Labour's tougher line on bonuses

Party steps up the rhetoric but will it win back voters?

From the Labour conference

Alistair Darling's speech this afternoon was another example of the harsher line Labour ministers have taken on bank bonuses at the conference.

He promised that the new "clawback" system planned by the government would end the "reckless culture that puts short-term profits over long-term success". He also said: "It will mean an end to automatic bank bonuses year after year. It will mean an end to immediate payouts for top management."

But will it help lift Labour's dismal poll ratings? Today's ComRes poll for the Independent put the party level with the Lib Dems on 23 per cent, with the Tories on 38 per cent. Even allowing for the Lib Dems' standard post-conference bounce this is a remarkably low level of support.

Labour's best hope probably does lie in a populist stance on bonuses and extravagant salaries, with more measures such as the popular 50p income-tax rate. The test will be whether the party offers sufficiently distinct policies from the Tories.

I'd expect David Cameron and George Osborne to promise similarly tough action on bonuses in Manchester next week. The election success of Angela Merkel's Christian Democrats, who won by tacking to the left on bonuses and pay, is likely to concentrate Conservative minds.

I'm off to hear Ed Miliband in conversation with Steve Richards this afternoon, but it's his brother who's been garnering favourable headlines today.

The ComRes poll I mentioned earlier found that Labour would perform better at the next election under David Miliband than any other alternative leader, with the exception of Jack Straw. Under either of the two, Labour would be the largest party in a hung parliament, opening the way for a coalition with the Lib Dems.

Miliband is certainly enjoying a better conference than last year. His address at last night's New Statesman party was confident, amusing and self-deprecating. He made light of the 2008 "banana incident" by quipping about the multiple photo opportunities this year's crop of fresh fruit stalls provides.

But those who suggest Miliband represents Labour's future forget that the trade unions continue to hold a third of the votes in Labour's electoral college. Many trade unionists regard the Foreign Secretary as little better than a Tory.

There's been less discussion of Straw's impressive performance in the poll, although in the past he's been spoken of as a possible caretaker leader. If Labour's defeat next year is as severe as some predict, its younger figures may wish to keep their powder dry until the party has regained ground.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Getty
Show Hide image

Leader: Trump and an age of disorder

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions.

The US presidency has not always been held by men of distinction and honour, but Donald Trump is by some distance its least qualified occupant. The leader of the world’s sole superpower has no record of political or military service and is ignorant of foreign affairs. Throughout his campaign, he repeatedly showed himself to be a racist, a misogynist, a braggart and a narcissist.

The naive hope that Mr Trump’s victory would herald a great moderation was dispelled by his conduct during the transition. He compared his country’s intelligence services to those of Nazi Germany and repeatedly denied Russian interference in the election. He derided Nato as “obsolete” and predicted the demise of the European Union. He reaffirmed his commitment to dismantling Obamacare and to overturning Roe v Wade. He doled out jobs to white nationalists, protectionists and family members. He denounced US citizens for demonstrating against him. Asked whether he regretted any part of his vulgar campaign, he replied: “No, I won.”

Of all his predilections, Mr Trump’s affection for Vladimir Putin is perhaps the most troubling. When the 2012 Republican presidential nominee, Mitt Romney, warned that Russia was the “number one geopolitical foe” of the US, he was mocked by Barack Obama. Yet his remark proved prescient. Rather than regarding Mr Putin as a foe, however, Mr Trump fetes him as a friend. The Russian president aims to use the US president’s goodwill to secure the removal of American sanctions, recognition of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and respect for the murderous reign of the Syrian president, Bashar al-Assad. He has a worryingly high chance of success.

Whether or not Mr Trump has personal motives for his fealty (as a lurid security dossier alleges), he and Mr Putin share a political outlook. Both men desire a world in which “strongmen” are free to abuse their citizens’ human rights without fear of external rebuke. Mr Trump’s refusal to commit to Nato’s principle of collective defence provides Mr Putin with every incentive to pursue his expansionist desires. The historic achievement of peace and stability in eastern Europe is in danger.

As he seeks reconciliation with Russia, Mr Trump is simultaneously pursuing conflict with China. He broke with precedent by speaking on the telephone with the Taiwanese president, Tsai Ing-wen, and used Twitter to berate the Chinese government. Rex Tillerson, Mr Trump’s secretary of state nominee, has threatened an American blockade of the South China Sea islands.

Mr Trump’s disregard for domestic and international norms represents an unprecedented challenge to established institutions. The US constitution, with its separation of powers, was designed to restrain autocrats such as the new president. Yet, in addition to the White House, the Republicans also control Congress and two-thirds of governorships and state houses. Mr Trump’s first Supreme Court appointment will ensure a conservative judicial majority. The decline of established print titles and the growth of “fake news” weaken another source of accountability.

In these circumstances, there is a heightened responsibility on the US’s allies to challenge, rather than to indulge, Mr Trump. Angela Merkel’s warning that co-operation was conditional on his respect for liberal and democratic values was a model of the former. Michael Gove’s obsequious interview with Mr Trump was a dismal example of the latter.

Theresa May has rightly rebuked the president for his treatment of women and has toughened Britain’s stance against Russian revanchism. Yet, although the UK must maintain working relations with the US, she should not allow the prospect of a future trade deal to skew her attitude towards Mr Trump. Any agreement is years away and the president’s protectionist proclivities could yet thwart British hopes of a beneficial outcome.

The diplomatic and political conventions embodied by the “special relationship” have endured for more than seven decades. However, Mr Trump’s election may necessitate their demise. It was the belief that the UK must stand “shoulder to shoulder” with the US that led Tony Blair into the ruinous Iraq War. In this new age of disorder, Western leaders must avoid being willing accomplices to Mr Trump’s agenda. Intense scepticism, rather than sycophancy, should define their response.

This article first appeared in the 19 January 2016 issue of the New Statesman, The Trump era