Glance N.3 by Giovanni Faleg

07/12/2010

Round Up

Two dramatic and unforeseen events are disrupting British citizens’ daily activities and diverting their attention from the realm of government and politics, something we can and ought to control, to a narcotic observation of events that are beyond our command: nature and gossip. Let’s be frank: people are addicted to these two forces. Social life depends upon them, in a way. The reason why we are so fanatical about is twofold: our total incapacity to regulate and delimit them and the sense of community awakening as a result of a direct or indirect involvement. It’s part of our DNA, to eagerly seek what we can’t handle.

As the first decade of the 2000s draws to a close, the emergence of the “W factors”, Weather and Wikileaks, in British politics reveals how self-contradictory our democratic societies and how vulnerable we are to any attempt, normally conveyed by the media, to hijack our participation in politics (the essence of Democracy, according to Tocqueville) and our interest in the res publica.

Weather is a natural factor with significant micro socio-political fallout. We might despise energetic consumption affecting climate change and do our best to counter it, but in our inner nature we are compelled by extreme weather conditions. Annoyed when finding ourselves grounded at airports and railway stations, thrilled when media reports of a “snowmageddon” in Scotland shakes our boring routine as the Die Hard series used to jiggle a rainy Wednesday night. The truth is: we fancy it, as long as it does not threatens our safety and we are pretty much sure that is not turning into a natural disaster. The result is under our eyes: impressive media coverage eclipsing any other domestic or international, political or economic news, with the exception of the exception of England missing out the 2018 World Cup.

Wikileaks is a political factor with minor social and significant macro political fallout. The first batch of 250.000 US diplomatic cables released by Wikileaks in the past few weeks do not hold the same meaning for political élites and ordinary people. The two categories are affected in two very different ways. For the former, the “leaks” represent the first case of cyber threat menacing global security by non-military and non-material means. They constitute a direct attack to one of the pillars of national sovereignty and a core principle of interstate relations – diplomatic secrecy. While Wikileaks constitutes a serious concern for national diplomacies, the whistle blowing acquires a totally different meaning for public opinions. Documents provide an extraordinary amount of material that national media can use in many different ways: malicious portraits of leaders, revelations of mutual suspicion among people and organizations, espionage are broadcasted to appease gossipmongers’ appetite. We did not need the leaks to realize that Mr Berlusconi is “feckless, vain and ineffective as a modern leader”. But recognizing who the sinner is, is far more interesting that knowing what the sin was.

While we should not – or not necessarily – play down these two factors, it is important to recall that overplaying them ought not shade other important issues that are shaping UK’s future. The spending review presented by Chancellor George Osborne on 20 October 2010 fixes spending budgets for each Government department up to 2014-2015. Presented by the Coalition Government as a necessary measure to bring the UK economy “back from the brink”, the scale of the reform contained in the 2010 spending review is impressive as cuts are the deepest since the Second World War. Cuts hit Education, Welfare reform and Defence particularly hard.

Education: On Thursday 9th December, MPs in Westminster will vote for an increase in tuition fees put forward by the Coalition Government that is to modify – radically the education sector in the years to come. Cuts to public funding to higher education, accompanied by the highly controversial plan to raise the cap on tuition fees above the current level of £3,290 a year, have brought mass protests throughout the country, with many universities being occupied across the UK (See Glance_4).

Welfare: The 2010 spending review is the biggest shake-up in welfare since the 1940s. Plans for welfare reform to reduce public spending mark a key moment for both the Coalition and Britain. Main candidates for cuts are middle-class, out-of-work and child benefits, a contentious plan that has been explicitly called into question by the opposition leader Ed Miliband during his first PMQs speech. While government officials are confident that scrapping benefits and replacing them with a single universal credit is a necessary simplification of British welfare and is to make working people better off, Labour says that a precondition for the reform to be successful is that jobs should be available to ensure people get into work.

Defence: the strategic defence review presented by the Government mid-October unveils significant armed forces cuts, with defence spending to fall by 8% in four years and £4.5bn savings at the Ministry of Defence, including a reduction of civilian staff by 25,000 by 2015. Prime Minister Cameron said UK will meet NATO’s requirement of spending 2% of GDP on defence and continue to have the 4th military in the world. But the RAF and navy are to loose 5,000 jobs each, the army 7,000, and the strategic blueprint of the review seriously undermines Britain’s capacity to effectively address security needs in the years ahead.

Wrap-up

Beyond and besides the impressive media coverage of the “W factors” (Weather and Wikileaks) in the last two weeks, the debate over the 2010 spending review is a major political challenge that will deeply affect UK’s citizens lives in the medium-long term. Choosing the right path to recovery is a priority for Britain. If the Coalition Government holds the political accountability to fulfill reforms, the opposition and civil society have the historical responsibility to prevent the executive from going in the wrong direction. This requires active participation in politics by the citizens and effective opposition in parliament by their representatives.

Ed Miliband is right when saying that Labour party must do more than wait for the government to “screw up”. His vision of the Labour as a campaigning force, a movement beyond the New Labour, reaching out people (namely the “squeezed middle”) and standing up for their hopes and aspirations is without a doubt the good approach to set out overhaul of the party after defeat. But, as shown by his speech to the Labour party’s national policy forum last week, morality does not necessarily pay off in politics. Finding a new identity rooted on idealism and morality – Labour as “a force for good”? – must not go to the detriment of practical policy formulation and proposals. The bitter truth is: Ed is not impressing as a Leader, nor Labour as an opposition party. Despite initial fervor following the leadership election – granted outside the House of Commons – and encouraging public support to the project of a “new generation for change”, now the wind is changing. From the BBC to the Guardian, the media are less and less enthusiastic of a Labour leader who took an inexplicably long paternity leave and whose political strategy is ill defined at best. In his BBC Newslog,  Nick Robinson denounces Ed’s focus on the squeezed “middle” as a deliberately vague and questions the exact reach – and potential political outcome – of what he ironically labels as the squeezed “muddle”. Not an isolated comment. Most of the reactions after the national policy forum were mild when not adverse.

Labour is at a crossroad. Its leader, Ed Miliband, is getting busy reshaping the party identity to rebuild a widespread coalition of support after the shrinking of the New Labour. But contingency, and short-term policy action, matter too. In our society, people’s hopes and aspirations grow fast. Politics and politicians must keep up. Labour must act both as a “force for good”, shaping a new identity for progressive politics in the long term, and a “contingent force”, showing its capacity to creatively and pragmatically address urgent policy issues.

I call this “the Wilson factor”: the capacity of Labour’s leader to take over a dispirited party, make it a “natural party for government” and, at the same time, unite it under a shared identity and principles. Harold Wilson is the most famous example of a leader who was able to achieve this almost impossible mission. The “Wilson factor”, merging short and long term policy priorities as well as an inevitable process of identity reconstruction, will impact not just on the faculty of Labour to survive the storm, but also on Britain’s ability to avoid the economic and social crash and implement a full, sustainable recovery.

Glance n.2 by Giovanni Faleg

October 18, 2010

Round up

Oct. 8 – Labour shadow cabinet formed

The team that have been passed the torch for Labour in the years to come was announced by Labour leader Ed Miliband on October 8, 2010. The formation of the new shadow cabinet has attracted media attention due to the departure of some prominent Labour figures among them David Miliband, Peter Mendelson, Alistair Darling, Jack Straw and Bob Ainsworth from frontline politics.

Instead some surprising appointments ignited a political debate. Following up party rules Labour leader Ed Miliband has assigned the roles in the shadow cabinet after the Parliamentary Labour Party elected 19 MPs on October 7.

Labour “couple” Yvette Cooper and Ed Balls were both successful and were awarded top jobs. They occupy high-ranking posts of Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Home Department. Ms Cooper received the most votes (232), followed by John Healey (Health, 192) and Ed Balls (179).

Among other top positions, Miliband’s leadership campaign manager Sadiq Khan (a British Pakistani that may challenge Conservative Party Chairman Sayeeda Warsi) became Secretary of State for Justice, while senior figures Jim Murphy and Andy Burnham got defence and education.

Quite surprisingly, former Secretary of State for the Home Department Alan Johnson was appointed Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer, despite having no experience in financial matters.

A complete list of the newly appointed shadow cabinet members is compiled below (source: Labour Party website):

Leader of the Labour Party – Ed Miliband; Deputy Leader and Shadow Secretary of State for International Development – Harriet Harman; Shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer – Alan Johnson; Shadow Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs and Minister for Women and Equalities – Yvette Cooper; Shadow Secretary of State for the Home Department – Ed Balls; Shadow Lord Chancellor, Secretary of State for Justice (with responsibility for political and constitutional reform) – Sadiq Khan; Shadow Secretary of State for Defence – Jim Murphy; Shadow Secretary of State for Business, Innovation and Skills – John Denham; Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions – Douglas Alexander; Shadow Secretary of State for Health – John Healey; Shadow Secretary of State for Education and Election Coordinator – Andy Burnham; Shadow Secretary of State for Communities and Local Government – Caroline Flint; Shadow Secretary of State for Transport – Maria Eagle; Shadow Secretary of State for Energy and Climate Change – Meg Hillier; Shadow Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs – Mary Creagh; Shadow Minister for the Cabinet Office – Liam Byrne; Shadow Secretary of State for Northern Ireland – Shaun Woodward; Shadow Secretary of State for Scotland – Ann McKechin; Shadow Secretary of State for Wales – Peter Hain; Shadow Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport – Ivan Lewis; Shadow Minister for the Olympics – Tessa Jowell; Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury – Angela Eagle; Shadow Leader of the House of Lords – Baroness Royall of Blaisdon; Chief Whip – Rosie Winterton; Shadow Leader of the House of Commons – Hilary Benn; Lords Chief Whip – Lord Bassam of Brighton; Shadow Attorney-General – Baroness Scotland; Parliamentary Labour Party Chair – Tony Lloyd; Shadow Minister of State – Cabinet Office - Jon Trickett.

Oct. 13 – Miliband plays safe against Cameron in first PMQs

During his first PMQs, on October 13, Edward Miliband attacked David Cameron over the changes proposed by the coalition to child benefits and single income families.

The Daily Telegraph described the first round of Cameron vs Miliband as “a fight between the Prime Minister, wielding a moral club with which he expects to intimidate anyone who stands in his way, and Mr Miliband, who is bent on converting Middle England into “Miliband England” by appealing to our naked self-interest”.

In his first role as opposition leader before parliament Mr Miliband did rather well. He played safe and came across as an authoritative, determined and not far too impetuous leader of the opposition, ready for the next round.

Watch the PMQs video on the BBC website

Wrap up

New generation, “good old” Labour?

Opposition parties have criticized Ed Miliband’s cabinet choices, casting aspersions on  the lack of economic experience of shadow chancellor Mr. Johnson and denouncing new shadow foreign secretary Yvette Cooper’s support for the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Other detractors have contended that only 5 members of the cabinet were Ed supporters during the election and that Miliband’s shadow cabinet looks very much like the Blair/Brown New Labour establishment.

The new shadow cabinet may well be a deception for those who believed in a breakup from the New Labour. The reason why a revolutionary change did not come about is that, whatever its intentions, Ed Miliband has to face prevailing political realities. After all, Ed won the election thanks to the support of the base of the party, but MPs in Westminster (who elect the members of the shadow cabinet) largely favored his brother David.

Against this backdrop, however, there are some significant lessons to learn from the formation of the shadow cabinet.  Excluding ex-officio members of the cabinet, the leader and the deputy, 8 out of 19 line-ups are new to the frontbench. Only four members of the Shadow Cabinet (Harman, Jowell, Denham and Eagle) have previous parliamentary experience of opposition. Seventeen of the current shadow cabinet members entered parliament from 1997-2005 while Labour was in power, whereas fourteen members got a cabinet post before.  Fourteen members are aged under 50.

These data suggest that Mr Miliband is indeed keeping his promises of generational “renewal” of Labour leadership, though not at the detriment of the party’s unity after a divisive leadership contest.

As early as Monday 18^th, Labour will unveil its plans for the economy. The weeks ahead will then tell if the new cabinet is able to and capable of turning their intentions into deeds and regain the trust of the electorate.

Glance n.1 by Giovanni Faleg – pic by Giulio Bernardi (from Flickr. All right reserved)

September 27, 2010

Round up

Ed Miliband new UK Labour leader

Labour has chosen its leader: shadow energy secretary Ed Miliband has won the election to be the new leader of the Labour Party. Ed defeated his brother David by a thin margin of 50.65% to 49.35%. According to the BBC, Ed’s dominance across trade unions and grassroots granted him victory in the leadership race, despite David’s acquisition of the majority of support from Labour’s MP in Westminster.

“A party of idealists, not just managers”

What does Ed’s victory mean for Labour? Essentially, it translates into the end of the New Labour era of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown. During the campaign Ed, the “change candidate”, explicitly positioned himself at the left of his brother, who had been a close ally of Tony Blair from the first days of New Labour. Accordingly, Ed’s understanding of the future of Labour points out a reappraisal of ideology to overcome the Blairite/Brownite divisions. He calls new generations to change the party into “a movement and a cause”. As far as policy is concerned, Ed will prioritize measures aimed at taxing the rich, tackling inequality and reforming British industry. His programme include the reform of the state to make it more accountable, elderly care and the creation of skilled jobs, a graduate tax to replace tuition fees and halving UK’s deficit through measures such as higher bank levy.

“Red Ed” will surely increase Labour’s popularity with trade unionists and traditional Labour voters. At the same time, however, he will have to address the criticism coming from the Labour’s old guard, and respond to those who claim that his manifesto is not appealing to non natural Labour voters.

In sum, what is to be expected from Ed’s leadership is an ideological rally of Labour and a return to a more social-democratic vision, which entails a withdraw from the New Labour project. If strong enough to placate internal squabbling, Ed’s leadership has the potential to bring Labour “back to the future” of European social-democracy, and hence to provide an update of the concept of progressive politics, which seems to have disappeared from the manifestos of centre-left parties in Europe.

Veltroni and the 75s, or “a chorus of disapproval”: Bersani’s leadership under attack (again)

The most recent – surely not the last – attack on Pier Luigi Bersani’s leadership of the Partito Democratico (PD) came quite unexpectedly, on mid-September, from former PD leader and co-founder Walter Veltroni. The disagreement revolves around the nuovo Ulivo project, referring to the large democratic alliance of center-left parties that should provide Italy with an alternative to Berlusconi’s moldering Popolo della Libertà, in order to bolster economic – and social recovery. Led by PD’s first leader, 75 Veltroniani MPs joined forces and signed a document to denounce Bersani’s political line and calling for a reassessment of the party’s internal balance of power. Veltroni and the 75s advocate a reappraisal of the original majoritary mission (vocazione maggioritaria), meaning that the party should develop concrete policy proposals and broaden the span of its electoral targets, without playing too much tactics and seeking alliances with other fractions. A vision of leadership in and for the PD, which is at odds with Bersani’s project of a broad democratic alliance that explicitly recalls The Olive Tree (L’Ulivo) political coalition led by Romano Prodi between 1995 and 2007.

There ain’t no heroes

In a very delicate phase of Italian politics, Veltroni and the 75s’ move contributes to fraction, rather than unite the PD, its immediate implication being the creation of yet another movement within the party. Furthermore, Veltroni’s attempt to make an official – and public – count of the forces at his disposal is dangerously ill-timed, since it comes after Berlusconi’s call for early elections following the dramatic split with Gianfranco Fini, the co-founder of the Popolo della Libertà. Instead of accepting Bersani’s olive branch and giving full support to party leadership in view of new elections, Veltroni has made a prodigious demonstration of the fact that the Partito Democratico is nothing more than a bunch of naysayers squabbling over their relative power within the party. Curiously enough, to achieve its aim of a strong and unitary party, Veltroni has sought to knock down its leader. Sad, and quite inappropriate.

Wrap up

When Leadership is change

Ed Miliband’s attempt to end the new Labour era, and Pier Luigi Bersani’s efforts to start a new Olive Tree adventure to rally Italian center-left factions reveal a curious paradox: center-left progressive politics in both the UK and Italy is showing a drastic backward movement. Its leaders champion, respectively, the return to a more radical vision of the “old” Labour Party and a revival of the consensus politics that was banned after the collapse of Prodi second cabinet in 2008. The difference is that, while Ed points out the importance of rediscovering ideology in British politics, Bersani acknowledges the need to play tactics and build alliances within Italy’s center-left microcosmos in order to accomplish urgent reforms. Moreover, the two leaders are facing fierce internal opposition to carry through their programmes. However, both the Labour Party and the Partito Democratico need a strong leadership today more than ever. It will be their leaders’ responsibility to reframe the concept of progressive politics and reassure voters that the end of the new Labour and of the majoritarian PD will not come to the detriment of the credibility of their political agenda.