Summer lethargy is not a good look for Labour right now

Silly season can be a time of opportunity for dynamic politicians. Where is the opposition's fighting spirit?

No-one is surprised when the news thins out during the summer months. The season when silly stories get bumped up the agenda even has its own name. It’s a thing. And it’s a thing that politicians know about and for which they plan. They can take advantage of the media lull in one of two ways.

First, they can have a bit of a rest, read some books, think some thoughts and, if they are diligent, catch up on some constituency contact. (That can be arduous so it is unkind to claim MPs all benefit from jumbo holidays.)

Second, they can try to generate a few headlines, knowing that journalists are hungry for stories and will give a more lavish airing to something that, at busier times, would be buried.

Conservative co-chairman Grant Shapps has had a go at that second approach. He made a speech yesterday attacking Labour for all the usual things. It’s the same old trade union-obeying, Brussels-fancying, benefit-boosting, immigrant-coddling, debt-ramping, tax-hiking party, said Shapps. Or words to that effect. The speech was briefed out a day early and picked up some decent coverage given how void it was of serious content. In places it was downright bizarre:

Who here shares my appreciation of the phone’s flash – which doubles as a torch – when you’ve come home late and dropped your keys?

Who indeed, Grant?

The intervention briefly threatened to make the wrong kind of headlines. Shapps appeared, in a question and answer session after the speech, to admit having taken a cavalier approach to employment law in a company he set up. Tory sources clarified afterwards that he was speaking illustratively and not referring to anything he had done. A minor gaffe flared up and was hosed down. Someone from Labour muttered something disapproving. I forget what.

In other news, a Tory peer and government advisor appeared to say that environmental degradation should be visited on the North-East because no one would care or even notice. He then clarified that he had meant the North-West. Jeremy Hunt was slapped down by the High Court. A judge ruled that the health secretary had acted unlawfully in trying to shut down services at Lewisham hospital. Labour's response? A statement saying the Tories are out of touch, adding that you can’t trust them with the NHS. Obvs.

The absence of opposition energy is mystefying. Since pretty much anything with a flicker of political content can make headlines, why doesn’t Labour have a campaign lined up to seize the initiative? Where is the shadow cabinet? Where is everybody? The most visible opposition figure in the past week has been Stella Creasy, MP for Walthamstow, who has valiantly and very effectively taken on the issue of violent misogyny online.

But as far as I can tell, since parliament rose for recess, there hasn’t been a big news story generated deliberately by Labour to discomfort the Tories or Lib Dems. Ed Miliband’s MPs may be working hard behind the scenes in their constituencies but as a dynamic force for taking on the coalition they really are on holiday. The Archbishop of Canterbury is currently doing a more agile job of sustained moral activism. I am not alone in thinking the opposition look oddly lethargic. Most Labour people I have spoken to wonder why their party has given up politics for the summer.

The usual defence from Ed Miliband’s aides against charges of this kind is that the obsessions of the Westminster bubble are a peripheral concern. There is a bigger picture, the say. Work is being done on some interesting announcements that will rock the political landscape. I have been told many times by allies of the Labour leader to “watch this space.”  The other standard response is to bemoan the ineffectiveness of the front bench. Ed can’t do it all himself, say Miliband’s friends. The rest of the team need to do some of the “heavy lifting”. It is a fair point. If the hapless Grant Shapps – trader in internet snake oil under a dodgy alias  - can grab the spotlight for a political cabaret turn, why can’t a shadow cabinet minister plant a half-decent story in the middle of silly season?

It feels as if Labour has lost its mojo. This is partly a function of being adrift between two positions. There is the old default of decrying everything the coalition does. Then there is the new challenge: credibly promising a better alternative in recognition of the fiscal squeeze that will endure beyond the next election. Labour has relinquished the first proposition – it isn’t pledging to reverse the cuts or spend much more – but it doesn’t have clear attack lines based on the second one. It is in a limbo of hating what the coalition is doing without being able to articulate what it would do differently.

Some clarity is promised at the annual conference in September. Some, but not all of the plan for a brighter Labour future will be revealed. (“Watch this space.”) This hiatus is consistent with Miliband’s long-game strategy. His friends talk up his unflappable nature and the way that he is not distracted by the daily froth of 24-hour news, nor by the chatter of impatient commentators on New Statesman blogs. He expects the Tories’ reliance on shabby, short-term tactics to unravel. Cameron’s superficiality and complacency will be exposed.

It is all supposed to unfold rather like the fable of the tortoise and the hare. Cameron is cocky and energetic at the start, supremely sure of his race-winning credentials. Miliband is wiser, appearing slower but ultimately more steady.

There is just one problem with the analogy. The tortoise didn’t win the race by having a more profound grasp of economic imbalances in the race track. He won because the hare took a nap. If the hare had carried on running at his usual pace, he would have crossed the finish line first. Right now, of the two parties, it isn’t the Tories who look as if they are lying down prematurely.

Now is not the time for a nice quiet sit down. Image: Getty

Rafael Behr is political columnist at the Guardian and former political editor of the New Statesman

Getty.
Show Hide image

The Brexit Beartraps, #2: Could dropping out of the open skies agreement cancel your holiday?

Flying to Europe is about to get a lot more difficult.

So what is it this time, eh? Brexit is going to wipe out every banana planet on the entire planet? Brexit will get the Last Night of the Proms cancelled? Brexit will bring about World War Three?

To be honest, I think we’re pretty well covered already on that last score, but no, this week it’s nothing so terrifying. It’s just that Brexit might get your holiday cancelled.

What are you blithering about now?

Well, only if you want to holiday in Europe, I suppose. If you’re going to Blackpool you’ll be fine. Or Pakistan, according to some people...

You’re making this up.

I’m honestly not, though we can’t entirely rule out the possibility somebody is. Last month Michael O’Leary, the Ryanair boss who attracts headlines the way certain other things attract flies, warned that, “There is a real prospect... that there are going to be no flights between the UK and Europe for a period of weeks, months beyond March 2019... We will be cancelling people’s holidays for summer of 2019.”

He’s just trying to block Brexit, the bloody saboteur.

Well, yes, he’s been quite explicit about that, and says we should just ignore the referendum result. Honestly, he’s so Remainiac he makes me look like Dan Hannan.

But he’s not wrong that there are issues: please fasten your seatbelt, and brace yourself for some turbulence.

Not so long ago, aviation was a very national sort of a business: many of the big airports were owned by nation states, and the airline industry was dominated by the state-backed national flag carriers (British Airways, Air France and so on). Since governments set airline regulations too, that meant those airlines were given all sorts of competitive advantages in their own country, and pretty much everyone faced barriers to entry in others. 

The EU changed all that. Since 1994, the European Single Aviation Market (ESAM) has allowed free movement of people and cargo; established common rules over safety, security, the environment and so on; and ensured fair competition between European airlines. It also means that an AOC – an Air Operator Certificate, the bit of paper an airline needs to fly – from any European country would be enough to operate in all of them. 

Do we really need all these acronyms?

No, alas, we need more of them. There’s also ECAA, the European Common Aviation Area – that’s the area ESAM covers; basically, ESAM is the aviation bit of the single market, and ECAA the aviation bit of the European Economic Area, or EEA. Then there’s ESAA, the European Aviation Safety Agency, which regulates, well, you can probably guess what it regulates to be honest.

All this may sound a bit dry-

It is.

-it is a bit dry, yes. But it’s also the thing that made it much easier to travel around Europe. It made the European aviation industry much more competitive, which is where the whole cheap flights thing came from.

In a speech last December, Andrew Haines, the boss of Britain’s Civil Aviation Authority said that, since 2000, the number of destinations served from UK airports has doubled; since 1993, fares have dropped by a third. Which is brilliant.

Brexit, though, means we’re probably going to have to pull out of these arrangements.

Stop talking Britain down.

Don’t tell me, tell Brexit secretary David Davis. To monitor and enforce all these international agreements, you need an international court system. That’s the European Court of Justice, which ministers have repeatedly made clear that we’re leaving.

So: last March, when Davis was asked by a select committee whether the open skies system would persist, he replied: “One would presume that would not apply to us” – although he promised he’d fight for a successor, which is very reassuring. 

We can always holiday elsewhere. 

Perhaps you can – O’Leary also claimed (I’m still not making this up) that a senior Brexit minister had told him that lost European airline traffic could be made up for through a bilateral agreement with Pakistan. Which seems a bit optimistic to me, but what do I know.

Intercontinental flights are still likely to be more difficult, though. Since 2007, flights between Europe and the US have operated under a separate open skies agreement, and leaving the EU means we’re we’re about to fall out of that, too.  

Surely we’ll just revert to whatever rules there were before.

Apparently not. Airlines for America – a trade body for... well, you can probably guess that, too – has pointed out that, if we do, there are no historic rules to fall back on: there’s no aviation equivalent of the WTO.

The claim that flights are going to just stop is definitely a worst case scenario: in practice, we can probably negotiate a bunch of new agreements. But we’re already negotiating a lot of other things, and we’re on a deadline, so we’re tight for time.

In fact, we’re really tight for time. Airlines for America has also argued that – because so many tickets are sold a year or more in advance – airlines really need a new deal in place by March 2018, if they’re to have faith they can keep flying. So it’s asking for aviation to be prioritised in negotiations.

The only problem is, we can’t negotiate anything else until the EU decides we’ve made enough progress on the divorce bill and the rights of EU nationals. And the clock’s ticking.

This is just remoaning. Brexit will set us free.

A little bit, maybe. CAA’s Haines has also said he believes “talk of significant retrenchment is very much over-stated, and Brexit offers potential opportunities in other areas”. Falling out of Europe means falling out of European ownership rules, so itcould bring foreign capital into the UK aviation industry (assuming anyone still wants to invest, of course). It would also mean more flexibility on “slot rules”, by which airports have to hand out landing times, and which are I gather a source of some contention at the moment.

But Haines also pointed out that the UK has been one of the most influential contributors to European aviation regulations: leaving the European system will mean we lose that influence. And let’s not forget that it was European law that gave passengers the right to redress when things go wrong: if you’ve ever had a refund after long delays, you’ve got the EU to thank.

So: the planes may not stop flying. But the UK will have less influence over the future of aviation; passengers might have fewer consumer rights; and while it’s not clear that Brexit will mean vastly fewer flights, it’s hard to see how it will mean more, so between that and the slide in sterling, prices are likely to rise, too.

It’s not that Brexit is inevitably going to mean disaster. It’s just that it’ll take a lot of effort for very little obvious reward. Which is becoming something of a theme.

Still, we’ll be free of those bureaucrats at the ECJ, won’t be?

This’ll be a great comfort when we’re all holidaying in Grimsby.

Jonn Elledge edits the New Statesman's sister site CityMetric, and writes for the NS about subjects including politics, history and Brexit. You can find him on Twitter or Facebook.