Jeremy’s tax return – the real problem

Like many of my generation I have made a transition from paid employment, through self-employment, to living on pensions with the odd bit of extra income.   Given this, for over a decade I have prepared my own tax return. It is becoming increasingly less arduous; my pensions are taxed at source and this year’s extra income amounted to £25.86. This was the royalties from six copies of A Handbook for Training Strategy; five of them were sold overseas. I wrote the book in 1994 and it is now hopelessly out of date. I wish I could find a way of returning the money to the purchasers.

Having completed and submitted returns for some time, I know that it is easy to miss a deadline, make a mistake, or overlook some detail, so I have some sympathy with Jeremy Corbyn. Last year he incurred a fine for late return. This year he made a big public statement by making his tax return publicly available in order to shame rival politicians into taking a similar action. Unfortunately it has all gone wrong and has proved to be another embarrassment, albeit minor. It is worth reflecting on why this is the case and what lessons can be drawn.

The tax return that Corbyn has published contained a small technical error. His £27000 salary as leader of the opposition was declared, not as income from employment, but as a state benefit. Tax on this element of salary was paid in full; there was no implication or any attempt to dissemble; it was simply an entry put in the wrong place. This is no big deal to the Inland Revenue, but raises an important question. Given that taking the return into the public domain was a planned political offensive, was it thoroughly checked before it was issued and if so by whom? Were adequate processes in place and were the individuals responsible for implementing them competent in the jobs for which they are paid? Had they ever completed a tax return themselves?

Inevitably a minor gaffe led to derision from a hostile press who, in a dull political period, are just waiting for the next dropped ball; the Leader’s office issued a predictable petulant response and yet another chance for a more serious debate was missed.

Labour supporters in the constituencies may well shrug their shoulders but, to the electorate as a whole, competency in office does matter. Those of us who have worked most of lives in corporate roles simply cannot understand why the even the simplest things can’t be done effectively at this high-profile and well-resourced level.

To receive email notification of the next blog when it appears, press the ‘followleftyoldman’ button on the left hand side above.

Advertisements

Regaining trust – is am-dram the answer?

hbh2

The second half of 1985 was without doubt the worst period of my working life. I had spent some 17 years at the National Coal Board and we were all reeling from the effects of the year-long catastrophic strike. I had then been promoted to a job teaching at the industry’s internal management college, where we received instructions that our Chairman, Ian MacGregor, required us to devote all our efforts to improving the communication skills of colliery managers. He seemed to believe that the strike was a result of a corporate failure to put his message across at the coalface (for once a literal use of the term).

Opinions may differ on the causes of the strike, and what should have been done, but all of us knew that MacGregor was totally wrong in his analysis. The nature of the mining industry meant that there was plenty of contact and exchange between management and workers. They lived in the same communities and often had close family connections. The issue was not communication: there was an underlying political and economic agenda that needed to be resolved.

All this came flooding back when I saw Jeremy Corbyn’s reaction to the recent disastrous bye-election result at Copeland. “… Our message was not enough to win through in Copeland” he said “ To win power to rebuild and transform Britain, Labour will go further to reconnect with voters, and break with the failed political consensus.” This echoed his supporters’ underlying belief that, if their perspective was not distorted by a hostile media, the voters would immediately return to Labour.

This is, of course, nonsense. Flooding the estates with imported bands of Momentum activists would only make things worse. It would serve to remind the electorate of how detached the Corbyn supporters are from the aspirations and ambitions of most people, and how shallow the solutions on offer are. Banging on doors simply serves to remind the electorate of our malaise and, indeed, could make traditional Labour voters further question their intentions.

In recent blogs I have drawn attention to some defections of prominent North Norfolk individuals from Labour to the LibDems. I greatly regretted the departure of a former Mayor of Cromer: he was a fine young man. Before he resigned from the party he circulated his concerns over a members’ meeting held in November. The agenda included “role play activity which was aimed at developing skills and confidence in campaigning on the doorstep”. This, the former Mayor, described this as ‘unrealistic am-dram’.   However it was adjudged a success by the organisers and, on the Saturday immediately before Copeland, a morning session was scheduled where “through role play we will show different ways to engage with residents, discuss issues and find out whether they support Labour”.

One of the co-presenters of the session has a history of revolutionary Trotskyism. In fairness to him I doubt if he intended to use the occasion to explore the Marxist concept of ‘false consciousness’ (the way in which material, ideological, and institutional processes in capitalist society mislead members of the proletariat*). He might just as well done so, for all the good that sessions like this are going to have at this stage. Simply promoting the Party on the doorstep will serve no purpose until we have something to offer that makes sense to the electorate.   Until and unless we address the underlying policy vacuum, and get a new leader, all that is on offer is further decline.

 

* Taken from the Wikipedia definition of the term

 

Leftyoldman blogs appear on occasional basis when I have something to say. Sadly very little happens in Norfolk so intervals occur. To receive email notification of the next blog when it appears, press the ‘followleftyoldman’ button on the left hand side above.

The first signpost – on a long road ahead

war_remnants_museum_hcmc_front

We have just returned from a thoroughly enjoyable holiday in Vietnam; it is a country that is ambivalent about how to portray its own recent history. Most of the people I met there seemed to share similar aspirations to my neighbours in Norfolk. However there was a background of continuous propaganda on the success of the revolution and the 1975 victory over ‘American capitalist imperialism’.   The latter was at its most strident in a room in the War Remnants Museum in Ho Chi Minh City: it contained multiple photographs of protest marches purporting to demonstrate the international working-class solidarity against the war. I marched against the war as a student in the late 1960s. It was a protest of the university-educated intellectuals not the working class, who, as I recall, were for the main part were indifferent.

The reality is that the class basis of politics was always overstated and has faded irrevocably over the course of my political lifetime: this process had begun by the 1970s and has accelerated ever since.   It may well be that, as a result, the Labour Party faces inevitable decline; this certainly seems to be the view expressed in opinion pieces in our more serious newspapers.

The argument runs as follows: the Labour Party can only succeed as an alliance between middle-class progressives and working-class traditionalists. However, the June 2016 referendum hastened the road to extinction by showing, in sharp perspective, the collapse of the glue that held Labour together. A majority of both the forty Parliamentary Constituencies producing the biggest percentage of ‘remain’ votes and the forty Parliamentary Constituencies producing the biggest percentage of ‘leave’ votes are held by Labour. The former lie in the University cities, especially London; the latter lie in the traditional industrial heartlands. Skilled leadership, as demonstrated by the Scottish National Party, can hold a coalition together for a time (every Scottish Parliamentary Constituency voted remain) – but the division between those who have benefitted from globalization and those who feel threatened by such changes is real. It will be increasingly reflected in different behaviour at the ballot box. For the Labour Party, worse is to come.

In my previous blog I indicated that I was taking a break and would resume only when I saw a ray of hope for left of centre politics in the UK. Given the paragraph above it may appear surprising that I have put fingers to keyboard. Ironically, the disastrous election of Donald Trump suggests that a rebuild of liberal social democracy is possible. Trump’s election has put into sharp focus the ugly face of ultra-nationalism and given rise to large and peaceful demonstrations populated by like-minded people throughout the world.   Sophisticated modern technology allows rapid communication of ideas and these can rapidly feed through to changes in patterns of political activism and, ultimately, voting behaviour; both Donald Trump in the US and Jeremy Corbyn in the UK have demonstrated the potential of such movements. The very same weapon can be used against them.

So, looking to the long-term future, I believe that the choice may not lie between ultra-nationalism and unstructured protest. Liberal social democracy can and eventually will be rebuilt as a global movement. Class politics is dead and the sooner we get rid of Marxist terminology the better, but the remaining shell of the Labour Party may be a constituent of this international process with an important role to play in our country. I may not live to see the day but am hopeful nonetheless.