How to get rid of a democratically elected leader

Quote

How to get rid of a democratically elected leader – advice for rebel MPs

First and most importantly, play the long game. Don’t jump in with some half-baked scheme like a mass resignation… and particularly don’t do it if you haven’t a plan as to what to do if the leader refuses to step down.

Why not?

One, the membership is going to know that you have absolutely no respect for them … or for democracy.

Two, you will look very silly when you find yourself trying to justify your behaviour.

Three, you are dependent on the goodwill of your activists to get re-elected.

However, if you unfortunately do find yourselves forced into another leadership contest, whatever you do, don’t try to stop the leader being on the ballot paper by legal or any other means! And don’t expel or exclude members from voting on spurious grounds.   These are a total godsend for baking in and increasing your unwanted leader’s mandate.

Of course, it is all to the good if you succeed in disgusting some members into resigning from the party but there is also the danger that more will be disgusted into backing the leader.

Over and above all this, there are two predictable consequences.

The first is who is going to be stupid enough to put themselves up against the leader in these circumstances? It is bound to be a second rate candidate who will be an embarrassment and will justifiably entrench the view of the leader as the best choice.

Secondly, resigning from the shadow cabinet leaves the space for the leader to appoint his supporters, and allow the ‘wrong’ sort of new-intake MPs to gain valuable experience of ministerial office for the future.

 

Finally, don’t choose a moment when the government is on its knees. You really don’t want anyone to be able to accuse you of putting your own interests before the good of the country.   Even worse, you don’t want to be accused of trying to destroy the party rather than let the democratically leader lead.

 

So if that’s the wrong way, what is a more successful strategy?

 

First of all, if you stand back and analyse the problem dispassionately, you will see that there are only two routes to deposing the leader.

One is to induce him to stand down by bullying, misrepresenting, maligning, vilifying, denigrating, disparaging and smearing him and his team. You need to pick on everything and anything… be outraged, constantly outraged … magnify and blame the leader however ludicrous the suggestion.   All the isms are good… sexism, racism, being anti-Jewish people … and don’t forget to smear his supporters with the same. Accuse the leader of having created a personality cult, a mob that frightens women MPs with their threats of violence or worse. Meanwhile, keep on antagonizing the membership – if they object (however passively) you can get them expelled or suspended. Ditto CLPs who vote in officers who are supportive of the leader. These can be shut down for any number of reasons with the help of existing councilors and MPs.

By the way, don’t forget to smear the membership as being looney-entryists who don’t do any work and are deviously trying to make the party unelectable.

Brilliant if you can use all your contacts with sympathetic members of the mainstream media to get them to jump on the bandwagon.   This will of course be made all the easier by the natural inclination of the government’s supporters. The real humdinger is to get previously loyal supporters to turn on the leader.

However, there is a most important caveat. Do not let your chosen successor or his/her potential shadow cabinet members get pulled into this attack programme. They must keep their hands clean.

It is imperative to triangulate the ‘attack’ team with the ‘future leaders’ team.  The first team should be the shock troops who will create the space in which the leader is wounded, undermined and discredited.

The second team must be more consensual and tonally emollient.  As conflict flares, this group should move incrementally into the space opened up by the first group’s assault. They need to be pained about the disunity and the abrasive nature of the debate, but will acknowledge the need for it.

If asked about the leader, the ‘future leaders’ need to say how much they like and respect the leader but with great sadness, they cannot believe that he is up to the job. Again, this has greatest impact when it comes from well-known previous supporters of the leader.

But I said that there are two routes. The second is a real headache in terms of deposing a leader who won’t resign… and that is what to do about the majority of party members who support the leader.

You need to acknowledge that you are not going to convince them overnight that they were wrong. Be patient because over time, with the national campaign you are mounting, the atmosphere in the party will become increasingly acrimonious at branch and constituency levels.

Above all remember that the members are unlikely to accept a replacement for the leader, until it is demonstrated to the party members that he is unelectable.

But you can surely arrange that. Your press briefings and outrage will have made it clear to the electorate that it is not a party worth voting for, so numbers should plummet in the Opinion polling… and it should be little problem to utilise those local party members and constituency officers who backed the ‘mainstream’ candidate in the leadership contest. They are frequently those in positions of power, know their way around the rule book and procedure and can run rings around the new naïve membership.

Make sure that for local elections and (most importantly) by-elections, the candidates that are adopted, are as anti to the leadership and his policies as possible. Doubly humiliate the membership by getting them to work for the election of candidates who will do their best to bring down the leadership.

Either which way, this is a great strategy. If the election is won, it is in spite of the leader and if it’s lost, it’s the leader’s fault. It will be even better, if the successful new Mayor, MP etc can publicly snub the leader… superb anti-leader publicity and inviting the membership to feel really stupid for having backed the candidate.

So in summary, the job is to undermine and discredit the leader at all times, regardless of how mindless and unjustified the attacks but remember to keep the chosen successor away from the fray. On no account, acknowledge any successes that the leader may have. In fact, ignore him. Talk in public as if he does not exist, deny that he has any policies and suggest that the party is not opposing the government.

With regard to the membership… well they really don’t matter apart from turning them off voting for the leader. The more disillusioned, the angrier and the more disempowered they feel, the better. You want them to either turn against the leadership or leave.

Then as soon as you’ve got the party back, make sure that such a situation can never, ever, ever happen again.

A final warning, consider how you feel about the deputy leader. If the leader steps down, the deputy leader could argue that they are the legitimate leader. It’s what happens in the US when the President is assassinated and you don’t want to jump out of the frying pan into the fire.

 

Interesting links:

Oliver Tickell wrote way back in November 2015:

To understand is to resist

The first thing is for us all to understand what is going on. The rush to attack and denounce Corbyn is not based on anything he said. After all, what’s to disagree with?

It is not a sign that a debate is taking place in the Labour Party. The ferocity and intensity of the attacks is, on the contrary, intended precisely to prevent rational debate and forestall any reasonable discussion of the issues.

The purpose is simple. It is to brand Corbyn a softie, a cissy, an ex-hippy peacenik, unfit to rule, weak on defence, a risk to national security, a left-wing corduroy-jacketed beardie scarcely fit to serve as a humanities lecturer in third rate ex-Polytechnic University.

It is above all to present him as, and render him, unelectable – a man who can only lead Labour to abject failure in any future general election. And so convince the great mass of the Labour Party to turn against their failed left-wing champion and elect in his place an ‘heir to Blair’. Someone more like … David Cameron?

So first, understand. Second, don’t fall for it. Third, resist.

http://www.theecologist.org/blogs_and_comments/commentators/2986318/shooting_to_kill_corbyn_the_coup_is_on.html

 

 

(Personal disclaimer: The blogger is a Jeremy Corbyn supporter and will continue to support him and his policies until such time as he freely decides to step down.)

Housing in Crisis : A Clear Failure of Free Market Policy

Quote

Housing in Crisis:

By Henry Stewart : @happyhenry

If councils had continued to build homes at the rate they did from 1974 to 1979, we would by 2014 have had 4.1 million extra dwellings.

That fact perhaps on its own explains the current housing crisis. Now it might not have been possible to build that many homes. Perhaps, due to available land, they would only have built half that, or a quarter of that, number. But even just a quarter would have meant we would not have the same level of housing shortage or, probably, prices as unaffordable as we face today.

The decision to stop local authorities building houses was a political one, taken by the government of Margaret Thatcher. It was based on a belief in the market. Surely, the argument went, if the housing market was not “crowded out” by public construction then the free market would respond and provide the homes that were needed.

Restrictions on council house building were not only continued by her successors, but further tightened. The average 32,000 council houses built each year from 1979 to 1990 was well down on Labour’s 152,000 from 1974-79. However under John Major it fell to an average 3,500 from 1990 to 1997. Under Tony Blair, from 1997 to 2007, just 357 council homes were built each year on average.

house-chart

 

Local authority Housing Association Private Total
Labour, 1974-79 151,678 21,978 144,240 295,920
Thatcher, 1980-90 31,905 14,684 166,417 211,147
Major, 1990-97 3,584 33,052 147,114 183,323
Blair, 1997-07 357 23,712 180,657 202,738
Brown, 2007-10 680 29,847 123,437 153,963
Cameron, 2010-14 2,830 27,158 106,345 140,335

Source: Table 208 House building: permanent dwellings started, by tenure¹ and country2

https://www.gov.uk/government/statistical-data-sets/live-tables-on-house-building

 

The number of dwellings built by housing associations during Blair’s years in office also fell, to 10,000 less per year than under Major. We know from Nick Clegg’s memoirs that, for Cameron and Osborne, there were clear political reasons not to increase social housing. He remembers one of them saying “I don’t understand why you keep going on about the need for more social housing – it just creates Labour voters”

 

Why Labour did remove the ban on councils building more homes is more of a mystery. Owen Jones has said that he once asked Hazel Blears, who had been Secretary of State for Local Government, why Labour did not ensure more public housing was built. The reply: “None of us knew anybody in social housing so we weren’t aware of the scale of the problem.”

Private sector house building did rise. But the 22,000 extra houses built each year from 1979 to 1990 did not come near to making up for the 120,000 annual shortfall in council houses. Neither was a shift made to housing associations, which built an average 7,000 homes a year less during the Thatcher years than under the previous Labour government.

Free market advocates would probably claim that the failure of the private sector to bridge the gap was down to market flaws, such as a shortage of land and planning restrictions. However a successful free market creates a balance of supply and demand, but there is no reason to suggest it will meet a public need for affordable housing.

Faced with a choice between using a piece of land for a £20 million mansion or 90 affordable homes at £200,000 each, it is always going to be the mansion that is more profitable. That is an extreme example. But the choice between 45 expensive home or 90 affordable ones is probably more common. It is clear that, without planning intervention, private developers will tend to build for the more affluent part of the market.

“Subsidised” housing? Or efficient housing?

David Cameron liked to describe social housing as “subsidised”, suggesting that the lower prices faced by council or housing association tenants was due to public subsidy. However social housing in the UK receives no such subsidy.

Cameron’s description was a recognition that social housing provides more affordable homes. It is also a recognition that the public sector can provide homes, without subsidy, at a better price (and often better quality) than the private sector. It is simply more efficiently provided housing.

The housing sector is a clear example that the free market cannot provide the solutions to all our public needs and indeed that it is often the public sector that can do so more efficiently and at lower cost.

Jeremy Corbyn has pledged to build 100,000 council house a year if elected. It does seem to be a policy that makes simple sense. It does not even need an increase in central government expenditure or in taxation, but only a removal of the restrictions on local authorities securing loans to build homes.

During the 2015 election the Green Party leader had difficulty explaining where the money would come from for public house building. Evan Davis on Newsnight explained it very simply: all that is needed is for councils to borrow the money on the public bond markets, and then to to use the resulting rent to pay both the loans and the interest. No extra public expenditure is required.

The housing crisis is a problem created by political ideology being put ahead of what was society needs. But it is also a problem that can start to be solved very easily by a return to public housing.

priced-out-graph

http://www.pricedout.org.uk/why

 

Corbyn’s excellent unreported Speech

Quote

Yet again, there has been an almost total lack of reporting on Jeremy Corbyn’s response to this most slippery of rightwing governments.   Yet again, only the Morning Star has fulfilled the role of the media.  Yet again, for the rest (and don’t mention Labour List!) the only aspects of interest were:

Jeremy Corbyn refusing to chat to Cameron en route to the House of Lords (they said how silly and rude – what?)

Jeremy Corbyn refusing to take interventions in his ’41 minute speech’ (actually 29 minutes and another Cameron ‘mispeak’)

Jeremy Corbyn being drowned out by non-stop Tory yelling (they said JC should have allowed interventions – why?)

This is not journalism.  It is trivialisation of the highest order given the seriousness of this government’s policies and intents.  Democracy requires accountability.  We get none from this Conservative Government and our mainstream media colludes in ignoring its own responsibility to report the words and policies of Jeremy Corbyn’s opposition LP.

 

Fortunately, RT has filled a gap by allowing us to hear Corbyn’s speech in its entirety (and to feel the disgust at the behaviour of the Tory MPs – how would anyone know that its the speaker’s role intervene).

The Morning Star’s report can be read here:

‘… Mr Corbyn said the government’s vague promises will do nothing to “create a more equal society, an economy that works for everyone and a society in which there is opportunity for all.

“Still this government does not seem to understand that cuts have their consequences,” he blasted.

“This austerity is a political choice, not an economic necessity, and it’s a wrong choice for our country made by a government with the wrong priorities — and it’s women that have been hit hardest by these cuts.”

 

The Tories would rather you didn’t vote because…

Quote

Screen Shot 2015-11-09 at 23.36.23

 

Last date to register online is Monday 16th November 2015

On 19 November 2015, local authorities will close their electoral registers so 16 November 2015 is the last day to register online.  It is easy to register to vote.  It takes less than 5 minutes but you’ll need your national insurance number. You can find out more and register by visiting www.gov.uk/register-to-vote

Why is it important?

The Conservative government is in a rush to change the constituency boundaries. It wants to ensure that the 2020 general election is fought over 600 seats, fifty fewer than the present allocation.

To achieve this, the government plans to use the electoral roll as it stands on 1 December 2015. The numbers on the roll will determine the size and shape of voters’ constituencies.

But millions of people are not on the electoral roll. This means that we are in danger of an electoral map of the UK that does not represent the people who live here.

We need to stop this. The best way to do so is to register to vote.

Why are millions missing?

Last year, the UK moved from the old household survey method of electoral registration to a new method of individual registration.

More time is needed to make Individual Electoral Registration (IER) work because millions of people are dropping off the electoral register.

Some 10 million citizens may not be counted when the government redraws constituency boundaries from April 2016.

Efforts to continue to find the missing millions were meant to carry on until 2016. However, on 16 July 16 2015, just before summer recess, the government moved the date forward to 1 December 2015. 

Stop the rush, democracy is at risk

Because of the hurried changes and because millions could lose their vote, the government has been advised to slow down and get this right.

The Electoral Commission said than an additional year was needed to allow the new system of IER to function.

The government rejected this advice and is pressing on with its plans to close the voter roll in December 2015, one year earlier than originally planned, and move to redraw the boundaries on that basis.

From December 2015, those people that local authorities have not been able to match with tax or benefit records and who have not re-registered and provided a National Insurance number will be taken off the electoral register. 

The missing millions matter

The new register will form the basis of the parliamentary constituency boundary review that the Conservative government wants in place before the 2020 election. Reducing the number of seats and redrawing the boundaries both favour the Conservatives.

The registers with the largest predicted drop off tend to be in large urban areas with a high incidence of multiple occupancy housing, regular home movers and large numbers of historically low propensity registering voters.

The 2016 boundary review will mean:

  • 31 constituencies could go in England
  • 7 in Scotland
  • 10 in Wales; and
  • 2 in Northern Ireland

The danger is that the UK will end up with a distorted electoral map in which urban areas and low propensity voters are under-represented.

According to IPSOS Mori, if the proposed boundary changes go ahead, Labour will need to ensure it has at least a 13 per cent lead over the Conservatives to stand any chance of winning the election (October 2015). 

Make sure you don’t lose out 

It is estimated that there are around 10 million eligible voters not on the electoral register. 

Dismantling constituencies on the basis of a voter roll that is not reflective of the real constituency population is a danger to democracy.

  • 23% of Hackney voters could drop off the electoral register in December
  • Birmingham could lose 7.7% of its electorate
  • Glasgow loses 67,225 voters, Birmingham loses 56,645
  • Cambridge loses 17% of its electors and that’s before an expected heavy drop off of students in the new college year
  • Six of the eight biggest drop-offs are in London, which overall loses as many as 415,013
  • London loses up to 6.9% of its voters while the South West only loses 2.8%, East of England 2.9% and the South East 3.5%.
  • Scotland is the next worst affected region, losing 5.5% of its voters.

The Boundary Commission is scheduled to start work on redrawing the constituency map of the UK, down from 650 to 600 seats, in April 2016. Under their rules, seats will be reallocated away from areas with high numbers of unverified voters who are typically young people, renters, certain ethnic minorities and students.

The situation is particularly bleak for young voters. Students now have to register individually. Electoral Commission data shows that the number of voters aged 17 dropped significantly with the introduction of IER in 2014. 

And the missing voters are not evenly distributed across the country – there are in the region of 120 local authorities that will see a fall in the number of registered voters in excess of the average of 4%.

www.unitetheunion.org/campaigning/no-vote-no-voice-campaign/#sthash.xt7kqqQD.eTClASyw.dpuf

Why is it important?

It’s not – if you are part of this Conservative government because it makes it harder for Labour to win in 2020.  If the Boundary Review goes ahead as planned, the House of Commons will have fewer MPs than at any point since 1800.  It is estimated that of the 50 cancelled constituencies, more than 30 are Labour held and of the remaining 600 seats, many will become much harder for Labour to win.  In the US, this is known as gerrymandering.  It doesn’t matter whether you think that you’re already registered – make sure by doing it again online before Monday!  And make sure that your friends, family and 16/17y olds register as well.

The very design of neoliberal principles is a direct attack on democracy and worker’s rights.