteside refers to is the reduction which is implied across most of the public sector by the Conservative commitment to both match Labour’s spending restraint and ring fence increases in health spending. This ring fencing is intended to convince us of the sincerity of Tory repenting on the NHS, but one’s confidence in this sincerity is further shaken by Chris Whiteside’s capacity not only to confuse a leaked document with Budget 2009 but Labour Party policy (which is for a 6.7 percent reduction) with Conservative policy (which is for the 10 percent reduction he refers to).

Nonetheless, Whiteside is correct to be concerned about public debt and we look forward to the Chancellor, Alistair Darling, setting out full plans for the management of public debt in the Pre-Budget Report later this month. He will do so on a basis that both preserves confidence in the public finances and maintains the public services that Labour has turned around since 1997. To re-coin a phrase, this will be prudence with a purpose. Chris Whiteside’s obvious lack of either prudence or sincere purpose is a danger to Copeland.

Can UKIP save Labour? Or can Labour save itself?

Given that the Guardian now report that David “Cameron faces Eurosceptic backlash after Czech Lisbon treaty decision”, it seems an apt moment to revisit this question: ”Could UKIP still save the day for Labour?”

Perhaps confounding expectations of what the Spectator would be like with Fraser Nelson as editor, James Forsyth at Coffee House has been quick to man the trenches on Cameron’s behalf and insist he “hasn’t broken a pledge on Europe”. Such activity from someone, who is, among “the leading commentators”, according to Danny Finkelstein, to well “understand what the Cameron team are trying to do” might suggest that this team is worried that UKIP could indeed save the day for Labour.

I’m doubtful that Nigel Farage and co have it in them to save Labour’s speck (at least any more than the BNP have the potential to steal this same bacon by similarly undercutting the vote of one of the major parties). But, certainly, it is in Labour’s interests to widen and magnify the divisions that obviously linger within the Tory Party on Europe.

Ah, a dividing line, Number 10 surely cries. But I hope it doesn’t. As I have argued elsewhere, Labour needs to be more realistic about our capacity to impact perceptions of the Tories. Essentially, our capacity in this regard is almost zero. Instead of trying to mine this very limited potential, we should be focusing on changing perceptions of ourselves; presenting a positive case for Labour. This argument holds on Europe as much as it does on other areas of policy. So, rather than any ”clever” tactical games, I suggest that Labour makes a positive case for the EU and for our position on the Lisbon Treaty and the future of the EU, while hoping that the snipping of Bill Cash et al opens up the divisions within the Tories that any ”clever” tactical games would seek to achieve and, in so doing, pushes some Tory voters in the direction of UKIP.

It might seem madness (even suicidal) to attempt to present a positive case for the EU and Lisbon Treaty in the UK at the moment. But, first, a more negative politics of dividing lines ignores the reality of our ability to impact perceptions of the Tories. David Aaronovitch’s ability in this regard is probably now stronger than the whole of the Cabinet’s combined. Second, part of the reason that this seems madness is because the dots between the Lisbon Treaty and our national interest remain so un-joined. Take, for example, Daniel Korski’s well-made argument today: ”Europe has the US president it wished for, but Barack Obama lacks the strong transatlantic partner he desired.” This is profoundly true and it is manifestly in the UK’s interest that the EU becomes this strong transatlantic partner. It is far more likely to be able to perform such a role once the improvements to its systems of governance enabled by the Lisbon Treaty are in place.

Labour should make arguments of this kind; arguments that are global and universal in focus, as we leave Cameron and Cash to petty and parochial arguments (Cameron and Cash even sounds suitably like a petty and parachial firm of solictors). Combining UKIP with an enlightened and far-sighted approach from Labour could yet save the day.

Welcome to Lehman Sisters

Interesting developments. And news to delight Harriet Harman, amongst many others, I am sure. Efforts are afoot to create Lehman Sisters or something akin to it. Amidst the continuing regulatory and legislative whirlwind that the financial crisis has – not unreasonably or unexpectedly - unleashed, it is noteworthy that the creation of Lehman Sisters is a market outcome, not the consequence of a regulatory or legislative initiative. As such, I hope it has been properly factored into counterfactual analysis of the government’s latest plans, as part of H. M. Treasury’s impact assessment processes. These plans now seem somewhat unnecessary if these counterfactuals really can conclude that another financial crisis will be avoided in the world of Lehman Sisters et al.

Nick Clegg either doesn’t believe in the EU or isn’t really a politician

It is difficult to overstate the strategic importance to the EU of Turkey. So, a sense of regret and concern should be felt across the union when Recep Tayyip Erdogan, Turkey’s Prime Minister, says of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Iran’s Holocaust denying President, that “there is no doubt he is our friend.” But Europe has not been awash with such sentiment in recent days because, as Philip Stephens argues, Europe has clung to the past as Turkey has turned east.

Must Europe wither? It surely shall if we do not wake up and smell the coffee and move on from the navel gazing and introversion that have marked recent years. Tony Blair suggested three years ago that the big distinction in politics was between open societies and those which were closed. “If you take any of the big motivating debates in politics today”, argued Blair, “each essentially has, at its core, this question: ‘Do we open up? Albeit with rules and controls, or do we hunker down, do we close ourselves off and wait till the danger has passed? Is globalisation a threat or an opportunity?’” The EU has chosen to hunker down, to close itself off, not just to Turkey but to a world that is hurtling towards a G2 in which there is no place at the top table for Europeans.

British pro-Europeans, like Nick Clegg, must have watched these developments with horror and wished that the EU could turn itself around and open itself up. The conclusion of the Lisbon process offers a great opportunity for this and Blair’s candidacy for the EU presidency offers the leadership and gravitas necessary to achieve this. Even his advocates, such as Charles Grant and Will Hutton, do not fail to find fault with Blair. Yet “the message” Grant hears “in places such as Beijing, Delhi and Washington is that if the EU wants to be taken seriously, it should choose a big name as president”. Is there another big name candidate? No. Thus, the choice is to be closed (and deride Blair as a ’superstar’ unworthy of support as Clegg did today) or open (and go for Blair precisely because he is a superstar in the capitals that now matter most).

It is not just a betrayal of Clegg’s pro-European credentials for him to fail to back Blair, it is an abdication of his profession. Politics exists, after all, as J. K. Galbraith knew, “in choosing between the disastrous and the unpalatable”. Clegg may find Blair unpalatable; so do Grant and Hutton, to some extent. But Turkey getting into bed with Iran is the first of many disasters that shall befall the EU if it continues on its current trajectory. It is because Grant and Hutton have retained the ability, unlike Clegg, to distinguish between the unpalatable and the disastrous that they are able to bring themselves to support Blair.

The ugly underbelly of political incorrectness

AA Gill is probably right to observe:

“It would be impossible for Nick Griffin now to make Enoch Powell’s speech warning that like the Roman he saw the river Tiber foaming with blood — and Powell was, at the time, in Ted Heath’s shadow cabinet”.

This is just one illustration, amongst many, of the victories secured for decency and civility – perhaps, the politically incorrect terms for political correctness - over the past decade or so. And, as such, it is to be celebrated. But in my relatively short life – not yet into its 30th year – I have seen graffiti that reads: “Enoch was right”. That he obviously wasn’t doesn’t stop me strongly suspecting that there remain those who don’t accept this and wondering what vent these people have for this view.

 Similarly, just as I am confident that the vast majority of Britons find Griffin creepier than homosexuals, I am also sure that there will be some who, appallingly, agree with Griffin that homosexuality is creepy. Recent homophobic attacks in Liverpool and Trafalgar Square make me very worried about the expression of such views.

Essentially, what lengths will the political incorrect go to in increasingly politically correct times? If all they do is become Directors of Policy for Boris Johnson, then we may not have so much to worry about. But the underbelly of unreconstructed Powellites and homophobes amongst us may turn far uglier than this.

The left needs no vanguard to stay alive

I’ve just got home from a Spectator event that debated the motion “the Left is dead“. Although the motion was defeated, I didn’t sense myself to be surrounded by legions of fellow Labour Party members. Still, I take instruction wherever I can find it and I found it at the debate, as I find it in the pages of the Spectator. I may not agree with the magazine’s editorial line but its analysis is often incisive and perceptive. Fraser Nelson, for example, strikes me as more on the money on the BNP than most.  

The main piece of instruction that I picked up at the debate is that the speakers in favour of the motion (Michael Heseltine, Minette Marrin and Stephan Shakespeare) were only able to declare the left dead by mistaking the left with something it never was. Both Marrin and Shakespeare argued (wrongly) that an ideologically driven desire to control is a central left-ist motivation and that such control will be impossible in the digital era. Thus, they declared the left dead.

Their logic negates the savaging that Jan Moir’s career has just received at the hands of the Twitterati. In the pre-Twitter era Moir may have got away with peddling her vile spite. In the Twitter era she set herself on a collision course with an ascendant cultural egalitarianism. So, Marrin and Shakespeare are right that the internet is an agent of empowerment that throws off attempts to control and shackle, but the force that this agent unleashed in the direction of Moir simply speaks to the potency of the force that they declare dead: the left.

As Jonathan Freedland, who argued against the motion, pointed out cultural and social norms on race, gender, the environment and sexuality have come to be constructed around values and views that would have been considered left-ist, if not extreme left-ist, a generation ago. Homophobia just isn’t going to be served on the Twitterati menu. There was no vanguard coercing the Twitterati into championing a left-ist ideology, as Marrin and Shakespeare presume that there must be to sustain any left-ist ideology. They chose to adopt one and in so choosing they demonstrate both the strength of the left’s victory on social and cultural norms over the past generation and the potential of the internet to secure more victories for the left in the next generation.

In the past week alone, for example, I have used the internet to pick up great ideas on combating the BNP from Mary Riddell and David Aaronovitch. The defeat of Moir gives me confidence that if these ideas are taken forward, then the left will need no vanguard to defeat the BNP.

Moir, Gately and poetry made real

The poetry of 1997, which gave way to the prose of government, sometimes seems to have ceded to a barely comprehensible scrawl. But much more of that poetry became real policy achievement than that scrawl and its media reception might suggest.

Consider, for example, the shaft of light on this history which Jan Moir and Stephen Gately have inadvertently thrown. Jan Moir’s Friday column was a throwback to a much more intolerant time; a time that incubated and encouraged the taboos that Stephen Gately did more than most to shatter in his tragically short life. Of course, British society made up its own mind to reject these taboos and make peace with itself over this period. So all 61 million of us – with the exception of Jan Moir and her readers – can give ourselves a pat on the back for that. But civil partnerships gave us a firm push in the right direction. It wasn’t the Sun wot won this. It was a Labour government.

As the Sun prematurely writes the obituary of this government, we should cast a sorry eye on the spite and the bile that Moir embodies and which Labour government has helped move us on from. Evidence that Moir’s outburst cost the Daily Mail advertising revenue lead Tom Watson to tweet: “That’ll be Twitter 1 intolerance 0″. The Sun’s obituary won’t record the role that Labour government played in weakening this intolerance.

However, Labour shouldn’t give up on giving the Twitter generation an appreciation of the past 12 years that does justice to the poetry that was made real. This is because much of politics is about narrative – where we are, where we want to go, how we are going to get there. Bequeathing this understanding to the Twitter generation should be central to explaining where we are.

Primary triggers

There is no case for primaries for parliamentary selections in the Labour Party if CLPs are truly as Stuart White argues “communities of shared belief”. Of course, this is what Labour Party members want all CLPs to be, but is this really what they all are? Some of them are so lacking in members that they stretch the definition of a community and some of them are so lacking in active members that, astonishingly, CLPs in the Labour heartlands get by without GCs and functioning branches; stripping away the institutional vestiges of shared belief. So, in these circumstances is there a case for primaries? Yes, in these circumstances, by opening up Labour debates to a wider audience, primaries seem more a means of recovering a community of shared belief than a betrayal of one. Given this, should the party not consider establishing indicators of being a community of shared belief - e.g. a monthly GC, constituted branches, a certain proportion of constituents as party members and some level of voter ID over a defined period – and if these indicators are not satisfied then a primary selection is enforced. Assuming party members wish to retain control over selections, such a system would incentivise CLPs to be genuine communities of shared belief, which is what all party members wish to see. This would also be a means of sucking and seeing what primaries lead to. If they lead CLPs even further away from being communities of shared belief, then we can put a cap in the initiative before it goes any further.