There’s more at stake than just blocking no deal

Sienna Rodgers in Labour List announces that “Labour has launched a cross-party bid to block the possibility of the UK leaving the EU without a divorce deal”.

I think there’s more at stake than just blocking no deal.

This motion is only needed because there have been calls to suspend parliament. The fact that there is even talk of suspending parliament should scare everyone, even those on the side of Britain exiting the European Union.

Their argument was that we should wrestle back sovereignty from Europe, not give it to an elite group of self serving politicians. Suspending parliament is not acceptable under any circumstance. That’s us slipping and sliding, scrambling and scuffing, open eyed towards totalitarianism.

But that’s what happens when the world gets complicated, filled with nuance, and leaders frame every argument as a binary choice. I considered exactly this “totalitarian mindset” when I was working on one of my characters for CARR-10-N. This is an extract from something I wrote in 2013.

So the question I’m really asking is; what kind of person is attracted to totalitarianism? To answer that question you first need to ask; what allows totalitarianism to flourish? The short answer is uncertainty. In his paper “How to make enemies and influence people” (2) Alfonso Montuori characterises the “totalitarian mindset” as a response to the stress of contemporary pluralism. Basically we live in complex times full of ambiguity and uncertainty. We feel threatened. And when we’re backed into a corner we have a tendency to succumb to “simplistic, black-and-white solutions.” Montuori goes on to note that “individuals all over the world have sought relief from the uncertainty of a pluralistic world in the arms of absolute belief systems of a religious fundamentalist and/or political/nationalistic nature.” 

2013/02/08

If that doesn’t describe the current mess nothing does. Jeremy Corbyn has been criticised for a “muddy” position on Britain exiting the European Union, but muddy’s what we need. We need nuance not black and white choices. Black and white choices are what got us here in the first place. There are no easy answers in any of this, but sleepwalking a totalitarian government into office is not the answer.

Johnson will start fires we’ll find hard to put out

Sienna Rodgers reports, LabourList readers think “Boris Johnson is biggest threat to Corbyn and the country”. I’m not sure you can extrapolate LabourList readers to represent the wider population, but some of the statistics are a concern.

“Which of the following potential candidates do you think would be most difficult for Jeremy Corbyn to beat in a general election?” Readers fear Mr. Johnson the most at 45.2%. Why? Is it because he’s the Donald Trump of British politics? A “strong personality” who can charm people? A hook upon which the dissatisfied can hang their frustration? Isn’t that Nigel Farage’s unique selling point, a voice for the angry and disaffected?

I think Johnson has a better education than Trump, and is more articulate than Farage, but when the bombs start landing I’m sure he’ll do what’s best for Boris Johnson, not what’s best for this country.

I heard the end of an interview on Radio 4 a couple of days ago. Two pundits talking about Johnson and the possibility of him becoming a Prime Minister. One extolled his virtues as a “man who lights up a room” when he enters. The other highlighted his considerable lack of moral character, and his bumbling indiscretions as Foreign Secretary.

Personally, I’m not sure I want someone who “lights up a room” as Prime Minister. He might be able to light up the country, but I fear he will start fires we’ll find hard to put out.

Universal Basic Income

I agree with Neal Lawson in his Labour List article, that “the aftermath of Brexit must be the creation of a 21st-century system of social security with BI at its beating heart”.

Labour List

But Universal Basic Income is not the entire solution. There are two key areas that need attention if basic income is to work. The first is housing. The second is transport.

Housing in this country is an expensive mess. If private landlords are the model we use to house those unable to buy, then we need controls on the renting market. We need a register of landlords, so unscrupulous landlords can be identified and barred from letting property. We need long term leases, five or ten year, so tenants have the security they need to plan a future. Finally, and most importantly, we need a ceiling on how much rent a tenant can be charged. We need to move away from a “market” led system, that has turned average incomes into poverty wages, we need a system based on incomes. Rents should be capped, set at say thirty per cent of a tenants take-home. Policies like this are the only way to make rents affordable.

The second issue that needs attention is transport. Public transport is expensive. The price of a season ticket rises as fast as service standards fall. Bus services are streamlined as sure as fares go up. Public transport needs to be cheap, and plentiful. That way it would become the affordable choice for most people.

A secondary benefit of cheaper housing and transport is spending power. If people weren’t made poor by housing and transport costs, they’d have more money to spend in the wider economy.

Finally, we shouldn’t see Universal Basic Income as an expense, it should be seen as an investment, a way to stimulate the entrepreneurial spirit in people. The reason many people do not start their own business is the crippling consequences of failure. If you mitigate the consequences with a basic income, people would be much more likely to make creative choices.

The idea of a basic income isn’t new, the richest families have been using the system for centuries. Rich parents routinely fund their children, at the very least offering a cushion that breaks the fall of failure. You’re much more likely to take a risk if your failure is mitigated by family wealth.

A basic income would offer a cushion to the many not just the few. It would free people to be creative, entrepreneurial, and much more productive.