A round of Cuba Libres!

Keyboard activists plot Cuba's political future, while Tories salute Miliband's apology

In the week Fidel Castro declared he would not complete his half century as leader of Cuba, the blogosphere said farewell to the longest ever serving communist leader.

Conservative Party Retile, who fears an “endless hagiographic encomia” from the BBC and Channel 4 following the announcement, writes: “Rather like one of his speeches, you rationally knew it would come to an end at some point, but had trouble really believing that it [would].”

Daniel Finkelstein brings together a collection of, what he describes as, some of the best reporting of Cuba under Castro's leadership, including Arthur Miller's account of when he met the bearded one.

Luke Akehurst bids farewell to Castro and looks to Cuba’s future: “Maybe the communists would win, but personally I hope Cubans would choose a third way which kept Cuba's commitment to free healthcare and education while bringing in freedom of speech, political pluralism and an end to the command economy.” Perhaps some sort of utopia will suffice.

Dave Osler uses his experiences of living in Cuba to weigh up the pros and cons of Castro’s regime. He concludes by describing his own dystopia: “We need to stress that a democratic opening is essential if Cuba is to avoid the build up of discontent on the scale of 1980s Eastern Europe, and the eventual introduction of a particularly savage brand of neoliberal capitalism.

“I’d hate to go back in a few years and find that heart-stoppingly beautiful Old Havana had reverted to its former role as one big extended casino-cum-whorehouse theme park for gringos.”

David Miliband’s apology on behalf of the government for cover-ups over US rendition flights was greeted by praise by some unlikely sources. Both Iain Dale and the Daily Mail’s Benedict Brogan showed support, the later writes: “His public performances have been criticised, often justifiably, as too glib or juvenile, but he hit the right note, and it was refreshing to have humility rather than swagger at the despatch box.”

The good will across the political divide extended to Tom Watson’s blog. When John Redwood responded to a Watson post, Ellee Seymour wonders if it marks a turning point in political bogging and if it is the first time an MP has posted a comment on another MP’s blog.

The Labour MP had quoted Redwood’s statement on the Conservatives’ view on the nationalisation of Northern Rock. The interaction was supported by other political bloggers, including Tim Ireland and Curly, for its civility. A far cry from the oft-raucous Commons floor.

Owen Walker is a journalist for a number of titles within Financial Times Business, primarily focussing on pensions. He recently graduated from Cardiff University’s newspaper journalism post-graduate course and is cursed by a passion for Crystal Palace FC.
Getty
Show Hide image

Richmond is a wake-up call for Labour's Brexit strategy

No one made Labour stand in Richmond Park. 

Oh, Labour Party. There was a way through.

No one made you stand in Richmond Park. You could have "struck a blow against the government", you could have shared the Lib Dem success. Instead, you lost both your dignity and your deposit. And to cap it all (Christian Wolmar, take a bow) you self-nominated for a Nobel Prize for Mansplaining.

It’s like the party strategist is locked in the bowels of HQ, endlessly looping in reverse Olivia Newton John’s "Making a Good Thing Better".

And no one can think that today marks the end of the party’s problems on Brexit.

But the thing is: there’s no need to Labour on. You can fix it.

Set the government some tests. Table some amendments: “The government shall negotiate having regard to…”

  • What would be good for our economy (boost investment, trade and jobs).
  • What would enhance fairness (help individuals and communities who have missed out over the last decades).
  • What would deliver sovereignty (magnify our democratic control over our destiny).
  • What would improve finances (what Brexit makes us better off, individually and collectively). 

And say that, if the government does not meet those tests, the Labour party will not support the Article 50 deal. You’ll take some pain today – but no matter, the general election is not for years. And if the tests are well crafted they will be easy to defend.

Then wait for the negotiations to conclude. If in 2019, Boris Johnson returns bearing cake for all, if the tests are achieved, Labour will, and rightly, support the government’s Brexit deal. There will be no second referendum. And MPs in Leave voting constituencies will bear no Brexit penalty at the polls.

But if he returns with thin gruel? If the economy has tanked, if inflation is rising and living standards have slumped, and the deficit has ballooned – what then? The only winners will be door manufacturers. Across the country they will be hard at work replacing those kicked down at constituency offices by voters demanding a fix. Labour will be joined in rejecting the deal from all across the floor: Labour will have shown the way.

Because the party reads the electorate today as wanting Brexit, it concludes it must deliver it. But, even for those who think a politician’s job is to channel the electorate, this thinking discloses an error in logic. The task is not to read the political dynamic of today. It is to position itself for the dynamic when it matters - at the next general election

And by setting some economic tests for a good Brexit, Labour can buy an option on that for free.

An earlier version of this argument appeared on Jolyon Maugham's blog Waiting For Tax.

Jolyon Maugham is a barrister who advised Ed Miliband on tax policy. He blogs at Waiting for Tax, and writes for the NS on tax and legal issues.