And another thing…

WHATEVER happened to comradeship?

Ever since the AV referendum was proposed, any Labour politician who dared to oppose it has been accused of being all sorts of things: neanderthals, dinosaurs, blocks to progress…

Not for the first time, we have descended to a depressing level of political discourse where those trying to promote their own agenda simultaneously try to adopt the moral high ground while throwing mud at anyone who disagrees with them. Their message, basically is: Of course we are right – any fool can see that, and if you disagree with us, then you are, by definition, a fool.

(Having said that, I did refer in a radio interview last week to supporters of AV being “Guardian readers”; but at least that was factually accurate, if a tad dismissive.)

The willingness to have an actual debate was always something I loved about the Labour Party. I’m no longer convinced we’re capable of that any more. The Fabians, Progress and Compass, although representing only a tiny minority of Labour Party members, nevertheless claim to speak for the whole party on matters constitutional.

This reminds me of the arguments we used to have back in the eighties and nineties (round about the time that most of the office bearers of those three organisations were about to graduate from the maternity ward) over whether Constituency Labour Parties’ general management committees (GMCs) should continue to have the exclusive right to select parliamentary candidates, or whether the whole membership should have a vote. Looking back, it’s hard to believe that such a debate even took place. But it was a principle that John Smith staked his entire leadership on at the 1993 conference, and won.

That patronising attitude is, alas, still alive and well in the modern Labour Party, or at least, in parts of it: “We are the elite and we know best”. Well. maybe they do, and maybe they don’t. But no-one can tell me that as a Labour MP I’m not entitled to express a view that is shared by a majority of party members. Even if that means making them occasionally spit out their muesli in horror (see? I did it again…).

OH. WHAT  a surprise – I’m in disagreement with Compass. Again.

This time, I’m stepping up to defend the principle of product placement in TV drama. Compass are upset because it’s all about the kids, see? Apparently the ban on product placement during children’s programmes is all very well, but most children’s daily diet of TV is gleaned from non-specific children’s programming. So if, as expected, the Department of Culture, Media and Sport’s recent consultation leads to a policy decision to allow TV companies to sell screen time to well-known brands, then parents will be forced to feed junk food and alcohol to their under-fives. Or something.

(Sorry, I just took a break from my keyboard to pour myself a refreshing glass of Diet Coke©; it really is the Real Thing© – and delicious too… Anyway, where was I? Ah, yes…)

So, if Compass have their way, production companies would have a major source of income denied to them, forcing them to rely ever more heavily on the TV licence payers. Domestically-produced TV drama would become as rare as a Scottish Tory and we would have thousands of redundancies in the industry. And for what? Some disputed research in 20 years’ time that may or may not tell us that children’s health has improved and that the banning of product placement on non-children’s television may well have played a part, even though no-one can say exactly how much of a part or confirm definitively whether it had any affect at all.

Result!

(Excuse me a second: I have to vacuum the living room before Carolyn gets back. Fortunately, I have a Dyson© DC25 whose revolutionary bag-less design makes all those household chores a breeze…)

Would it be so hard for our “think tanks” on the Left to come up with policy ideas that stopped banning stuff? Why are they so keen to feed the (entirely justified) accusation from the Right that too many on the Left want to restrict individual choice, and don’t trust adults to make their own choices? Don’t they realise that if all these ideas were actually adopted by a Labour government or became part of a Labour manifesto, you’d hear the likes of Tim Montgomerie and Iain Dale high-fiving from miles away?

I reject absolutely the notion that there is anything remotely right-wing about wanting to leave lifestyle decisions to grown-ups. To claim that a desire to respect indivdual choice is incompatible with being Left wing is… well, bloody stupid, actually. And those of us on the Left who still have the sense to speak out about such nonsense do so not because we seek the approval of Tory commenters, but because we want Labour to be successful as a political party and as a government.

Now, I’m going to relax for the rest of the evening, and I’ll start with the delicious aroma of Tassimo© coffee – real coffee, but instant – and perhaps a little bit of that sweet… oh, what’s it called? Can’t remember, but I know for a fact that one a day helps you work, rest and play. So it can’t be bad.

THERE’S a terrific scene in the TV adaptation of Chris Mullin’s A Very British Coup in which the newly-elected left wing prime minister, Harry Perkins, is catching the train to London and is asked by a journalist: “Do you intend to abolish first class, Mr Perkins?” To which Perkins replies: “No, I intend to abolish second class. I think everybody’s first class, don’t you?”

And there we have it: a template for New Labour half a dozen years before Tony Blair became leader of the Labour Party. New Labour’s appeal was based on an explicit acknowledgement that success, ambition and the pursuit of wealth are all Good Things. Suddenly the taxation of the wealthier was not an end in itself but simply a necessary evil. And it was okay to want a better job, a higher income, nicer holidays, a bigger house. Voting Labour became something you did for yourself as well as for the greater good.

That’s why we won.

Yesterday Compass launched a campaign for a High Pay Commission. Its inaugural statement reads:

The crisis we find ourselves in is one significantly caused by greed. The salaries of those at the top raced away while the median wage stagnated. Inequality grew, and an economic crisis ensued. The unjust rewards of a few hundred ‘masters of the universe’ exacerbated the risks we were all exposed to many times over. Banking and executive remuneration packages have reached excessive levels. We believe now is the time for government to take decisive action.

Fortunately, the chancellor has already dismissed the idea. But as dog whistle politics go, it’s pretty effective. After all, so many have suffered as a result of the banking crisis and no-one ever lost votes by having a go at those we perceive as spoiled and arrogant rich kids. But I can’t help thinking that the authors of that statement are the kind of people who might approve of attacking a Tory by-election candidate as a “Toff” and using top hats as photo props.

When the national minimum wage (NMW) is discussed, it’s often described as a concession by Tony Blair, as if it were something he had to tolerate in return for more “New Labour” measures such as public service reform. Wrong. The NMW was as much a New Labour as an Old Labour achievement because it levelled people up. It was exacly the opposite of class warfare, which is why there is now a consensus between the two parties that it should remain regardless of who forms the next government.

I imagine the so-called High Pay Commission (I wonder how much the chairman would be paid?) would have the aim of setting a national maximum wage. I doubt if a clearer example of the politics of envy has been aired at any time in the last 12 years.

This proposal has “securing our core vote” written all over it. Except it wouldn’t, because once you’ve addressed the understandable anger at certain individuals’ exorbitant salaries, pensions and bonuses, you’re left with the principle that a Labour government is setting a ceiling on individuals’ wealth. And that’s not what governments should be doing, because once you’ve established that principle, once you’ve raised a few cheers by ostentatiously depriving some bankers of their bonuses, where do you go next? What do you do when the media get round to identifying the next figures of public hatred? Target them too? How far down the scale do you go? After all, multi-millionaires may not be able to justify their bonuses to the general public, but neither can civil servants earning six figures or MPs earning five justify their incomes to some of those living off benefits.

Undoubtedly, there are already those typing in the comments box to the effect that, since the government already own the banks, it has the right to intervene to limit financial rewards of those still running them. As indeed it does. But most of the banks and financial institutions aren’t in the public sector. The principle that high bonuses are A Bad Thing is surely applicable across the board, whether a company is publicly or privately owned.

If government decides it can intervene in the market to dictate wages, why shouldn’t it have a role in deciding other areas of corporate policy? And if it starts doing that, it might as well nationalise the-… Oh. Okay, I get it now…

As disgraceful and unjustifiable as these bonuses were/are, they did not lead directly to the banks’ bankruptcy. Poor lending and investment decisions and reckless risk-taking did. So although we might feel better confiscating money from rich people, the actual effect on our economy would be negligible. And making yourself feel better is a very poor motivation for policy, whatever “the court of public opinion” might say on the matter.

And when any party starts producing policy “to secure the core vote”, it might as well write of the next election, go quietly into opposition right now and start thinking about the election after next.