RAMPANT CAPITALISM; TIME TO REIN IT IN

By Marjorie Smith

IT'S TIME TO REIN IN SOME OF CAPITALISM'S WORST EXCESSES

There is an opportunity for Labour to stand alongside its natural support-base and re-engage with voters who have real concerns about the impact unregulated or '''self-regulated” capitalism has had and continues to have on their daily lives.

It should be obvious that the way in which the private sector chased the short-termist holy grail of shareholder value so as to enrich themselves with self-determined bonuses has had a deleterious effect on our society as a whole. What a whole generation of business leaders did was to abdicate their fiduciary duty to their employees, their customers and, in reality, their shareholders, by pursuing business strategies that almost totally focussed on the bottom line, so that they could report record profits.

However, these record profits were, more often than not, recorded at the expense of medium and long-term commercial objectives. A whole culture of outsourcing of internal services, large-scale lay-offs, sale and leaseback of fixed assets etc. etc. allowed a large number of companies to have their asset value hollowed out all in the name of enhancing 'shareholder value'. The corporate parasites that undermined the host bodies they were supposed to be accountable to actually revelled in a climate of large bonuses and adulatory coverage from the right wing press, whilst all the time, the companies/conglomerates they were responsible for started to bleed red ink on their balance sheets.

The high profile casualties such as Enron, WorldComm, Northern Rock, RBS, Halifax, etc etc, are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the utter commercial carnage unregulated/self-regulated capitalism has wreaked on business ethics in the Anglo-Saxon corporate world. You didn't a ludicrously over-priced Masters Degree in Business Administration to see that the prevailing ethos in the commercial world was being reduced to a simple continual driving down of costs (no matter how it was to be achieved or how commercially wrong-headed it was nor what the long-term outcome would be) all in order to increase reported year-on-year profitability.

What compounded this utterly wrong-headed strategy was the lionization of a golden circle of business leaders, who apparently could do little wrong and who moved from Chief Exec post to Chief Exec post.
All the time trousering huge and disproportionate bonuses as they downsized / outsourced /merged /acquired / lease-backed / etc. etc. Many of these self-same people have now been exposed for the charlatans they really were, yet they they were allowed to act like supernatural beings for far too long.

Any fool, with a modicum of knowledge of derivative trading, packages of securities mortgages and a scant knowledge of the sub-prime market in the USA could have easily predicted what would be the outcome of the reckless antics of US mortgage providers and the financial institutions that backed them, yet the regulators did nothing.

It didn't matter, to the City of London and the Treasury or City regulators that balance sheets and profit and loss accounts were becoming about as reliable as the reported figures contained within a Soviet five-year plan or that the long-term effects of such turbo-capitalistic corporate ethics would have a disastrous outcomes in a manner for many companies just like Mao's wrong-headed 'Great Feap Forward' had for China.

"It appears that modern capitalism is developing a form of rapid behavioural convergence that completely contradicts the accepted norms of competition theory."

This degradation of business ethics also led to rampant totally illegal collusion in different business sectors, although the worst abuses took place in the financial sector. For example, the day before the infamous judgement by the Supreme Court over bank charges, the Chief Executives of all of the major banks in the UK held a meeting to discuss how they would deal with the outcome of the ruling. This in blatant disregard of the law about collusion between 'so-called' competitors. The self-same banks even had an illegal teleconference between themselves the very next morning to chart a way forward and how to have a coordinated response to the ruling.

Self-regulation in the City has also led to a plethora of anti-competitive practices in the financial sector as Banks copy and imitate each others' business practices (e.g. charges on customers, hard-sell techniques to sell other financial products etc etc) rather than find ways of competing by being innovative. Adam Smith's 'hidden hand of the market' has been replaced by the 'subtle underhand of the cartel'.

"These 'intuitive' cartels are intensely anti-competitive, they lead to abuse of their dominant position especially in relation to smaller competitors and they are usually an anathema when it comes to consumers interests."

It appears that modern capitalism is developing a form of rapid behavioural convergence that completely contradicts the accepted norms of competition theory.  In that companies in the same business sector imitate each others commercial practices so as to establish a de facto cartel without needing to covertly collude. All that is needed is to use information technology to get rapid feedback and continually monitor competitors' activities, prices and conditions of sale so as to constantly align oneself with the behaviour of your main competitors. It seems that the old rules of accepting that three or more large competitors will ensure competition no longer applies and the Banks are the greatest example of this.

These 'intuitive' cartels are intensely anti-competitive, they lead to abuse of their dominant position especially in relation to smaller competitors and they are usually an anathema when it comes to consumers interests. They need a fresh approach to competition policy that should ensure that the interests of the consumers come first and that no commercial institution is either above the law or 'to big to fail'.

Yet, this Conservative government expects the State to nationalise the losses of these massive financial institutions so that they can rebuild their balance sheets at the expense of the public purse and then   quickly return to a commercial normality that is completely opposed to the interests of most taxpayers.

Osborne and his ilk, have made no mention of the voracious appetite of the City of London for easy money and its role in incubating and sustaining the culture that led to the financial crisis. They instead intend to return to an era of 'light-touch regulation' of the financial markets, whilst all the time trying to blame the state of the public finances on Labour profligacy.

This a narrative that must not be allowed to become an accepted fact. Labour can still turn this crisis of post-industrial capitalism to its advantage and that is by being on the side of the people who have to pay the price for the naked greed of those who eagerly exploited the conditions created by Thatcher in the mid-eighties and who prospered because New Labour was in thrall to her heirs.

THE TORIES' BIG LIE

How they are duping this country into massive cuts.

Marjorie Smith. (published in Tribune 24th September)


"The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly - it must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over” – Jozef Goebbels.

Goebbels is not a person I feel most comfortable with when using quotations, but the quote is apt. Goebbels instinctively knew the power of propaganda, which at its basest level, was used to prepare people for unpalatable acts and unpopular decisions.

This current Conservative Government's chances of electoral success in the future is significantly dependent on the UK electorate accepting the big lie that current levels of public expenditure have got out of control.

It should not be forgotten that the one irredeemable economic fact of recent and present times is that due to a purely private sector crisis, the public finances have taken a massive hit due to the costs of the bail-out of banks and related economic stimuli measures and not because of public sector profligacy. However, the prevailing wisdom amongst the mainstream media and the' chattering classes' is that in order to put the public finances 'back in order', then the current level of public spending must be drastically reduced so as to lay the foundations for a sustainable recovery.

The cuts that will be implemented are of a draconian nature, not seen since the 1920s. An average of 25% in nearly all Government spending (NHS and International Aid excepted) will equate to a massive 10% decline in UK economic activity. Yet Alistair Darling has already laid out that cutting too fast and too deep is simply unnecessary and counter-intuitive. Cutting contracts and making people redundant does not boost economic activity, it compounds the damage.

Labour announced that it would have to cut Government spending by 80 billion pounds over five years because of the economic crisis caused by the atavistic activities of some banks (and their hangers-on) in the western world. The Tories, want to cut by 50% more and introduce those cuts twice as quickly. This has the disastrous effect of tripling the size of the cuts.

"Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the 25% of cuts expected in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored."


This is the current strategic achievement of Cameron and Osborne, they have redefined the political landscape, so that rapidly cutting the public deficit is the be-all and end-all of Government policy. We are constantly told that there really is no alternative and that we should prepare for a period of deep austerity so that the public finances can be restored and the country put back on an even keel. Consequently, they also claim it is time for the State to step back and empower people to rediscover a sense of community to fill the vacuum left by the retreating public sector.

They go further, the supposed 'perilous' situation we find ourselves in, is largely blamed on the Labour Government's profligacy, that the public purse is empty, that we can no longer afford our present level of commitments. The former Chief Secretary Liam Byrne's note to his successor was extremely unfortuitous. Telling David Laws (even in jest) that there was no money left, was a massive political gift to the slashers and cutters on the Tory benches and this was seized on with glee by George Osborne's ministerial team.

Today's Tory spinners and their willing messenger boys in the print media and the blogosphere may not always realise their gullibility is being exploited, but the constant repetition that the deficit must be overcome and that public expenditure must be slashed dramatically and immediately, is this coming decade's big lie.

It is also a big lie that now defines much political thought outside of Tory circles. Both the BBC and ITN now seem to accept that the Conservative's position on the deficit is the default position for the vast majority of the country. Hence all debate about economics and politics is framed around a central tenet that we must cut deep and we must cut fast.

I'm afraid elements within the Labour Party also carry a heavy responsibility in allowing the Tories so much political space to pursue their narrow Thatcherite view of cutting the size of the State. The argument between Brown and Mandelson about Labour's response to the medium to long-term fallout from the financial crisis (which Mandelson won on points) was the seed bed in which the Tories were allow to cultivate their big lie unhindered and unencumbered by social responsibility.

"….they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut."

This current Conservative Government (it may be a coalition of parties, but it is irredeemably Tory) is led by post-Thatcherite Tories (of which Clegg is one). They have thrown overboard Geoffrey Howe's Holy Grail of fixation with the money supply and Milton Friedman's political economy is now seen as rather passé in Tory ranks. However, they still perceive the State as a barrier to sound economics and liberal political economy and view some public expenditure as a necessity rather than a duty.

Cameron has already given the game away by stating that the expected 25% of cuts in most Ministerial budgets will never be restored. This is clear evidence that Osborne and Cameron's economic policies are ideologically driven, "cut, cut and cut and never restore" that is their maxim. This point needs to be emphasised, they are not cutting public expenditure because they have to cut, they are doing so because they want to cut.

The ring-fencing of the NHS and the International Aid budget is no acceptance that socialised medicine or externalised philanthropy are good things, but was the product of a cold public relations calculation that it would be the necessary cost (in the short to medium term) of detoxifying the Tories.

The major problem for Labour and the wider movement is that the political climate in which cuts are being discussed is far more fortuitous than it was when Thatcher came to power in 1979. For all Thatcher's rhetoric about shrinking the size of the State, she had to proceed cautiously because of significant internal opposition from 'One Nation' Tories in her own party. This internal opposition has been reduced to an ineffectual rump (and that includes so-called left-leaning Lib Dems) and Osborne and Cameron have free rein to pursue their ideological convictions.

However, the only way to fight this Government is to constantly remind people that at the heart of the Tories' core message is the big lie. The Tories will continue to argue that massive cuts are necessary because of the so-called 'structural deficit'. This they claim is so unsustainable that the coming cuts are necessary and that Labour's supposed mismanagement of the economy has seriously aggravated the situation.

However, the structural deficit is an artificial construct that invents a theoretical basis for Osborne's (and Alexander) tautology over the role of the public sector. It should a matter of Labour party mantra that that the structural deficit is not the actual deficit. The structural deficit relies totally on contentious assumptions that are interpreted in such a way that they are only taken account of if they support the hypothesis of a so-called 'unsustainable' structural deficit.

James Sassoon, the Conservative Government's Treasury minister, gave the real game away when he said in the House of Commons debate on the finance bill, "We cannot afford a public sector of the size to which it has grown" and there must be "a complete re-evaluation of the government's role in providing public services". This is not economics; this is neo-conservative prejudice writ large.

Labour was already cutting the deficit and Alistair Darling's March budget would have halved the deficit in four years. Even the Tories' newest pet quango, the Office for Budget Responsibility agreed this was the case.

It seems that Osborne's' cuts which will have the effect of reducing the UK's GDP by a massive 10% are to be compensated for by increased activity in the private sector as it takes up the slack left by the public sector. In other words the Tories are betting the shop on a false premise based on a hypothetical interpretation of an inane analysis.

Because of the Tories ideological commitment to shrinking the State, we are now embarking on an extremely perilous economic programme that has little chance of success, is against the recommendations of the G20 group of nations and almost certainly will terminate in a double dip recession.

The economic crisis was the fault of turbo-capitalism, it was hatched in Wall Street not 11 Downing Street, the City of London was a co-conspirator, not the Cities of Liverpool, Newcastle, Manchester, Leeds, Birmingham etc etc. The Big Lie will demand a high price and it will be those who have the least culpability that will be paying the highest price. "All in this together" -Don't make me laugh.

TORY BOYS' ELECTORAL STITCH-UP

Why Cameron's and Clegg's attempt to fix the next election is fundamentally undemocratic at so many levels.

A version of this article appeared in Tribune (published 17/09/10)

Marjorie Smith

Despite claims to the contrary, this Conservative Government's attempt to remake the electoral map of the UK is a blatant attempt at trying to stack the electoral odds in its favour. If successful, it will severely restrict Labour's chances of ever ruling as a single governing party in the future (which of course, as well as trying to shore-up this Government, is its man aim).

Firstly, the proposals top reform the voting system; reduce the number of MPs and change the size of constituencies is nothing more than opportunistic gerrymandering. This squalid and seedy attempt to radically shift the electoral balance in this country is simply an attempt by the two Tory boys, Clegg and Cameron, to ensure that their type of politics is almost always guaranteed to have an influence in governing this country.

Remember, there is no electoral mandate for this Conservative government to railroad it through the House of Commons. There is no part if the Conservative Party's manifesto that mentions such radical constitutional changes that will have a massive psephological effect. This Government simply does not have a mandate to do what it proposes to do.

Any attempt to radically reform the electoral map of the UK will have no credibility unless it is as a result of a Royal Commission.

The Government's plans are deficient at several levels. Firstly the idea that a referendum of such constitutional importance is not important enough to have a stand-alone referendum is deeply worrying. Clegg and his ilk bleat on about the cost, but who said democracy was cheap. To hold the referendum at the same time as local elections is to demonstrate the lack of confidence the Government has in the electorate.

One of the major flaws in Clegg's plans for a referendum on electoral change in 2011 is that it will not be a level playing field. Local elections in England next year are not taking place universally, so any attempt to piggyback a referendum on such elections that take place will, in effect, produce a distorted outcome and discriminate against a large swathe of voters.

Furthermore, not only is there discrimination between voters in different local authority electoral districts in England, where only 33% of voters will have the opportunity to go the polls but also with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, where 100% of the electorate will have additional motivation to cast their vote both in an election and in a referendum.

 The projected choice to be offered to voters is also discriminatory between possible systems of counting votes and is a take-it-or-leave-it choice about the Alternative Vote system.

A dead vote can still be a dead vote under AV. What if one doesn't want to transfer? I should imagine there are a significant number of Labour voters who no longer wish to see the Lib Dem vote enhanced by their transfers and do not ever want to see their vote ultimately transfer to a Tory.

Why should a vote be viewed as something vague that cannot be taken at face value, depending on the outcome of the totality of votes. No doubt, the big campaign in constituencies where the Lib Dems are second will be persuading to transfer, but why should they? For instance, why should hundreds of thousands of Labour votes in areas that have a Tory majority be viewed as transferrable votes to the Lib Dems?

Why is there not a system of equalization, whereby voters' intentions are still accounted for even if they are not for the winning candidate in a specific constituency? Why can't first preferences be totalled regionally so that a system of proportionality is introduced, but this is based on primary choices rather than second choices.

In many respects AV is as fraught with the same imperfections as first-past-the-post is, in that if for example you live in a constituency where Labour is in third place, your vote for Labour is totally disregarded and has no effect (concerning Labour), it is reduced to a full value vote for the Lib Dems, if you transfer your vote to them. A dead vote (i.e. one you choose not to transfer) is still a dead vote

Proposals about the North of Scotland as an exception so that three Lib Dem MPs with large constituencies but sparse populations, are ring-fenced from the proposal is a squalid scam, based purely on the self-interest of this opportunistic Government.

The proposals to reduce the number of MPs and equalize constituency size is another sordid manoeuvre to tilt the balance so far away from Labour , so as to make it extremely difficult to have a Labour Government with a working majority.  Make no mistake Cameron and his Tory backwoodsmen will be the main beneficiary of this so-called reform. Constituencies should be based on population, not on the electoral role.

It is the Tories exploitation of the electoral role as a base for calculation that gives credence to their proposals. Yet, it is also their greatest weakness; size of population should be the common denominator in these discussions. The electoral role, plus local Government and central Government records should all be used to calculate the size of constituencies. The results maybe extremely beneficial to Labour, in not just blunting the opportunistic aspects of the Tories proposals but actually identifying urban areas where mass-action campaigns to get people registered could produce highly beneficial effects.

Why not move elections to Sunday, so that the majority of working people have the same opportunity to choose when they vote as the rest of the electorate.  The concept of equality of constituency size, based on population and not the electoral roll, should never be considered until this levelling of the playing field is introduced.

Look to motivate and facilitate non-voters not tinker with an anti-working people system. Sticking with the tradition of holding Parliamentary elections on a Thursday is highly discriminatory in favour of the leisured classes and should be changed to maximise both turnout and non-registered peoples' interest.

This, of all choices surrounding the conduct of polls, should be a level playing field, i.e. hold elections over a full weekend with polls opening at 7.00 am on Saturday and closing 7.00 pm on Sunday.

It is the 'benign neglect' attitude of the right and centre-right in this country when it comes to increasing voter registration that is purely self-serving. The Tories know that the disenfranchised are more likely to vote for left-wing or centre-left parties if they are subsequently registered, hence the Tories' self-regarding disinterest in this issue.           

            The disgraceful scenes of voters being turned away in several constituencies at the last general election should never be allowed to re-occur.  This issue should not be allowed to be forgotten; a report by the Electoral Commission based on the information provided by returning officers said it was not a major problem. That's like accepting a report from the Metropolitan Police that the policing of demonstrations has the popular support of the people of London

The Labour movement as a whole should actively oppose this squalid and opportunistic gerrymandering by Clegg and Cameron. No reform of the voting system in this country should be carried out until it has been the subject of a Royal Commission and proposed changes are included in party manifestos.

Taxpayers money bailed Ashcroft out?

In the furore surrounding Lord Sleaze of Belize, one genuinely hypocritical fact stands out, the non-taxpaying Tory peer benefited enourmously frm the taxpayers' bail-out of the banks, led by a Labour Government.

Ashcroft, who has substantial banking interests in Central and South America would have seen his fortune rapidly diminish if the bail-out of the bankers had not happened.

US and UK governmental intervention ensured that the big banks such as HSBC, RBS, Bank of America etc etc etc were protected from the consequences of their reckles behaviour.

However, what has not been focused on, is that because of the complex inter-relationships between banks and other beanks as well as with their depositers, is that Ashcroft's banking interests would have been worthless as banks would have defaulted on their debts.

Ashcroft's Bank of Belize and his other banking interests would have been swallowed up in the financial maelstrom and he would have lost a substantuial part of his fortune.

Yet this tax-dodger had for years claimed for years that his personal tax status was a private affair. Even though he sat in the House of Lords as a Tory peer and was able to speak on what the UK Treasury was up to without declaring an interest. He should be stripped of his peerage.

THE CRUCIAL DIFFERENCE ABOUT LABOUR AND TORY GROUPS IN EUROPE

by Marjorie Smith
Various right-wing bloggers (e.g. Harry Phibbs and Ian Dale) have tried to defend the Tories new found friends in the European Parliament by saying that ok a few might be oddballs but the Socialist group has some oddballs as well. It's the normal defence of the intellectually defeated, reminiscent of the playground.

The Party of European Socialist probably does have a couple of members who have a dubious past and may, undoubtedly, have said some rather unfortunate things. Whilst the Tory group seems to have, proportionately a lot more of these 'mavericks'.

However, the crucial difference is that if the Party of European Socialists (of which Labour is a member) expelled all their MEPs who allegedly have dubious histories (which they should) , the group would still be a vibrant, cohesive and effective opposition in the European Parliament.

Whereas, the Tories would be destined for the political wilderness. Under European Parliament rules you can't have a funded group unless you have MEPs from a minimum number of Member States. If the Tories lost their odious partners from Latvia and Belgium for example, they would be unable to form a recognised group in the EP, therefore losing any influence and funding, hence their great reluctance to face their demons so the Tories and their obnoxious allies are locked in a grim embrace. Consequently, it exposes the main reason why they have an extreme reluctance to admit their strategic mistake.

They are, simply, fellow travellers of neo-fascist and other right-wing reactionaries and like all fellow travellers, they are driven by their own selfish ends, disregarding the bigger picture in pursuit of their own self-aggrandisement.

IMMIGRATION: LABOUR'S GREAT CONNUNDRUM

By Marjorie Smith

It's the issue that seems to be top of the political agenda in many areas of Britain. A multi-faceted political issue that has no easy answers, no easy solutions and creates differing political tensions amongst many Labour party supporters and wavering voters. It also seems to be a policy area 'that dare not speak its name' in polite Labour society.

The right and centre-right spotted the political benefit of hyping immigration as a stick to beat Labour with several years ago. The drip, drip, drip of political poison over this issue has been led by the obnoxious Daily Express and the right wing pressure group Migration Watch over the past several years. Incredibly, the Express has given over 75% of its front page headlines in the past five years to this issue.

The rest of the right's media forces have also realised the potency of the issue and have waded in on the issue, blithely swallowing any press release issued by Migration Watch as indisputable fact. The Daily Mail recently (24.10.09) even went so far as to run a story that claimed that mass immigration was a secret Labour plot to change the face of Britain.

What is worse is that the Tories have employed a strategy that allows them to keep themselves at arm's length whilst pretending to be compassionate conservatives. They have used well-funded pressure groups such as The Taxpayers Alliance and Migration Watch as attack dogs on public expenditure and immigration policy to distort the political debate in this country so as to paint the Labour party as weak and compliant. Of course this then has the effect of burnishing the Tory party's image as reasonable and decisive.

Immigration was always going to be potentially embarrassing issue for Labour as its internationalist principles would leave it instinctively in a defensive posture when confronted. Despite the public hard line approach of Jack Straw and David Blunkett as Home Secretaries as well as a No 10 edict to radically reduce the number of asylum seekers appealing against Home Office decisions, it is apparent that Labour remains uniquely vulnerable on immigration policy.

It also goes a long way to explain the success of the BNP in exploiting this issue. The Tories have learnt from New Labour's adoption of triangulation. By not commenting consistently on the issue they have allowed the far right to dominate the response from the right. In giving the BNP political space they have managed to give the far-right a modicum of political impact, yet know that this would never be translated into any prospects of success at a general election under the first past the post system and that it would have very, very limited impact on their voter share.

However, the Tories' main benefit is that it will allow them to triangulate and present themselves as the reasonable face of a tolerant Britain that will take steps to (reluctantly, as they claim) to 'properly' control immigration. This will be presented as a necessary step that has to be taken otherwise the BNP would prosper as a result of Labour weakness.

The main political question is what is the strength of feeling on the issue in marginals as well as the rest of the country; what sort of response the party should develop and what argumentation it can deploy on the doorsteps in order to convince voters (and the more reasonable media outlets) that scare stories about immigration should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

It does appear that the issue is a hot potato on the doorsteps both in working and middle class areas and that it is the subject of chatter across the country. It seems to currently inform perceptions of the character of the main political parties and could be a pivotal issue as to how voters make their electoral choices.

From both apocryphal feedback in the mainstream media (and discounting the coordinated efforts of the BNP to hype their support) as well as opinion polls and expert analysis, it appears that the only policy area that the BNP has found traction is in the area of immigration. This is hugely indicative of a much wider problem in that if some people overtly support the BNP, or sympathise with them, over this issue indicates that the concern is much deeper.

At moment, the more the BNP agitate on the issue and Labour isn't perceived to have a coherent response, the more votes are lost in both working and middle class areas. It's not the BNP who benefit in the main from the seepage of Labour support, it's the Tories, content to keep quiet as votes swing their way.

Thus, the issue needs to be addressed at several levels to be able to formulate a distinct message on the doorstep and in radio and television studios over the next 7-8 months leading up to the next election. This requires three different approaches to three very different patterns of immigration. Intra-EU movement of people, economic migration from outside of the EU and asylum seekers.

Firstly, let us nail the lie that we are being swamped by Poles, Lithuanians etc and others from the rest of the EU who take advantage of free movement to move to the UK as the EU works as a one-way street into the UK. Most of the Polish etc. work here for a relatively short time and then return home. The vast majority paying taxes and national insurance, very few claim benefits of any kind. Just to counter the BNP utilising the image of a spitfire as part of their xenophobic propaganda, the 303 Polish Squadron was the highest-scoring RAF unit in Battle of Britain.

More UK people live and work in other EU countries than people from the rest of the UK live and work in the UK. The consequences of closing our borders to citizens of other EU countries (which would require withdrawal from the EU) would have devastating consequences for millions of UK citizens. Not only would UK citizens be unable to work in the rest of the EU, unlike now, but the hundreds of thousands of Britons who live in Spain, France and the rest of the EU would lose their residency rights.

Furthermore, the dreams and aspirations of many hoping to own their own little place in the sun would be shattered. Malaga or Margate, anybody? If we turn in on ourselves our horizons dramatically shrink. It should also be noted that if we ever pulled up the drawbridge with the rest of the EU, then France, Belgium, Holland etc.etc. would have little if any incentive to stop people trying to enter the UK.

Immigration from the rest of the EU and emigration to there also, is clearly a two-way street, where the benefits far outweigh the disadvantages.

The thorniest problem of all is economic migration, much of it initially driven by desperation and despair. People from sub-Saharan Africa, from Turkey, Kurdistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, the poorest parts of China etc. etc, all with a legitimate reason to believe that their lives would be improved if they could enter the UK. Most have a case on hardship grounds alone to merit consideration, yet the age-old problem is where do you draw the line?

The UK also 'suffers' from a unique combination of circumstances concerning immigration, not only do we have a large number of immigrant communities already based in the UK that can act as a support group to new arrivals. We also have a historical link with many countries as the aftermath of Empire, when we rapaciously plundered such places. Thirdly, there is the draw of the emerging universality of the English language

These immigration 'drivers' mean that the UK would likely be the preferred destination of choice for many economic immigrants aiming to enter the EU when compared with many other Member States (although France shares many similarities with its former colonies also being a catalyst). Hence, even if we were the most compassionate people on earth, an open door policy is unworkable.

Therefore immigration controls are a necessity and the more that is done to dissuade immigrants even setting off on perilous journeys across continents the better. There is nothing wrong in rigorous but fair immigration controls. They reward the legitimate immigrant who goes through the system, and deters criminal gangs who exploit the weak and the vulnerable for their own ends.

Labour has a good story to tell on immigration, it is one of fairness, compassion and understanding. But this has to be allied to a recognition that only in times of sustained economic prosperity can entry be granted to those who have the skills or who will fill jobs nobody else wants to do. It is also a fact of life, that as the UK population ages on average, we will need a radically improved birth rate (unlikely) or significant immigration in order e.g. to keep our pensions sustainable, our hospitals and care homes running. As well as the wider economy performing well.

Finally, the furore around the much-maligned asylum seeker needs to be addressed. It is this that the centre-right has succeeded in turning a noble definition into a highly pejorative term now loosely bandied about by many who should know better. As ever, the malicious editorialising of the Daily Express and the Daily Mail have a lot to do with it.

The asylum system was abused, let's admit it, desperate people do desperate things, yet it is Labour who have introduced a high degree of rationality into the system and it is only through perseverance will an asylum system built on intelligent fairness be embedded.

Over the past ten years, the explosion of global communication through the internet and the advent of cheap air travel has revolutionised people's ability to understand their local situation and to compare and contrast life in other countries.

Make no mistake, even under a rabid right-wing Government in the UK, illegal immigration and asylum seeking, won't disappear, it won't even decline, Labour doesn't need to allow itself to be tarred with this brush. As for workers from other EU Member States, that is a zero sum game where we stand to lose a lot more than we could theoretically gain.

A letter from Brussels looking at the UK political scene from an outsider's point of view.

THIS ARTICLE WAS PUBLISHED IN TRIBUNE MAGAZINE 30/10/11

Following the UK's annual conference season, the political outlook for 2010 appears to be a little more opaque than before.

What many thought would be a depressing experience for those attending the Labour conference was inaccurate once the conference had started in earnest. The mood was more upbeat and united than expected and has given some short-term encouragement to party activists.

Whist the Lib Dems shot themselves in the foot, the Tories treated champagne as if it was cocaine (not to be consumed in front of the servants or dogs).

Whilst Labour had received a very temporary boost in the opinion polls it is still doubtful if there has been any major shift so far, in how the Government is currently perceived. What has helped Gordon Brown was that there were no signs whatsoever of a leadership challenge, so a united front was shown to the public (party conferences in the UK are the subject of intense and unrelenting scrutiny by all forms of the media). Mainly as a result of the approaching general election which has served to make all aspects of the Labour party more disciplined and more focussed.

As the general election draws closer (on or before 3 June 2010), the comparisons between the Government and opposition will become more and more searching and the scrutiny of the Conservatives will increase exponentially. However, the Conservatives large lead in the polls has (at present) an air of permanency.

Following Labour’s Conference it is quite clear that Labour will hammer a few key themes as part of its electoral campaign;
Stewardship of the economy with an unrelenting attack on the Conservatives economic policies and their experience and competence.
That the Conservatives cannot be trusted to continue to deliver high-quality public services even if a Labour Government will have to reduce levels of public expenditure.
Attitudes to the EU will undoubtedly be used by Labour in an attempt to demonstrate that the Conservatives are still the same old ‘reactionary’ political force that they were seen to be in the latter days of Margaret Thatcher’s leadership.

Labour also has to persuade voters that they are still relevant and have policies to take the country forward (e.g. its proposals for a National Care service). However, this is an area where the Brown leadership has singularly failed over the past two years.

As the general election approaches, whilst some parts of the media will become much more partisan (e.g. The Daily Mail and The Sun) many others will want to be seen as more neutral and therefore Labour will have more opportunity to get its message across to voters than it has done so recently.

Furthermore Labour has to shore up its vote on its left with it needing to win back support from the Nationalists in Wales and Scotland, hence an energetic campaign claiming that a vote for nationalism is a vote for a Conservative Government.

The Labour party’s fortunes are still in a parlous state, whilst the Conservatives have access to large funds and have spent a lot of resources on targeting the key parliamentary seats that will decide the outcome of the next election. However, the Trade Unions will subsidise Labour and should ensure that that the Labour party has access to substantial amount of funds and other resources, although not any comparative level that the Conservatives will still enjoy.

It is undoubtedly true that the main opposition party, the Conservatives remain favourites to win the next general election, but the situation is not yet set in stone. Unlike in 1997, when Labour came to power, although the governing party is unpopular, the opposition have not yet persuaded the electorate that they are a credible AND reliable alternative.

However, Labour face the problem that David Cameron and his leadership group have been extremely successful in re-inventing the brand image of the Conservatives and it will be much more difficult for Labour to paint the Conservatives as unreconstructed free-market fanatics who will slash and burn public expenditure in all areas.
Cameron has already pledged to keep spending levels on Health and International Development at the same level as the current Labour Government plans in order not to be exposed to head-on attacks about wanting to slash public spending across the board.

Like most previous elections in the UK, the support for the incumbent Government will increase as polling day approaches and consequently the Conservative’s lead in the polls will narrow. It depends on how much the Labour party can either revitalise itself in the coming months (which is unlikely to be significant) OR it can persuade the electorate that the Conservatives are unsuitable for Government and undeserving of voters’ unqualified support.

The Conservatives have a large lead in the level of funding available to them compared to the Labour party. The have already outspent the Labour party in the key seats they need to win over the past three years and this investment in the key seats will undoubtedly produce some positive returns for the party regardless of what the national mood will be.
Despite Conservative protestations that they have an electoral mountain to clim, the reality is somewhat different. The Conservatives quietly made major advances at the last general election and hollowed out a large number of Labour MPs majorities. Allied with the tax-dodging Michael Ashcroft's donations from the tax haven of Belize targeting of all marginal seats, the mountain is more of a hill.

The relatively poor performance of the Liberal Democrats at their annual conference the previous week to Labour’s has also muddied the waters as voters will be less persuaded that voting Lib Dem is more of an attractive choice than what’s on offer from the main parties. However, a poor Lib Dem performance is a double-edged sword as Labour expects more of disillusioned Lib Dems to switch to them rather than the Conservatives. However, at previous elections it was the Lib Dems ability to take more seats from the Conservatives than Labour that helped Labour achieve comfortable majorities in Parliament.

However, in recent years voters disillusioned with Labour have switched their support to the Lib Dems (as well as to the Nationalists in Scotland and Wales) in many Labour-held constituencies. Labour can therefore expect some benefit from the perceived poor performance of the Lib Dems, but may yet continue to lose votes to the Nationalists.

If the Lib Dems were to hold the balance of power in a Westminster Parliament, then an accommodation with the Conservatives cannot be ruled out. However, it is more likely to be with the Labour Party, especially with Gordon Brown offering a vote on the Alternative Vote (AV) system after the 2010. The Lib Dems have long been campaigning for Proportional Representation and although the AV system is not their preferred option (STV is), the prospect of a referendum on PR would be enough for them to prefer to support the Labour party.

If Labour wins (unlikely) or there is a Labour/Lib Dem coalition (a possibility), then UK policy as regards the EU will continue very much as before (constructive engagement). However, if the Conservatives win outright (currently quite likely), then the mood music will change dramatically. However, a vocal aggressive pragmatism is likely to emerge, with Ministers sounding far more belligerent in public than they would be around a negotiating table.

The modern-day Conservative party is a far more Eurosceptic party than that under Thatcher or Major. Whilst the number of influential pro-EU Conservative politicians has decline dramatically, the number of eurosceptics within the parliamentary party has been strengthened greatly. In fact, euroscepticism is now one of the few defining political positions shared by a large majority of the party. A Conservative UK Government will have to be seen (domestically) to be pandering to the prejudices over the EU, whilst still trying to find an accommodation on most issues with other Member States in the Council of Ministers.

It looks like the UK, if a Conservative Government is returned, will return to its bellicose nationalism for domestic purposes (e.g. Major's Beef wars) whilst marginalising any influence it will have because of its overt behaviour and because of the highly questionable allies it has in the European Parliament.

Be prepared for the British national interest to be sacrificed in the pursuit of a scarcely veiled xenophobia towards the EU whilst trying to become more and more Atlanticist (as if George Bush was still in the White House). What Cameron, Hague and their neo-con supporters seemingly fail to realise is that Obama wants a UK fully engaged in the EU, so it can act as a respected partner rather than a marginalised and angry island on the periphery of the continent reduced to little more than George Orwell's Airstrip one.