It's going to take me a
while to process everything to do with this referendum. As I write
this, I feel happy, excited, anxious, sad. However, as what is needed
now is some degree of boldness and vision on behalf of our nation's leaders,
it's surely right for me to contribute in my own very small way.
Now, one side effect I
hope for from this referendum is a serious shake-up in the two main
parties. Both have been shown to be desperately out of touch with
their socially conservative bases; it turns out the Labour Party now
only represents London, and the Conservative Party now only
represents a particularly leafy set of dormitory towns. I suspect
this is a particularly grievous blow for the Labour Party; in two
referenda, now, it has turned out not to know its base anymore, and
furthermore to be unable to communicate to them its own values.
The academic models which predicted Brexit vote in different places
accurately described most Tory areas; it significantly underestimated
the Brexit vote in Labour areas. The Labour Party cannot claim this
is solely because of the last 6 years of Tory government – it had 13 before that to change things, and whilst Blair and Brown achieved
some admirable things, their continuation of essentially Thatcherite,
globalist policies left the people of Torfaen and Teesside in the
dirt.
So here is my manifesto
for a Labour Party representing and helping its base. It draws upon
the diverse tradition of the Party – from Bevan to his arch-rival
Gaitskell, and in the present day from McDonnell to Glasman. It is,
broadly, Keynesian economically and socially conservative. It
operates on the basis that the market is a useful tool for the
protection of liberty and the creation of new solutions, but is not
in and of itself a moral force; Parliament, as the representative
body of the people, may enact laws to intervene in the economy where
appropriate. It believes that the problems which led Labour voters
to vote Leave are not fictional or got-up by newspapers they do not
read; it believes that the relentless obsession of successive
governments with London and with globalism have crippled and
abandoned Britain's industrial communities, and the members of those
communities have had enough. This is offered as one set of thoughts
as to how the Labour Party (or a hypothetical new party) might
actually address their problems and truly represent them. Not all of
it will be practicable, and I am avowedly not an expert; however, I
am, so far as I can tell, a well-informed layman, and other laypeople
might appreciate one vision of how Britain might look after Brexit.
I will begin with a
general point, before addressing a series of major policy areas,
starting with the most pressing ones coming out of the referendum
result.
A General Point –
Tightening Our Belts
It
may well be that the economy is hard-hit by Brexit; my general
judgement is that it is unlikely to be a catastrophe, but if there is
an economic crisis, a party representing the poor and downtrodden of
our nation must ensure the burden is spread fairly. We are told this
is our greatest crisis since World War 2; if so, we must take the
same attitude economically as we did in 1945. We must build. Those
more able to to bear the brunt of recession must do so. They have
benefited most whilst the sun is shining; now they must accept that
their largesse must cover us whilst it rains. George Osborne once
cynically declared that “we're all in this together”, and was
correctly derided for it; a worthy government will ensure that that happens.
Immigration
We
need economic migration – and a reasonable amount of it. We have a
growing and aging population. We need a solid tax base. However, we
can and should be able to judge what economic migration is needed.
Did anyone see the strange “debate of the people” on one channel?
I saw a few clips of it. In one, a black Londoner called Clem, who
had scraped his way up from unskilled labour to doing a part-time
degree, observed that his wages had always been rock-bottom and
working conditions had always been very marginal due to the sheer
glut of labour available – much of it from outside the UK.
Now,
no-one should sniff at the desire of any man or woman to travel
elsewhere for work; however, that does not make it incumbent on any
individual or nation to provide it. We need skilled workers in a
variety of industries, and should continue to recruit them. What our
next government must do is calculate the tax and skill needs this
nation has, and encourage immigration in accordance with that.
Meanwhile,
we should continue to accept refugees, perhaps in increasing numbers.
It should be obvious that where a nation in crisis has peaceful,
stable neighbours, those neighbours should bear the brunt of a
refugee crisis; however, our nation is very wealthy, and must be
willing to extend that opportunity to those who have had their own
chances ripped away by war and environmental disaster. The right
government post-Brexit will be a job creating government; there will
be work for refugees, and a chance to participate in our peaceful and
decent civil society.
The (Dis)United
Kingdom
Gibraltar,
Northern Ireland, and Scotland all voted to Remain in the European
Union – Gibraltar in absolutely overwhelming numbers. How best may
we both understand and respect their desire? Each presents a slightly
different problem with different solutions.
Gibraltar
has an easy solution (though Spain will deny it) – Gibraltar should
do a “reverse Greenland”. Denmark is a member of the EU; its
dependencies, Greenland and the Faroe Isles, are not. Gibraltar should
remain a member of the EU/EEA. There should be no brooking of joint
sovereignty with Spain – the inhabitants of the Rock decisively
rejected that a decade ago.
Northern
Ireland is a powder keg. I do not believe in referenda on the whole;
I especially do not believe in them in volatile, violent situations.
Northern Irish affairs should be determined through the normal
process of elections in that nation. If Unionists continue to gain a
majority vote and representation, then Northern Ireland should remain
united to Great Britain and leave the EU. If Republicans win, then it
has the right to decide on independence or Irish union. In the
meantime, a loose border arrangement with the Republic of Ireland
must be negotiated, allowing the present free movement to largely
continue; a special arrangement should be sought with Eire, based on
our cultural and historic ties and the practical requirements of a
shared border. Irish citizens should continue to have the opportunity
freely move within the British Isles.
Scotland
is another problem again. I would argue now (more than ever) that
Scotland is better off in the United Kingdom; I am absolutely certain
that the SNP has no solutions to the problems of the disenfranchised
poor of Lanarkshire and Lothian. I don't believe in referenda.
However, if the Scottish people, via their elected government, desire
independence and union with the EU, that must be their decision. A
referendum any time soon seems like a poor idea; the Scots have voted
twice this year already. Let us see how things shake out. If Scotland
does leave the United Kingdom, some special border arrangement must
be made, as with the Republic of Ireland. It should also be a “no
hard feelings” independence – even making the proviso that
Scotland may happily return at any time to the United Kingdom, within
reason. Let us not take the bullying, hectoring tone of Juncker et
al; the Scots are true Britons, with a British culture and a British
history, and if they find the EU as unpleasant as England and Wales
have, they should be welcomed back with open arms.
Trade
I
really want to research even more than I have before I say I have the
answers as to trade; this is partly because what happens next is
pretty unknown! Do we need preferential access to the EEA? Some
people say so. A negotiation including membership of the EEA (ala
Norway), whilst giving up important things (control of economic
migration, notably), is not incompatible with once again being a
sovereign nation – indeed, it will be the contingent decision of a
sovereign Parliament, retractable by later Parliaments. However, if –
as several economically knowledgeable writers have suggested – a 3%
tariff is the likely result of leaving the EEA, that may be bearable,
and in my judgement would be preferable. Trade both ways truly is
beneficial; if the EU were to demand a 10% tariff, for instance,
they'd simply have one thrown back at them, which would be quite
undesirable for them too. Indeed, even the 3% tariff should be
variable – our government should happily agree on protectionist
tariffs for strategic industries whilst agreeing on tariff-free or
low-tariff trade on other goods.
Industry
Two
things come under this heading: “industry” itself, and the rights
of workers.
As
for industry, the great gap in the British economy has been for
traditional working-class jobs. The systematic, politically-motivated
destruction of British industry and manufacturing by Thatcher and
Major – aiming to bless globalism and destroy the Labour Party –
was a great crime; it must in part be reversed. I don't mean we
should have enormous nationalised, inefficient industries – though
nationalised industries are an option. I mean that the government,
via grants, tax breaks, import tariffs, and the development of a
social market, should encourage the success of British industry and
manufacturing.
Some
things this could mean: using a weaker pound to encourage investment; the renationalisation of British steel and
the reopening of recently closed plants; a percentage of startup
capital and tax breaks being offered to manufacturing projects in
those sectors where we currently lean on EU trade, with a particular
emphasis on these projects starting up in deprived, post-industrial
areas; the development of new technologies giving the UK industrial
specialisations, such as high-grade steel recycling, or the
reclamation of metals like magnesium; an official Government
prioritization on using British-made goods, to create a guaranteed
market. Jobs are the real solution to the bloated benefits bill and
anaemic tax revenue; investing in industry post-Brexit is one of the
best budgetary decisions a government could make.
Secondly,
as to workers' rights: of course all beneficial rights first provided
by the EU must be retained or put properly into law. A large scale
reindustrialization will also provide grounds for revitalized trade
unions, with workers no longer relying on casual work in poor
conditions. Additionally, a market effect of reduced low-skilled
immigration will almost certainly be a rise in wages and a drop in
living costs in costly urban areas.
Health
First
of all, significant extra funding must be guaranteed to the NHS, to
cover its increasing costs – one thing I agree with the (otherwise
lamentable) Leave campaign is that any money saved on the EU should
go towards key services. However, there must also be serious reform
of the Byzantine back-end systems of the NHS – procurement must be
simplified and layers of management must be reduced. Money can and
should be found through the repudiation of the disastrous PFI
policies of Major and Blair; the expensive contracting out of
services to companies without an interest in patient welfare must
also cease. This may well mean a significant amount of the social
care sector coming under direct government control.
We
must continue to seek key workers overseas, but the next Government
should fund the foundation of further medical schools, training both
extra doctors and nurses. Indeed, let us look in the long term to be
a nation that exports medical skill; let Britain serve the world by
investing in training healers.
Defence
Well,
one white elephant we can scrap to save money is the outdated Trident
programme, which is functionally under the control of the United
States anyway. If we need a nuclear deterrent, let it be a new, far
cheaper land-based one.
Where
can that money saved go? Partly to “other things” - perhaps
particularly the industrial plans mentioned above. Partly, within the
context of our defence policy, ensuring we can protect our
dependencies (particularly the Falklands) and also participate in
peace-keeping and rebuilding programmes worldwide. So that means
aircraft carriers and the relevant planes, infantry, and engineering.
We
should also see Brexit as partly a response to the incessant
adventurism of British leaders over the last 15 years. The British
people do not see themselves as international policemen, and do not
believe financial, political, and human capital should be spent on
failed attempts to prop up Western hegemony, most of which only
result in more lives lost and more instability.
Education
This
is the only point I will address that does not directly relate to
leaving the European Union. I raise it because a cornerstone of a
worthwhile Labour Party ought to be genuinely meritocratic education
systems. The key is a return to Grammar Schools. I was a long-term
believer in the comprehensive project until, amongst other things, a
key statistic shook my confidence in it to the core. Currently, under
serious state pressure, Oxford accepts 55% of its pupils from state
schools, the other 45% from private schools. Let's consider this in
historical perspective: in 1938-39, Oxford accepted 62% of its pupils
from private schools – another 13% went to Direct Grant schools
(publicly funded private schools where the pupils came from poor
backgrounds) and 16% from other state schools, nearly entirely
grammar. In 1958-59, private schools accounted for 53% of Oxford
entrants, whilst 15% were from Direct Grant schools and another 30%
from state schools – again, overwhelmingly from grammars. In
1964-5, independent schools provided 45% of students, Direct Grant
17%, and state schools 34% The final year with official records –
1965-6 – gives private schools as providing 41%, Direct Grant 17%,
and state schools 40%. One former Oxford principal claims that by the
early 1970s state schools were winning 70% of Oxford places.
Severe
state pressure has got Oxford to accept 55% state school pupils –
still very heavily recruited from surviving grammars and posh comps,
which select by house prices or church attendance. The previous
system – whose destruction was started by in the mid '60s by Tony
Crosland, who had argued that comps were more effective social
engineering than nationalisation of industries – achieved, without
severe state pressure, something like a 58% entry rate of students
whose parents had not paid fees. Indeed, if the final statistic above
is accepted, that was more like 70%. Now, if such a system were to
return, there would have to be changes to ensure the new secondary
moderns are viable schools and children are not simply left behind –
both an 11+ and a 13+ test, carefully modelled curricula and
work-entry plans, and so forth. But one of the best ways the
“left-behinds” of post-industrial Britain can be served
post-Brexit is via an education system that gives their children a
chance of achieving their potential.
Environment
We
should here consider three points: environmental legislation, energy
policy, and farming.
Much
EU environmental legislation has been positive – think clean
beaches – and ought to be retained. Furthermore, a priority of a
post-Brexit Britain ought to be continued and further co-operation
with our European and global partners in dealing with the effects of
human activity on the environment. We cannot allow leaving the EU to
mean leaving the facts of geographic reality – Europe (including
those nations not in the EU, which /= Europe) shares many climate
challenges together and must face them together.
Of
course, we must be willing to use our political independence to make
decisions on environmental policy (and related areas) that helps our
nation. Energy is an obvious one here: this referendum vote was a
bodyblow to the globalist consensus, and a sign that we must, for
instance, take project ownership of the next generation of nuclear
reactors; we must work out effective ways of using our large stocks
of yet-unmined coal to tide us over until nuclear fusion and
reliable, efficient renewables are available; we must use our escape
from EU rules limiting nationalisation to renationalise the
inefficient, money-gouging energy industry.
Another
area where leaving the EU can benefit us is in how our farmers –
particularly those with smaller holdings – are supported and
encouraged by the government. This is a particularly urgent area for
a new government to deal with because of the loss of the
infrastructure the CAP provides. Removing the EU's current three-crop
rule for smaller holdings (I would retain it on larger holdings, at
least in some form) allows those with less room to compete to solely
grow crop that the market wants; encouraging a social market
preferencing British farm goods will provide a price buffer for
farmers, many of whom struggle at present with supermarkets driving
down buying prices. A post-Brexit government will also need to work
out which parts of the CAP were a necessary safety net (guaranteeing
that the majority of current CAP payments go to continued subsidy,
for instance), and what they need to add – lending into post-farm
manufacturing projects (like dairy plants), for instance.
Fishery
quotas will need to be retained, though perhaps altered to match our
particular situation; the chief benefits accruing to the fishing
industry by leaving the EU are giving British fishermen a monopoly
over British fishing grounds, and incentivizing the purchase of
British-caught fish via tariffs and social market initiatives.
Communities
The
vote by the Labour North is also a wholesale rejection of a policy
favouring urban centralization and especially the political
establishment's absorption with London. A government seeking to make
the best of Brexit must take the opportunity to return dignity and
importance to the many abandoned communities of Britain, especially
rural and semi-rural ones. This may be via diverting money directly
from London, Birmingham, and the rest to the deprived small towns and
villages of the Midlands and North; it may be via the encouragement
of large-scale private philanthropy, and the reclamation of a
tradition of those who have much directly providing amenities to
communities. Let the government build community centres, let
revitalized trade unions rebuild demolished Working Men's Clubs, and
let industrialists fund mobile libraries in rural Britain. Let this
be a joint effort of a united nation.
Some Miscellaneous
Points
There
are other legal and political benefits to leaving the EU. We should
ensure we avoid any further entanglement in the European Arrest
Warrant; that British citizens accused of crimes in other nations can
be forcibly extradited and imprisoned without any pre-trial is a
grievous breach of Habeas Corpus. Our courts' right of constitutional
interpretation will no longer be superseded by the European Court of
Justice on the 20% or so of our legal code which is presently
Brussels-tied. We will be able to intentionally orient ourselves to
the Anglophone and Anglophilic parts of the world, especially within
the Commonwealth.
But
above all this, we will have a truly sovereign Parliament,
accountable chiefly to the people who elected it rather than any
supranational body which actually holds the reins; it will be a
Parliament capable of making decisions (good and bad ones) on its
own. It will be the same Parliament that – stumbingly, sometimes
recklessly – has asserted its supremacy in this nation for
centuries. If you are not familiar with that history, feel free to
ask four generations of Stuart lairds who at Preston, Reading,
Sheriffmuir, and Culloden found their pretensions crushed. Sometimes
that Parliament will be full of men and women with views I cannot
stand; sometimes my own views will (perhaps!) be in the ascendant. It
will get things wrong. But – to paraphrase Orwell – it will
be our Parliament, right or left.
Conclusion
I
have not addressed any number of policy points which do not relate
directly to the EU; a bold, visionary manifesto for a socially
conservative, economically Keynesian party must also address our
awful transport policy, the disintegration of law and order in our
cities, and the destruction of the family as a key social unit,
amongst other things. However, I hope that the above will do for now,
in the face of the vote to Leave the European Union.
There
is future after Brexit. There is even the possibility of a bright and
prosperous future. There could be a Britain with jobs for the
currently dispossessed post-industrial working class of the North;
there could be a Britain which is known once again for making
products of quality, and for producing people of quality from all
backgrounds to serve both their own nation and the world; there could
be a Britain which welcomes refugees with open arms but protects the
living conditions of its own urban proletariat; there could be a
Britain which rejects a focus on urbanization and the city, instead
preferring a “mixed economy” of Town and Country, investing in
all of its communities and believing they all have something to
offer; there could be a Britain which engages in peacekeeping and
rebuilding but not reckless military action; there could be a Britain
where a sink comprehensive isn't the best education many of our
poorer kids can hope for; there could be a Britain which works with
other nations to protect the environment but which adopts sensible
energy and farming policies which suit our specific context.
There
could be a Britain.
