Vicky Pryce in a police van after being sentenced. Photograph: Getty Images
Show Hide image

Talking yourself into jail, the “sidebar of shame” and the lonely Falklands Three

Also: how many journalists does it take to watch some smoke change colour?

It’s no wonder the trial of Chris Huhne and Vicky Pryce has received such extensive coverage. Its characters are irresistible, its twists are labyrinthine and, like all great tragedies, the “inciting incident” (three penalty points) was so petty that you can’t believe it caused everything that followed.

Hours before he was sentenced to eight months in jail, Huhne, a former journalist, emerged from hiding to apologise, finally, for years of deception. Meanwhile, Pryce has kept silent. In the emails she exchanged with the Sunday Times’s Isabel Oakeshott, she wrote repeatedly about “nailing” her ex-husband and ending his career. What she apparently could not see – and what neither Oake shott nor the Mail on Sunday, to which she subsequently took the story, drummed into her – was that bringing Huhne down would inevitably implicate her. Given this omission, and that News International later handed the emails to the Crown Prosecution Service, she might now be wishing she had shut up sooner.

Let’s hope that some good will come out of the case. First, the realisation that handing out prison sentences for motoring and other non-violent offences is absurdly punitive and a ludicrous waste of resources. Second, that the defence of “marital coercion”, which can only be used by wives pressured by their husbands, is an anachronistic relic that should be scrapped immediately.

Holy smoke

There’s been a lot of chatter about the Atlantic’s request to the writer Nate Thayer that he let the magazine reprint an extract from a long article about North Korea in return for “exposure” (ie, for no money).

The incident led to a full week of dire, hand-wringing prognostications about the future of the media which left me feeling downcast – until I saw that 5,600 hacks had descended on Vatican City to cover the conclave to elect the new pope.

It made me think there should be a new joke: how many journalists does it take to watch some smoke change colour?

Up for the crack

My favourite moment at the Press Awards, newspapers’ annual beano, was the speech by Martin “Jurassic” Clarke, the Mail Online supremo, after his website won the Digital Award. First he told the host, the BBC’s Susanna Reid, that she always looked lovely when she appeared on the “sidebar of shame” (cue sharp intake of breath from the audience) and then he tried to rouse the assembled well-oiled hacks to revolution by insisting that Lord Justice Leveson wanted to legislate them out of existence.

The speech received what the theatre world euphemistically calls “mixed reviews” – but Clarke need not care. Mail Online now has 50 million unique monthly visitors and is expanding aggressively in the US. “People are addicted to it,” Clarke told the Financial Times. “It’s like journalism crack.”

Shock doctrine

I headed to Bafta on 11 March to hear Ken Levine, the creative director of Irrational Games, speak about BioShock Infinite, the game I’m most looking forward to playing this year. It’s an indirect sequel of BioShock (2007), which was set in an underwater city built as a Randian objectivist utopia (yes, really).

This time, the city is in the sky and the themes explored include racism and American exceptionalism. Levine firmly believes that games can address difficult and sensitive topics: in other words, they’re growing up.

Game changer

Just as video games are getting better, so is the writing about them. For the past six months, I’ve been a judge on the Games Journalism Prize, winnowing down 1,300 entries to a shortlist of 20. That list includes an article by a serving US soldier writing about first-person shooters and a memoir by Jenn Frank that interweaves recollections of a 1990s game called Creatures with reflections on her adoption and her fears of having children of her own. Before the Levine event, I ran into a veteran journalist who told me that his five favourite games writers were all women. Truly, the times they are a-changin’.

Back and forth

The New Statesman’s centenary is fast approaching and, as well as looking back by reprinting great pieces from the archive (which you can see more of on our new blog, the Old Statesman), we’re looking forward.

The NS website is going from strength to strength, with well over a million readers a month. One of my proudest boasts is that half of our bloggers are women. (I hear rumours that they’re also half of the population. Surely not?) On 4 April, you can see eight of us discuss the future of feminism at an NS centenary event at Conway Hall in London for the princely sum of £5.

All together now

Who will dare own up to being one of the Falklands Three? In the islands’ referendum, 99.8 per cent of the population voted to stay British, with just 0.2 per cent – three people – dissenting. North Korea’s Kim Jong-il and Soviet leaders regularly used to get 100 per cent and certain US districts voted entirely for Obama or Romney last year but our Returning Officer, Stephen Brasher, believes the Falklands might have had the most unanimous genuine election result ever recorded.

 

Helen Lewis is deputy editor of the New Statesman. She has presented BBC Radio 4’s Week in Westminster and is a regular panellist on BBC1’s Sunday Politics.

Jeremy Corbyn. Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

Lexit: the EU is a neoliberal project, so let's do something different when we leave it

Brexit affords the British left a historic opportunity for a decisive break with EU market liberalism.

The Brexit vote to leave the European Union has many parents, but "Lexit" – the argument for exiting the EU from the left – remains an orphan. A third of Labour voters backed Leave, but they did so without any significant leadership from the Labour Party. Left-of-centre votes proved decisive in determining the outcome of a referendum that was otherwise framed, shaped, and presented almost exclusively by the right. A proper left discussion of the issues has been, if not entirely absent, then decidedly marginal – part of a more general malaise when it comes to developing left alternatives that has begun to be corrected only recently, under Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.

Ceding Brexit to the right was very nearly the most serious strategic mistake by the British left since the ‘70s. Under successive leaders Labour became so incorporated into the ideology of Europeanism as to preclude any clear-eyed critical analysis of the actually existing EU as a regulatory and trade regime pursuing deep economic integration. The same political journey that carried Labour into its technocratic embrace of the EU also resulted in the abandonment of any form of distinctive economics separate from the orthodoxies of market liberalism.

It’s been astounding to witness so many left-wingers, in meltdown over Brexit, resort to parroting liberal economics. Thus we hear that factor mobility isn’t about labour arbitrage, that public services aren’t under pressure, that we must prioritise foreign direct investment and trade. It’s little wonder Labour became so detached from its base. Such claims do not match the lived experience of ordinary people in regions of the country devastated by deindustrialisation and disinvestment.

Nor should concerns about wage stagnation and bargaining power be met with finger-wagging accusations of racism, as if the manner in which capitalism pits workers against each other hasn’t long been understood. Instead, we should be offering real solutions – including a willingness to rethink capital mobility and trade. This places us in direct conflict with the constitutionalised neoliberalism of the EU.

Only the political savvy of the leadership has enabled Labour to recover from its disastrous positioning post-referendum. Incredibly, what seemed an unbeatable electoral bloc around Theresa May has been deftly prized apart in the course of an extraordinary General Election campaign. To consolidate the political project they have initiated, Corbyn and McDonnell must now follow through with a truly radical economic programme. The place to look for inspiration is precisely the range of instruments and policy options discouraged or outright forbidden by the EU.

A neoliberal project

The fact that right-wing arguments for Leave predominated during the referendum says far more about today’s left than it does about the European Union. There has been a great deal of myth-making concerning the latter –much of it funded, directly or indirectly, by the EU itself.

From its inception, the EU has been a top-down project driven by political and administrative elites, "a protected sphere", in the judgment of the late Peter Mair, "in which policy-making can evade the constraints imposed by representative democracy". To complain about the EU’s "democratic deficit" is to have misunderstood its purpose. The main thrust of European economic policy has been to extend and deepen the market through liberalisation, privatisation, and flexiblisation, subordinating employment and social protection to goals of low inflation, debt reduction, and increased competitiveness.

Prospects for Keynesian reflationary policies, or even for pan-European economic planning – never great – soon gave way to more Hayekian conceptions. Hayek’s original insight, in The Economic Conditions of Interstate Federalism, was that free movement of capital, goods, and labour – a "single market" – among a federation of nations would severely and necessarily restrict the economic policy space available to individual members. Pro-European socialists, whose aim had been to acquire new supranational options for the regulation of capital, found themselves surrendering the tools they already possessed at home. The national road to socialism, or even to social democracy, was closed.

The direction of travel has been singular and unrelenting. To take one example, workers’ rights – a supposed EU strength – are steadily being eroded, as can be seen in landmark judgments by the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in the Viking and Laval cases, among others. In both instances, workers attempting to strike in protest at plans to replace workers from one EU country with lower-wage workers from another, were told their right to strike could not infringe upon the "four freedoms" – free movement of capital, labour, goods, and services – established by the treaties.

More broadly, on trade, financial regulation, state aid, government purchasing, public service delivery, and more, any attempt to create a different kind of economy from inside the EU has largely been forestalled by competition policy or single market regulation.

A new political economy

Given that the UK will soon be escaping the EU, what opportunities might this afford? Three policy directions immediately stand out: public ownership, industrial strategy, and procurement. In each case, EU regulation previously stood in the way of promising left strategies. In each case, the political and economic returns from bold departures from neoliberal orthodoxy after Brexit could be substantial.

While not banned outright by EU law, public ownership is severely discouraged and disadvantaged by it. ECJ interpretation of Article 106 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) has steadily eroded public ownership options. "The ECJ", argues law professor Danny Nicol, "appears to have constructed a one-way street in favour of private-sector provision: nationalised services are prima facie suspect and must be analysed for their necessity". Sure enough, the EU has been a significant driver of privatisation, functioning like a ratchet. It’s much easier for a member state to pursue the liberalisation of sectors than to secure their (re)nationalisation. Article 59 (TFEU) specifically allows the European Council and Parliament to liberalise services. Since the ‘80s, there have been single market programmes in energy, transport, postal services, telecommunications, education, and health.

Britain has long been an extreme outlier on privatisation, responsible for 40 per cent of the total assets privatised across the OECD between 1980 and 1996. Today, however, increasing inequality, poverty, environmental degradation and the general sense of an impoverished public sphere are leading to growing calls for renewed public ownership (albeit in new, more democratic forms). Soon to be free of EU constraints, it’s time to explore an expanded and fundamentally reimagined UK public sector.

Next, Britain’s industrial production has been virtually flat since the late 1990s, with a yawning trade deficit in industrial goods. Any serious industrial strategy to address the structural weaknesses of UK manufacturing will rely on "state aid" – the nurturing of a next generation of companies through grants, interest and tax relief, guarantees, government holdings, and the provision of goods and services on a preferential basis.

Article 107 TFEU allows for state aid only if it is compatible with the internal market and does not distort competition, laying out the specific circumstances in which it could be lawful. Whether or not state aid meets these criteria is at the sole discretion of the Commission – and courts in member states are obligated to enforce the commission’s decisions. The Commission has adopted an approach that considers, among other things, the existence of market failure, the effectiveness of other options, and the impact on the market and competition, thereby allowing state aid only in exceptional circumstances.

For many parts of the UK, the challenges of industrial decline remain starkly present – entire communities are thrown on the scrap heap, with all the associated capital and carbon costs and wasted lives. It’s high time the left returned to the possibilities inherent in a proactive industrial strategy. A true community-sustaining industrial strategy would consist of the deliberate direction of capital to sectors, localities, and regions, so as to balance out market trends and prevent communities from falling into decay, while also ensuring the investment in research and development necessary to maintain a highly productive economy. Policy, in this vision, would function to re-deploy infrastructure, production facilities, and workers left unemployed because of a shutdown or increased automation.

In some cases, this might mean assistance to workers or localities to buy up facilities and keep them running under worker or community ownership. In other cases it might involve re-training workers for new skills and re-fitting facilities. A regional approach might help launch new enterprises that would eventually be spun off as worker or local community-owned firms, supporting the development of strong and vibrant network economies, perhaps on the basis of a Green New Deal. All of this will be possible post-Brexit, under a Corbyn government.

Lastly, there is procurement. Under EU law, explicitly linking public procurement to local entities or social needs is difficult. The ECJ has ruled that, even if there is no specific legislation, procurement activity must "comply with the fundamental rules of the Treaty, in particular the principle of non-discrimination on grounds of nationality". This means that all procurement contracts must be open to all bidders across the EU, and public authorities must advertise contracts widely in other EU countries. In 2004, the European Parliament and Council issued two directives establishing the criteria governing such contracts: "lowest price only" and "most economically advantageous tender".

Unleashed from EU constraints, there are major opportunities for targeting large-scale public procurement to rebuild and transform communities, cities, and regions. The vision behind the celebrated Preston Model of community wealth building – inspired by the work of our own organisation, The Democracy Collaborative, in Cleveland, Ohio – leverages public procurement and the stabilising power of place-based anchor institutions (governments, hospitals, universities) to support rooted, participatory, democratic local economies built around multipliers. In this way, public funds can be made to do "double duty"; anchoring jobs and building community wealth, reversing long-term economic decline. This suggests the viability of a very different economic approach and potential for a winning political coalition, building support for a new socialist economics from the ground up.

With the prospect of a Corbyn government now tantalisingly close, it’s imperative that Labour reconciles its policy objectives in the Brexit negotiations with its plans for a radical economic transformation and redistribution of power and wealth. Only by pursuing strategies capable of re-establishing broad control over the national economy can Labour hope to manage the coming period of pain and dislocation following Brexit. Based on new institutions and approaches and the centrality of ownership and control, democracy, and participation, we should be busy assembling the tools and strategies that will allow departure from the EU to open up new political-economic horizons in Britain and bring about the profound transformation the country so desperately wants and needs.

Joe Guinan is executive director of the Next System Project at The Democracy Collaborative. Thomas M. Hanna is research director at The Democracy Collaborative.

This is an extract from a longer essay which appears in the inaugural edition of the IPPR Progressive Review.