THE ESSENTIAL NAIVETY OF NEW LABOUR

A few years ago I purchased a new edition of Peter Mandelson's memoir "The Third Man" for the princely sum of £1. Sub-titled  "Life at the heart of New Labour", I thought the book very well written and a good Summer read. However, although Lord Mandelson held a number of senior UK government positions and was later Britain's European Union trade representative, "The Third Man" is really a book about political party management, as it seems was "life at the heart of New Labour". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_Man:_Life_at_the_Heart_of_New_Labour

It is hardly surprising, therefore, that most people now regard New Labour's years in office as a period of weak governance, whether in relation to the UK government's decision to participate in the invasion of Iraq, or poor regulation of the banking system. Party politics aside, the so-called New Labour Project was primarily an exercise in brand management and this has probably been its greatest success and most enduring legacy, with Conservative prime minister David Cameron later becoming the self-styled "Heir to Blair". http://www.conservativehome.com/thetorydiary/2015/05/who-won-the-election-was-it-cameron-heir-to-blair-cameron-voice-of-lynton-or-was-it.html

Now is seems that an increasing number of Labour Party supporters are fed-up with politics as brand management and want something more ideological, possibly even a return to socialism. The veteran MP Jeremy Corbyn has become the surprise leader of this movement, and - perhaps even more surprising -  the wider electorate seem to relate to Mr Corbyn's brand of politics too. Not only is he now the apparent front runner in the Labour Party leadership contest, but also apparently the most popular candidate amongst voters from all parties http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/aug/14/jeremy-corbyn-labour-leadership-most-popular-candidate-voters-all-parties?CMP=share_btn_gp

Needless to say, New Labour's old political spin machine has led a ferocious assault on Mr Corbyn, who has in turn suggested that former prime minister Blair could face a possible war crimes trial over the illegal Iraq invasion.  http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/jeremy-corbyn-tony-blair-could-face-war-crimes-trial-over-illegal-iraq-invasion-10439020.html  However, the role of New Labour in this debacle is more likely to be remembered in these famous words: "It was worse than a crime; it was a blunder." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Louis_Antoine,_Duke_of_Enghien

In short, the invasion of Iraq points to the essential naivety not just at the heart of the New Labour Project but in the type of political management that it has come to represent and which has since been espoused by the Conservative Party. This can be seen at every level of government, whether in the incompetent patronage of some organisations linked to David Cameron's "Big Society" campaign https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Society or continuing incompetence in the management of Britain's economy -  http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/2015/05/06/the-naivety-of-the-uk-economic-debate/

It seems rather rich, therefore, that the Financial Times should today publish a somewhat hysterical leader article on the prospect of Mr Corbyn's election as the new leader of the Labour Party - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/311c4e18-426e-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html Had Britain enjoyed a period of robust and prudent governance in the 21st century, alarm bells at the prospect of a socialist interloper might be justified. As it is, most people beyond the well-heeled Westminster elite probably welcome a return to ideological politics in the hope that these might just lead to better government.

SOME POSSIBLE LESSONS FROM KIDS COMPANY

It seems difficult to escape the downfall of Kids Company, although many people might wish to. However, as I suspect something will emerge phoenix-like from the ashes, here are some possible lessons for the future from a detached observer:

1. There may be considerable social capital in having complementary health/education centres, run by charities, the state (if Jeremy Corbyn becomes prime minister) or a combination of both in deprived neighbourhoods which offer a range of free services for vulnerable children and their families. In addition to therapies and support such as meals, these might provide lessons in practical areas like nutrition, cookery and financial management.

2. Such centres should be subject to appropriate forms of assessment so that their impact upon users and the wider community can be understood. If state-funded, value for money criteria should be applied.

3. Ministers and civil servants should be more aware that whilst celebrity figures may be good at attracting media attention and funding to their causes, they are sometimes poor managers and administrators. Having said this, the state and its agents, including the National Health Service, have also shown themselves to be frequently deficient in administrative and management capability, as well as poor custodians of public funds.

4. Unfortunately, the availability of relatively large sums of money for good causes, when perceived to be incompetently run, will attract people who have less than altruistic motives and others who see an opportunity to exploit.

5. The state and charitable sectors are as much - if not more - prone to cronyism than commercial business. This needs to be widely recognised and measures put in place to ensure that people from outside the insidious public-funded networks which increasing dominate British society are involved in how money is spent. Charitable governance needs to be reviewed and some organisations should consider whether they are best served by being a charity, social enterprise or both.

6. No organisation seeking to be sustainable over the long-term should become so dependent on a single source of funding that the withdrawal of this is likely to result in its demise. Kids Company is not alone in finding that the end of public money also means curtains for the charitable recipient.

Media reports indicate that the fate of Kids Company will be subject to inquiries by both the National Audit Office and the Public Accounts Committee - http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/82397fae-3dd8-11e5-b98b-87c7270955cf.html#axzz3iJVF60F7 Lets hope lessons are learnt by all those involved.

UK GOVERNANCE: CRISIS, WHAT CRISIS?

The Spectator's Isabel Hardman said recently: "One jubilant (Conservative) MP jokes that ‘we could strap babies to foxes and then tie them up with badgers, shoot them, and Labour wouldn’t know how to oppose it’."(1) The hunt for Jeremy Corbyn (mainly by his Labour own colleagues) has indeed provided the government with a useful distraction, although Harman continues: "That facetious analysis (by said jubilant Conservative MP) rather ignores the fact that the Tories didn’t manage to get their modest change to fox hunting legislation through, but the point still stands: the longer Labour is in a mess, the more powerful the Tories can become." However, whilst the British system of governance requires an effective opposition, in my view the present government may still end up hoist by their own petard, and rather sooner than they might have expected. (2)

The Financial Times pointed out this week: "...The recent disruption at Calais is estimated at about £250m a day in lost trade to the UK, factoring in wider costs to businesses such as retailers and manufacturers who do not receive crucial goods in time or have to write off spoiled food." (3) A full account of the problems is provided in this BBC report: Why is there a crisis at Calais? (4) As Keith Vaz, Labour chairman of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee, told The Daily Mail:  'This is a real crisis, and it's a crisis that in the end is going to affect not just the south east of England but also other parts of the country.' (5) In fact, this Labour veteran has had some of the most sensible things to say on the situation in Calais, including an article yesterday in The Huffington Post (6). Meanwhile, sense from the government on the crisis seems, it is widely agreed, thin on the ground.

If Mr Cameron and his colleagues do not wish their turn at UK governance to be defined by the famous words "Crisis, What Crisis?" reputedly spoken by 1970s Labour prime minister Jim Callaghan, although in reality spun by The Sun newspaper, they must consider how to set their  houses in order sooner rather than later. Chancellor Osborne may have convinced his party and some of the British electorate that, in the words of Gordon Brown, there will be "no more boom and bust" (7), but this defies the now accepted view of the capitalist system as recently described, for instance, by the Financial Times journalist John Plender. (8) In government, economic and other crises will come around with reliable regularity, and particularly at times when those in office least expect them.

References
1.  http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2015/07/tory-mps-congratulate-lynton-crosby-on-his-election-success/
2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petard#.22Hoist_with_his_own_petard.22
3. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fb4f3370-3603-11e5-bdbb-35e55cbae175.html#axzz3hZU0vvaU
4. http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-29074736
5.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3180997/Moment-migrants-slice-way-lorry-West-Midlands-climbing-250miles-away-Calais-Keith-Vaz-warns-crisis-affect-country.html
6. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/keith-vaz/calais-summer-crisis_b_7913228.html
7. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2551691/House-price-boom-DECADE-George-Osborne-says-demand-homes-continue-outstrip-supply-years.html
8. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/33d82de6-2bc3-11e5-8613-e7aedbb7bdb7.html#axzz3hZU0vvaU