On Newsnight last night, Iain Martin seemed aghast at Paul Mason's suggestion of any kind of rapprochement between business and John McDonnell. Martin needs to get out more. The Tory family has fallen apart.
Much of the intellectual weight for the Corbyn project is being supplied by the Church of England. Jeremy Corbyn has been endorsed by name by the National Farmers' Union and by the Federation of Small Businesses, endorsements that Tony Blair certainly never received.
Lord O'Neill, a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management who went on to serve as Commercial Secretary to the Treasury under David Cameron, has endorsed Corbyn and McDonnell in the pages of the Financial Times. Even the Adam Smith Institute and The Economist are in favour of the Universal Basic Income. Even Theresa May has slaughtered the Thatcherite holy cow of continuing to defend the sale of council houses.
And so on. Martin sounds like one of those bitter old Blairites. But in fact, his is a position that is now more marginal even than it was in the Heath years. It was last this far from the mainstream 20 years earlier again, during the Indian Summer Premiership of Winston Churchill, when "free" market Conservatives were denied office in a Government full of people whose roots were in the Liberal Party and its splinter organisations, or in the Labour Party and its splinter organisations, or outside politics altogether.
If May were to be removed, then the presenting issue might be to force a second referendum, between Remain and the only thing worse, some kind of "Norway Option". The people doing the forcing could live with either.
But mostly, they would be concerned to abolish Universal Credit, a political need that is now as pressing as the abolition of the Poll Tax was in 1990, and as impossible to meet without a change of Prime Minister. And they would be concerned to implement the report of the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, which would then be the Beveridge Report of our age, guaranteed to be implemented regardless of the outcome of the next General Election, just as Beveridge was guaranteed to be implemented regardless of the outcome of the 1945 General Election.
Of course, just as the Attlee Government went far further than Beveridge, so a Corbyn-led Government would go far further than the IPPR. But no one suggests that the next Conservative-led Government would reverse any part of the Corbyn Settlement. It would be just that: the Settlement. And the Conservative Party would do just that: conserve it.
Note, by the way, that use of "led". Neither party has won an overall majority within the law since as long ago as 2005, and there would have been a hung Parliament then if the Conservatives had had the wit to oppose the Iraq War. Two of the last three General Elections have resulted in hung Parliaments, and the one in the middle would also have done so if the Conservatives had not overspent, which they do not deny having done. The Crown Prosecution Service merely decided not to pursue the matter, because there had been another General Election in the meantime. Make of that what you will.
But I digress. The abolition of Universal Credit, and the implementation of the report of the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, are now the only way for the Conservative Party to secure so much as a hearing from what are otherwise the explicitly Corbynite Federation of Small Businesses, the explicitly Corbynite National Farmers' Union, the actively Corbynite Church of England, and the likes of Lord O'Neill, a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury under David Cameron, writing in the Financial Times in support of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
The removal of Theresa May in order to secure all of that might be presented in terms of a securing a referendum between Remain and full EU colonial status. But that would be only the excuse, as "Europe" was only the excuse for removing the Prime Minister without whom the Poll Tax was going to condemn the Conservative Party to electoral oblivion.
In any event, however, it will have nothing to do with Iain Martin. He needs to get out more.
But mostly, they would be concerned to abolish Universal Credit, a political need that is now as pressing as the abolition of the Poll Tax was in 1990, and as impossible to meet without a change of Prime Minister. And they would be concerned to implement the report of the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, which would then be the Beveridge Report of our age, guaranteed to be implemented regardless of the outcome of the next General Election, just as Beveridge was guaranteed to be implemented regardless of the outcome of the 1945 General Election.
Of course, just as the Attlee Government went far further than Beveridge, so a Corbyn-led Government would go far further than the IPPR. But no one suggests that the next Conservative-led Government would reverse any part of the Corbyn Settlement. It would be just that: the Settlement. And the Conservative Party would do just that: conserve it.
Note, by the way, that use of "led". Neither party has won an overall majority within the law since as long ago as 2005, and there would have been a hung Parliament then if the Conservatives had had the wit to oppose the Iraq War. Two of the last three General Elections have resulted in hung Parliaments, and the one in the middle would also have done so if the Conservatives had not overspent, which they do not deny having done. The Crown Prosecution Service merely decided not to pursue the matter, because there had been another General Election in the meantime. Make of that what you will.
But I digress. The abolition of Universal Credit, and the implementation of the report of the IPPR Commission on Economic Justice, are now the only way for the Conservative Party to secure so much as a hearing from what are otherwise the explicitly Corbynite Federation of Small Businesses, the explicitly Corbynite National Farmers' Union, the actively Corbynite Church of England, and the likes of Lord O'Neill, a former Chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management and a former Commercial Secretary to the Treasury under David Cameron, writing in the Financial Times in support of Jeremy Corbyn and John McDonnell.
The removal of Theresa May in order to secure all of that might be presented in terms of a securing a referendum between Remain and full EU colonial status. But that would be only the excuse, as "Europe" was only the excuse for removing the Prime Minister without whom the Poll Tax was going to condemn the Conservative Party to electoral oblivion.
In any event, however, it will have nothing to do with Iain Martin. He needs to get out more.
No comments:
Post a Comment