David Cameron launches the Conservative Party's European and local election campaign last month. Photograph: Getty Images.
Show Hide image

Cameron's zombie government is out of ideas and out of steam

The government has grown in size but has seriously diminished in purpose.

The Queen's Speech on Wednesday is David Cameron's last chance to live up to his own PR hype. Instead of breaking his promises and letting people down, he has to try and show that he has the ideas and values to tackle the major long-term challenges we must face in our economy, society and politics. He has to explain how we can earn and grow our way to a prosperity that can be shared by all rather than just a few at the top. Judging by his record since 2010, I'm not holding my breath. He doesn't have the answers because he doesn't have the right values. He just doesn't get it.

I've knocked on countless doors over the last few weeks, and people's alienation from politics has never been more pronounced. People don't understand why David Cameron is on their TV saying the economy is improving when they are still struggling to make ends meet. They don't understand why George Osborne crows about unemployment statistics when their zero-hours contract won't guarantee them a basic income, give them any security, or allow them to plan their life. And they don't understand why if we are all in this together, millionaires have been given a tax cut while the rest of us pay more.

If politics has one job, it is to answer the concerns of the nation. People are clear that David Cameron's government has not done so.

Recent months have shown that this is a government that has run out of steam and run out of ideas. Ministers should be bringing forward legislation to make work pay, to reform markets so they serve consumers and to increase the supply of affordable housing - but instead a lack of ideas and action has left Parliament twiddling its thumbs.

This government is now spending less Parliamentary time on legislation than at any point during the last Labour government. In the Parliamentary session 2012-13, just a third of time in the House of Commons Chamber was spent debating government legislation. The last session of Parliament had the fewest number of government Bills compared to any other year since 1950 -  fewer than even John Major's disastrous administration. The government is bulking out this years' Queen's Speech with a record number of "carry over" bills (bills they've already published). And MPs have been given the equivalent of an extra month off each year since 2010 because the government can't come up with anything for them to debate - and because it would rather rebellious Tory MPs were not in London plotting.

David Cameron claimed he would "cut the cost of politics" but this is the biggest government since reliable records began, with 121 Ministers, 95 Special Advisers and 160 new peers since 2010. This makes the House of Lords the largest legislative assembly outside of the Chinese National People's Congress in Beijing.

The government has grown in size but has seriously diminished in purpose. I've taken to calling this a zombie parliament because I've really not seen anything like it in my 22 years in the House. We have day after day with no legislation to discuss, and a government that seems completely unprepared to take the big decisions our country needs.

If this were Labour's Queen's Speech, we know exactly what we'd do. We'd tackle unfairness in the rental market by creating new long-term predictable tenancies. We'd tackle unfairness in the energy market by freezing gas and electricity prices until 2017. We'd tackle tax unfairness by cutting tax for working people. We'd stop jobs being undercut by foreign workers by enforcing the national minimum wage. We'd give unemployed young people a job guarantee. We'd help working parents with 25 hours free childcare. We’d guarantee an appointment with a GP within 48 hours. We’d back small business by cutting business rates and reforming the banks. We wouldn't just ignore this crisis in our living standards, a Labour government would tackle it head on.

In 11 months time, the country will face a clear choice. A choice between an ineffective, out-of-ideas government that wants to just leave people to sink or swim and a Labour government that believes our economy and our politics should work for everyone and not just a few at the top.

Angela Eagle is shadow leader of the House of Commons

Getty.
Show Hide image

Hannan Fodder: This week, Daniel Hannan gets his excuses in early

I didn't do it. 

Since Daniel Hannan, a formerly obscure MEP, has emerged as the anointed intellectual of the Brexit elite, The Staggers is charting his ascendancy...

When I started this column, there were some nay-sayers talking Britain down by doubting that I was seriously going to write about Daniel Hannan every week. Surely no one could be that obsessed with the activities of one obscure MEP? And surely no politician could say enough ludicrous things to be worthy of such an obsession?

They were wrong, on both counts. Daniel and I are as one on this: Leave and Remain, working hand in glove to deliver on our shared national mission. There’s a lesson there for my fellow Remoaners, I’m sure.

Anyway. It’s week three, and just as I was worrying what I might write this week, Dan has ridden to the rescue by writing not one but two columns making the same argument – using, indeed, many of the exact same phrases (“not a club, but a protection racket”). Like all the most effective political campaigns, Dan has a message of the week.

First up, on Monday, there was this headline, in the conservative American journal, the Washington Examiner:

“Why Brexit should work out for everyone”

And yesterday, there was his column on Conservative Home:

“We will get a good deal – because rational self-interest will overcome the Eurocrats’ fury”

The message of the two columns is straightforward: cooler heads will prevail. Britain wants an amicable separation. The EU needs Britain’s military strength and budget contributions, and both sides want to keep the single market intact.

The Con Home piece makes the further argument that it’s only the Eurocrats who want to be hardline about this. National governments – who have to answer to actual electorates – will be more willing to negotiate.

And so, for all the bluster now, Theresa May and Donald Tusk will be skipping through a meadow, arm in arm, before the year is out.

Before we go any further, I have a confession: I found myself nodding along with some of this. Yes, of course it’s in nobody’s interests to create unnecessary enmity between Britain and the continent. Of course no one will want to crash the economy. Of course.

I’ve been told by friends on the centre-right that Hannan has a compelling, faintly hypnotic quality when he speaks and, in retrospect, this brief moment of finding myself half-agreeing with him scares the living shit out of me. So from this point on, I’d like everyone to keep an eye on me in case I start going weird, and to give me a sharp whack round the back of the head if you ever catch me starting a tweet with the word, “Friends-”.

Anyway. Shortly after reading things, reality began to dawn for me in a way it apparently hasn’t for Daniel Hannan, and I began cataloguing the ways in which his argument is stupid.

Problem number one: Remarkably for a man who’s been in the European Parliament for nearly two decades, he’s misunderstood the EU. He notes that “deeper integration can be more like a religious dogma than a political creed”, but entirely misses the reason for this. For many Europeans, especially those from countries which didn’t have as much fun in the Second World War as Britain did, the EU, for all its myriad flaws, is something to which they feel an emotional attachment: not their country, but not something entirely separate from it either.

Consequently, it’s neither a club, nor a “protection racket”: it’s more akin to a family. A rational and sensible Brexit will be difficult for the exact same reasons that so few divorcing couples rationally agree not to bother wasting money on lawyers: because the very act of leaving feels like a betrayal.

Or, to put it more concisely, courtesy of Buzzfeed’s Marie Le Conte:

Problem number two: even if everyone was to negotiate purely in terms of rational interest, our interests are not the same. The over-riding goal of German policy for decades has been to hold the EU together, even if that creates other problems. (Exhibit A: Greece.) So there’s at least a chance that the German leadership will genuinely see deterring more departures as more important than mutual prosperity or a good relationship with Britain.

And France, whose presidential candidates are lining up to give Britain a kicking, is mysteriously not mentioned anywhere in either of Daniel’s columns, presumably because doing so would undermine his argument.

So – the list of priorities Hannan describes may look rational from a British perspective. Unfortunately, though, the people on the other side of the negotiating table won’t have a British perspective.

Problem number three is this line from the Con Home piece:

“Might it truly be more interested in deterring states from leaving than in promoting the welfare of its peoples? If so, there surely can be no further doubt that we were right to opt out.”

If there any rhetorical technique more skin-crawlingly horrible, than, “Your response to my behaviour justifies my behaviour”?

I could go on, about how there’s no reason to think that Daniel’s relatively gentle vision of Brexit is shared by Nigel Farage, UKIP, or a significant number of those who voted Leave. Or about the polls which show that, far from the EU’s response to the referendum pushing more European nations towards the door, support for the union has actually spiked since the referendum – that Britain has become not a beacon of hope but a cautionary tale.

But I’m running out of words, and there’ll be other chances to explore such things. So instead I’m going to end on this:

Hannan’s argument – that only an irrational Europe would not deliver a good Brexit – is remarkably, parodically self-serving. It allows him to believe that, if Brexit goes horribly wrong, well, it must all be the fault of those inflexible Eurocrats, mustn’t it? It can’t possibly be because Brexit was a bad idea in the first place, or because liberal Leavers used nasty, populist ones to achieve their goals.

Read today, there are elements of Hannan’s columns that are compelling, even persuasive. From the perspective of 2020, I fear, they might simply read like one long explanation of why nothing that has happened since will have been his fault.

Jonn Elledge is the editor of the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric. He is on Twitter, far too much, as @JonnElledge.