tag:theconversation.com,2011:/us/topics/conservative-party-conference-2016-31704/articlesConservative party conference 2016 – The Conversation2021-10-06T15:12:01Ztag:theconversation.com,2011:article/1692162021-10-06T15:12:01Z2021-10-06T15:12:01ZFive things we learned about levelling up from the Conservative party conference<p>Every political party relies on slogans to sell their policies and justify their decisions. Most vanish instantly into the void, but some are more special. These are the slogans that hold the others together. They are designed to sell not just a policy, but a whole programme for government. These are the “mantras”.</p>
<p>By now it is generally agreed that part of the UK’s current Conservative government electoral successes can be attributed to its promise to “level up” the nation. By now, the term has been used to the point of cliché. But at their annual conference in Manchester, the Conservatives had appeared to be about to add some meaningful detail to their strategy. Did they succeed?</p>
<p>In a decade of Conservatives mantras, we have heard “the big society”, “balance the books”, “long-term economic plan”, “strong and stable”, “get Brexit done”, and “build back better”. Much like these other mantras, “levelling up” is an attempt to communicate a whole policy agenda in a short phrase, while <a href="https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-923X.13010">appealing to</a> as many people as possible. </p>
<p>However, “levelling up” is proving to be a real problem for the government, because they find it so difficult to define and yet so important to deliver. This problem has been a central undercurrent at this year’s conference. Here are five things we’ve learned.</p>
<p><strong>1. Some progress but the definition remains ambiguous</strong></p>
<p>At the conference, we heard from both Michael Gove and Neil O'Brien, both recently installed at the Department for Levelling Up, Housing, and Communities. They sang from the same hymn sheet with a four-part definition of levelling up: (1) “empower local leaders and communities”; (2) “raise living standards, especially where they are lower” by “growing the private sector”; (3) “spread opportunity” and “improve public services, especially where they are weaker”; (4) “give people the resources necessary to enhance the pride they feel in the place they live”.</p>
<p>While this takes us closer to an accepted definition of levelling up, it has really only organised the various ambiguities into four groups. What does it mean, for example, to “raise living standards”? Is this about poverty, health, wages, housing, neighbourhoods, crime or something else? That remains unclear. </p>
<p><strong>2. The struggle over the definition is about departmental spending</strong></p>
<p>In a fringe meeting at the conference, Conservative peer David Willetts explained how the meaning of levelling up may ultimately be decided at the Treasury. Ahead of the spending review, all the different departments of government are jostling for resources. All of them are framing their pitch in relation to “levelling up” in order to secure money from the Treasury. This means that every minister is trying to stretch “levelling up” in their own direction. This, in turn, suggests that the upcoming spending review may be as important as the long-anticipated <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-to-publish-levelling-up-white-paper">levelling up white paper</a>. The two may well appear in the same week.</p>
<p><strong>3. Some form of devolution or local government reorganisation is likely to be involved</strong></p>
<p>Gove’s speech re-emphasised the importance of local pride and local leadership in the levelling up agenda, making it clear that local delivery would be key. Conservative mayor of the West Midlands, Andy Street, declared his optimism that more powers and resources were on their way to local leaders. </p>
<p>The <a href="https://lipsit.ac.uk/wp-content/uploads/2021/09/FINAL-Levelling-up-Report-digital.pdf">project report</a> I have produced with colleagues, launched at the conference, outlined how the current problems in local and regional government will prevent the delivery of levelling up. There remain big questions about whether “strengthening local leadership” will resolve these. The way that funding is distributed needs to be addressed, as does the way devolution is delivered in a <a href="https://www.ippr.org/blog/the-devolution-parliament">piecemeal deal-based way</a>, often actually increasing geographical inequalities.</p>
<p><strong>4. Money is going to be tight</strong></p>
<p>Among the members of the Conservative party who attended the conference, one of the most common themes was taxation. There are big worries that levelling up will mean further tax increases. This is going down like a lead balloon on the doorstep in Conservative heartlands. </p>
<p>Chancellor Rishi Sunak’s speech justified some tax and spending increases, but more forcefully spoke of “fiscal responsibility”, calling back to the austerity of the George Osborne era. He argued that “the public finances must be put back on a sustainable footing”. This does not seem to be opening up space for <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2021/aug/15/the-cost-of-boris-johnsons-levelling-up-2tn-says-uk-thinktank">the vast spending</a> that levelling up may require.</p>
<p><strong>5. No Conservative is in a rush to explain how levelling up should be measured</strong></p>
<p>The ambiguities of levelling up are most problematic in the absence of any discernible measures of success. There are so many different ways to measure “living standards” that it will be very difficult for anyone to hold the government to account. It’s still possible that these measures will appear in time, but despite framing this as the levelling up conference, the party of government continues to avoid scrutiny. Without an understanding of how success should be measured, we will have to take the government’s word for it.</p>
<p>Overall, very little has changed in Boris Johnson’s rhetoric on levelling up since <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-prime-ministers-levelling-up-speech-15-july-2021">his speech in July</a>. It is still about tackling geographical inequalities. And Johnson continues to hold on to the idea that deprived places can all be brought up to the level of prosperous places without any major redistributions of wealth. Though this seems far-fetched, we will await answers in the forthcoming spending review and levelling up white paper.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/169216/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Jack Newman is a Research Fellow at the University of Surrey, working on the LIPSIT project, which is funded by the ESRC.</span></em></p>Boris Johnson’s party were aiming to show what they actually mean by this ubiquitous mantra. Was it a success?Jack Newman, Research Fellow, Department of Sociology, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665772016-10-07T12:11:42Z2016-10-07T12:11:42ZThe true size of Theresa May’s social justice challenge<p>Theresa May made some very welcome commitments to fairness in her speech to close her first party conference as prime minister. She pledged to tackle “unfairness and injustice”, “shifting the balance of Britain decisively in favour of ordinary working class people”. </p>
<p>In a speech almost entirely centred around this theme, May noted that it was working class families, not the wealthy “who made the biggest sacrifices after the financial crash”. </p>
<p>So far as she went, May’s analysis was on the button. While unemployment didn’t increase as much as expected in the most recent recession, a substantial fall in real wages was recorded. The lowest paid were hit particularly hard, while <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/social-policy-in-a-cold-climate">wage inequality</a> grew. Young people were consistently most affected by falling wages, income and wealth. </p>
<p>Meanwhile, a number of <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/social-policy-in-a-cold-climate">social mobility</a> indicators deteriorated since 2010, including low birth weight and school readiness. <a href="https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/en/our-work/news/largest-ever-review-reveals-%25E2%2580%2598winners-and-losers%25E2%2580%2599-progress-towards-equality-great">White working class children</a>, particularly boys, are consistently underachieving compared to boys from other ethnic backgrounds.</p>
<p>May also spoke of an “economic and cultural revival of all of our great regional cities”, hinting at the <a href="http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp23.pdf">divide between London and the north of England</a>. Not only has London shown a faster economic recovery from the recent recession compared to the northern regions but gaps in some social outcomes also show signs of widening.</p>
<p>A higher proportion of children living in London are now achieving “good development”. London’s residents are also better qualified and have seen bigger health improvements in terms of the prevention of killer diseases, better mental health and fewer suicides. A smaller proportion of elderly people are disabled. Post-Brexit talk of a new industrial strategy to bring greater economic prosperity to struggling regions is therefore very welcome.</p>
<h2>A daunting task</h2>
<p>But if May really intends to lead in the spirit of social justice, she will need to go substantially further than she has so far.</p>
<p>Her remarks have clearly been aimed at the “hard working families” and prospective home owners who have become target voters for the Conservatives. But what about those in more marginal positions - people on the lowest incomes, or the most vulnerable and marginalised groups such as homeless people and refugees and asylum seekers?</p>
<p>Granted, she could not say everything in a short speech. But history suggests that if her redistributive focus continues to be on the working not-exactly-poor, following the example of David Cameron’s government, she will find it difficult to “make Britain a country that works for everyone”.</p>
<p><a href="http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/dps/case/spcc/wp22.pdf">Analysis by the Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion</a> shows that despite pledges to protect the poor from the worst impacts of the financial crisis, it was the poorest quarter of households who were net losers from the combined tax and benefit changes brought in by the coalition government. The bottom 5% of households lost the most. <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/households-below-average-income-199495-to-201415">Child poverty is now rising</a>, up in 2014-15 from 17% to 19%.</p>
<p>The poorest households benefited <a href="https://www.iser.essex.ac.uk/research/publications/working-papers/euromod/em13-15">very little</a> from being let off income tax under the coalition because so much of their income was clawed back from the government in benefits cuts. The main gainers from the changes to the income tax personal allowance were households around the middle of the income distribution, while the main gainers of all changes to taxes and benefits taken together were about three-quarters of the way up. Cuts in benefits effectively paid for cuts in taxes for the better-off.</p>
<p>Our <a href="https://policypress.co.uk/social-policy-in-a-cold-climate">research</a> also documented other limitations of the Cameron government’s social justice policies. Around 40% of Sure Start centres for young children have closed. Social care caseloads fell 25% as local government spending was slashed. And that while health budgets have been protected, they have not been increased in line with need, leading to visible strains in service provision. The number of adult learners fell 17% and the number of mature and part-time students in higher education nearly halved. </p>
<p>Central government funding for the regeneration of the most deprived neighbourhoods has been almost entirely cut, as has support for local charities and community work (between 50% and 100% in some deprived areas). Housing policies made little impact on the supply side of the new homes - between 2010 and 2014, only 140,000 new homes were completed per year, fewer than under Labour. </p>
<p>So tackling burning injustices and making Britain “a country that works for everyone” is going to require much bolder policies from the new prime minister than her predecessor enacted or she has signalled to date. She must have the least advantaged, not the middle group, as their target. It would be remarkable, but <a href="http://sticerd.lse.ac.uk/spcc">incredibly welcome</a>, if we were to see this from a Conservative government.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66577/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Ruth Lupton receives funding from the Jospeph Rowntree Foundation, Nuffield Foundation and Trust for London and from the Economic and Social Research Council</span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Polina Obolenskaya was part of research team who received funding for the work referred to in this article from The Nuffield Foundation, the Joseph Rowntree Foundation and the Trust for London. </span></em></p>The new prime minister has made social justice her brand. But the evidence shows just how big a job her predecessors left for her.Ruth Lupton, Visiting Professor, LSE Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion and Professor of Education at the University of Manchester, London School of Economics and Political SciencePolina Obolenskaya, Research Officer, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics and Political ScienceLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/666062016-10-05T14:50:26Z2016-10-05T14:50:26ZWe’ve heard the philosophy, but where is Theresa May’s plan?<p>Most prime ministers have a honeymoon period when they first enter Number 10; a few months in which the press is less critical and things seem optimistic. Theresa May’s predecessor David Cameron had stood in Downing Street’s rose garden with Nick Clegg to announce a new type of politics. Even Gordon Brown saw a few months in which his poll ratings rocketed.</p>
<p>May didn’t have an easy entry to Downing Street – with the Conservative leadership election ending before it had even got into full swing, she found herself thrown into the role much sooner than expected. And she has been permanently surrounded by talk of Brexit. But she has, so far, maintained a <a href="https://yougov.co.uk/news/2016/09/30/voting-intention-no-change-across-board/">comfortable lead</a> over Jeremy Corbyn’s divided Labour. Her task, then, as she addressed her party and the nation, was to try to cement this lead. </p>
<p>And to a large extent she succeeded in doing so. Given that the <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-conference-speech-working-class-a7344636.html">press has found</a> most of the speeches made at this year’s party conference to be “paint-dryingly, grass-growingly, sheep-countingly dull”, this wasn’t going to be too hard a task.</p>
<p>It may have lacked the drama and strong emotion of a Tony Blair or a Cameron conference speech, but May and her team had carefully briefed its key themes in the morning. The media was told to expect a call to reclaim <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37556019">“the centre ground”</a>. This was the moment for the Conservatives to move into the space occupied for so long by New Labour.</p>
<p>So, naturally, this is the context in which her speech has been interpreted by the press. May is positioning itself further towards the left, helping <a href="http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theresa-may-tory-conference-speech-working-class-a7344636.html">“ordinary working class people”</a>. May wants to tackle inequality. May wants to tackle tax avoidance. </p>
<p>In pledging all this, she has joined a long list of prime ministers and party leaders asking for a “new approach” to politics and who insist that there is a “plan”. </p>
<p>It’s true that we now have a better idea of the broad philosophy of the May government. We know she aspires to be a “great” prime minister like Thatcher, Atlee or Churchill, whose portraits she walks past every day. We know that she wants to make her country more fair and her party more responsive to the needs of ordinary working people. We know that she wants to give everyone more opportunity to make a success of their lives. </p>
<p>This was crafted as a speech to the Conservative party faithful, praising the achievements of the Cameron government. But it was also a speech for those Labour voters who are beginning to find the internal divisions in the party unpalatable. The emphasis on being “the party of the workers” was a clever one, reaching out to those who consider the party to favour only the rich and powerful.</p>
<p>She may not have singled out Corbyn but she worked hard to paint a picture of today’s Labour Party as divided and in disarray, a party which, like the Conservatives in the late 1990s, is out of touch with what the country wants and needs. Labour is “divisive” and abuses its own MPs. Labour, is the “nasty party”. All this was enough to start re-positioning the Conservative Party. It’s probably the start of a line on Labour we’ll hear regularly in the run up to a 2020 election. </p>
<p>But what we don’t really is know how May is going to get to where she wants to go. The desire for change sounded impressive, but this speech was also significant for what was not said. There were no detailed policy announcements, just hints at what is to come. There was talk of energy tariffs, the need to build more homes and, of course, reference to the grammar schools plan that has her party members so excited. But there were no new announcements, no figures or plans.</p>
<p>In fact, May said right at the start that this speech was about her philosophy for Britain “after” Brexit. It’s not clear if this means once Article 50 has been triggered early next year, or once the nitty gritty of exit negotiations has been concluded. The Autumn Statement or next year’s budget may give a clearer idea of the ways in which the new Conservative government will reach out to help “ordinary” people. But we could equally be in for a much longer wait.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66606/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Louise Thompson does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Her closing conference speech promised a plan to regain the centre and look after those in need, but the prime minister never quite got round to delivering it.Louise Thompson, Lecturer in British Politics, University of SurreyLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/661592016-10-05T08:41:59Z2016-10-05T08:41:59ZLife after David Cameron: the Conservatives have lost a major asset<p>David Cameron – according to Kenneth Clarke – was a <a href="http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3819918/Tory-grandee-Ken-Clarke-launches-scathing-attack-control-freak-David-Cameron-reveals-No-10-deceived-blocking-Question-Time-appearance.html">PR-obsessed control freak</a>. If that is the case, he is not a bad advert for what PR and control freakery can achieve for a politician’s public standing. Cameron was almost always positively rated by the public – or at least viewed more favourably than is usual for politicians.</p>
<p>He was first elected as an MP in 2001 and was working for the Conservative party before that. But he attracted no notice in the polls before coming apparently from nowhere to emerge as a serious contender for the party leadership in September 2005.</p>
<p>When <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/549/Prime-Minister-Party-Leader-Survey.aspx">Ipsos Mori first included him</a> in a poll during that leadership contest, only 8% of the public chose him as their preferred leader. Only 6% thought he would make the most capable prime minister of the four candidates in the running.</p>
<p>Of course, at that point few people knew much about him. It didn’t take Cameron long to make an impact, though. <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/516/MORI-Political-Monitor-October-2005.aspx">A month into the leadership campaign</a> he was well ahead of the other candidates in the public’s esteem and among party members. And by the time we asked the public for the first time if they were satisfied with the way he was doing his job as leader, <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=330">in January 2006</a>, he had accumulated almost a two-to-one margin in his favour (although with many don’t knows, as is always the case for a new leader).</p>
<p>That first rating of 31% satisfied, 17% dissatisfied was perhaps an early indication that Cameron had the public appeal to eventually become prime minister. Tony Blair’s first figures as Labour leader (33% to 19%) had been very similar. Cameron’s Conservative predecessors William Hague (21% to 24%), Iain Duncan Smith (22% to 14%) and Michael Howard (22% to 21%) had made an early positive impression on barely two-thirds as many of the voters whose support they needed to draw.</p>
<h2>Loved as leader?</h2>
<p>Over the next few months, Cameron’s ratings were less impressive, but there was a dramatic improvement after Gordon Brown became prime minister, especially once the scale of the financial crisis became apparent. Perhaps this was just a case of being in the right place at the right time, but it was certainly positive.</p>
<p>Between June 2008 and May 2009, Cameron’s average rating was 48% satisfied, 33% dissatisfied. Brown was scoring 30% satisfied and 63% dissatisfied in the same polls.</p>
<p>Cameron’s Tories were the largest party after the 2010 general election, although it could not secure an overall majority. Whether he was personally to blame for that or whether it was a result of the electoral system will remain a matter of debate but one point which shines out very clearly is that Cameron was always an asset to the Conservatives, not a liability.</p>
<p>Ipsos MORI regularly <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/2543/Like-the-Leader-Like-their-Party.aspx#cameron">asks the public</a> whether they like the party leaders and their parties. We did not always find a majority saying they liked Cameron, especially after he had become prime minister, but in every poll he scored better than the Conservative party, sometimes substantially better.</p>
<p>In a <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2600">poll during the 2010 election campaign</a>, more than one in five of the public, 22%, said they liked David Cameron but did not like the Conservative Party; only 7% liked the party and not its leader.</p>
<p>On average, 32.9% were satisfied with the way the government was running the country while Cameron was in No 10. The long-term average is 30.5% and only Tony Blair (36.3%) has averaged better than Cameron.</p>
<h2>Broken by Brexit</h2>
<p>Of course, Cameron finally came unstuck at the EU referendum, at least partly because he relied on his ability to transcend modern voters’ instinctive distrust of all politicians and sway them towards a Remain vote. Back in October last year, <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3641/Stays-lead-narrows-in-EU-Referendum-debate.aspx">we found</a> that Cameron was no more trusted to tell the truth about Britain’s relationship with Europe than were Jeremy Corbyn or Nigel Farage, and it seems to have been voters’ disinclination to believe the scare arguments of the Remain campaign that eventually tipped the balance.</p>
<p>Yet there was no great clamour for Cameron to resign. On the <a href="https://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/3752/Ipsos-MORI-EU-Referendum-Prediction-Poll.aspx">eve of the referendum</a>, more of the public thought he should remain PM even if Britain voted to leave than thought he should resign.</p>
<p>That, of course, was never politically realistic. The referendum defeat will probably be what defines Cameron’s premiership and leadership for posterity. But he can look back on a record of having been better than most recent party leaders at sustaining a reputable standing in public opinion for most of his time at the top. </p>
<p>If Theresa May’s ratings have been as good as Cameron’s by the time she retires, she will probably have been a success as prime minister. And paying at least a little attention to good public relations is likely to be a part of that.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66159/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Roger Mortimore works for Ipsos MORI.</span></em></p>A look back at the polls shows just how popular Theresa May’s predecessor was.Roger Mortimore, Director of Political Analysis at Ipsos MORI and Professor of Public Opinion and Political Analysis, King's College LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664992016-10-04T15:58:37Z2016-10-04T15:58:37ZHard Brexit, tough times – Theresa May’s Britain will be stretched at the seams<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140338/original/image-20161004-20205-1wxnmty.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">Chamberlain square in Birmingham.</span> <span class="attribution"><span class="source">Shutterstock</span></span></figcaption></figure><p>Birmingham has a square named after <a href="https://theconversation.com/boris-johnson-should-think-less-churchill-and-more-chamberlain-40704">Joseph Chamberlain</a>, its most famous politician, through which visitors to the Conservative Party conference will pass this week. Although the square is home only to a lacklustre memorial fountain, and not his statue, Chamberlain still looms large over proceedings at the conference.</p>
<p>He is celebrated by Theresa May and her colleagues as a champion of the manufacturing industry and a great social reformer. He is the radical who campaigned for municipal education, decent housing and civic improvements for the Victorian working class.</p>
<p>Chamberlain was also an apostle of imperial unity between Great Britain and her settler colonies – what today’s Brexiteers call the “Anglosphere”. As colonial secretary, he sought closer economic and political ties between Great Britain and Canada, South Africa, Australia and New Zealand.</p>
<p>His passion for this cause would eventually lead him out of government, to campaign for <a href="https://www.jstor.org/stable/175383">tariff reform</a> that would give preference to colonial goods and shelter British industry from international competition. It was a lost cause. Free trade was too deeply embedded in the political economy of Edwardian Britain for Chamberlain to dislodge it. Birmingham’s manufacturers were no match for the City’s financial, commercial and shipping interests, or the industries, like cotton, that would pay more for imported raw materials.</p>
<p>Chamberlain himself lost the loyalty of the working class to a new progressive alliance of Liberal and Labour interests.</p>
<h2>A lesson for a new PM</h2>
<p>May wants to succeed where Chamberlain failed in uniting working-class voters with the British industrial interest. She has created a new department for industrial strategy and promised to prioritise <a href="http://www.resolutionfoundation.org/media/press-releases/britains-just-managing-families-have-experienced-a-13-year-income-squeeze/">“just managing” households</a>. Housing policy is to be refocused from subsidising home ownership, to building homes and supporting private renters. Fiscal policy will be relaxed, easing planned cuts to services and benefits.</p>
<p>The electoral coalition that delivered Brexit – of struggling working-class voters and middle-class older voters (or the <a href="http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/features/the-hands-on-economy-industrial-policy-thatcherite">“excluded and the insulated”</a>, as David Willetts recently put it) – will form the ballast of a new Conservative hegemony.</p>
<p>But the prime minister’s chosen path to Brexit – of prioritising immigration control over the single market, and “sovereignty” over the jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice – will bring her into conflict with Britain’s existing political economic interests. She will face similar pressures as Chamberlain in his campaign for tariff reform.</p>
<p>Britain’s leading-edge manufacturers – in the automotive and aerospace sectors, for example – are deeply integrated into the European single market. They do not simply make products in the UK and sell them to the rest of Europe, tariff free, as Brexiteers suppose. They have complex supply chains. They move parts and people across plants in the EU. Imposing custom checks, slowing down supplies and limiting the movement of workers will matter as much as tariffs to their operations. And what goes for manufacturing is doubly true for services.</p>
<p>Decisions about new investment will often be taken in global HQs, not national branch offices. The growth of foreign direct investment in the UK since the 1980s means that much of Britain’s industrial capital is no longer national in any meaningful sense. Economic patriotism will hold little sway over multinational investors or global bankers.</p>
<figure class="align-center ">
<img alt="" src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&fit=clip" srcset="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=1 600w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=2 1200w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=600&h=367&fit=crop&dpr=3 1800w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=1 754w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=30&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=2 1508w, https://images.theconversation.com/files/140339/original/image-20161004-20230-m4lnhy.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=15&auto=format&w=754&h=462&fit=crop&dpr=3 2262w" sizes="(min-width: 1466px) 754px, (max-width: 599px) 100vw, (min-width: 600px) 600px, 237px">
<figcaption>
<span class="caption">May: doesn’t yet cast a shadow as long as Chamberlain.</span>
<span class="attribution"><span class="source">EPA</span></span>
</figcaption>
</figure>
<p>Some political economists argue that the advanced sectors of the economy are not subject to partisan division. Their centrality to national prosperity is such that political parties agree on the policies needed to secure their interests. If so, that may be about to change. The City of London and the leading export sectors – trade unions and employers – have yet to properly flex their muscles in the Brexit debate. Although they cannot currently turn to an electorally credible Labour opposition to make their case, they will have advocacy routes of their own. They include the mayor of London and the Scottish government.</p>
<p><a href="https://theconversation.com/mays-hard-brexit-means-taking-back-control-from-britains-elected-parliament-66441">Hard Brexit</a> will stretch May’s unionism and the unity of the country, as much as that of her own party, to the limit (and that is before the status of Northern Ireland’s border is factored into the equation).</p>
<p>Few peacetime prime ministers have confronted a set of challenges like those facing May. Holding together the United Kingdom, revitalising British industry, delivering shared prosperity to working people and renegotiating Britain’s place in Europe and the world make for a formidable list. Lesser ones defeated Chamberlain and his generation. Theresa May will hope that she isn’t memorialised by failure.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66499/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Nick Pearce is a member of the Labour Party in a personal capacity.</span></em></p>Joseph Chamberlain tried to reconcile international trade with the needs of British workers and failed. Can Theresa May really succeed?Nick Pearce, Director, Institute of Policy Research, University of BathLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665042016-10-04T15:53:58Z2016-10-04T15:53:58ZWhy human rights law is not a threat to the British armed forces<p>In recent weeks, a number of public figures, including Prime Minister <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2016/sep/21/theresa-may-will-oppose-vexatious-allegations-against-iraq-uk-troops">Theresa May</a> and one of her predecessors, <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/25/tony-blair-voices-anger-at-pursuit-of-british-soldiers-for-alleged-war-abuses">Tony Blair</a>, have criticised the application of international human rights law to the British armed forces. This was sparked by the work of the <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/groups/iraq-historic-allegations-team-ihat">Iraq Historical Allegations Team</a> (IHAT), which was established to review and investigate allegations that UK armed forces abused Iraqi civilians in the period 2003-2009.</p>
<p>In response, the defence secretary, Michael Fallon, <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37553504">announced</a> at the Conservative Party conference that the government intends to “derogate” – or suspend – some of the armed forces’ obligations under the <a href="http://www.echr.coe.int/Documents/Convention_ENG.pdf">European Convention on Human Rights</a> during future armed conflicts. </p>
<p>Much of this appears to be based on a misconception that the application of human rights law is a threat to the proper functioning of the armed forces. The reality is, however, that human rights law not only remains applicable during wartime, but it is also able to take account of the particular circumstances of armed conflict and so is not a threat to the military. </p>
<h2>How derogations work</h2>
<p>Derogations of the sort the government has announced are an accepted feature of human rights law. They allow certain rights to be modified – but not negated – to facilitate their application in times of emergency or war. A good example is internment, the detention of individuals who pose a future security threat. In normal circumstances, internment is not permissible under the European Convention on Human Rights – but if internment is necessary it will be permitted on the basis of a valid derogation. For example, the UK <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22fulltext%22:%5B%225310/71%22%5D,%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-57506%22%5D%7D">lawfully derogated</a> from the convention to allow interment in Northern Ireland during The Troubles. </p>
<p>While some rights may be modified in times of emergency or war, international human rights law makes clear that certain rights, such as the prohibition of torture, can never be derogated from, as torture can never be justified. </p>
<p>By announcing it will seek to pursue a derogation in future conflicts, May’s government appears to accept that, in principle, the European convention continues to apply to UK forces during armed conflict, albeit with certain rights modified. This means that the activities of UK forces will remain subject to the supervision of the European Court of Human Rights. </p>
<h2>Human rights don’t ‘stop at the border’</h2>
<p>The majority of commentators who have criticised the historical Iraq investigations do not seem to be calling for immunity from war crimes. No self-respecting army officer would say that soldiers are above the law; rather the British armed forces are interested in ensuring that they do not get branded as war criminals. So there is wide agreement on all sides that some form of investigation must take place when a war crime is suspected.</p>
<p>Instead, the debate has arisen due to what appears to be the unprecedented scale and scope of investigations, and the perception that soldiers are being held to an impracticable high-standard as a result of applying human rights law to the battlefield. </p>
<p>Critics therefore argue that human rights law should not apply to military operations abroad. But it is already widely accepted by international and UK courts that human rights law does not apply just to state agents operating within the UK, and so does not “<a href="http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2016/811.html">stop at the border</a>”. </p>
<p>Imagine a situation in which a state sends police forces across the border to summarily execute someone: without allowing for extra-territorial human rights obligations, such actions would remain without an appropriate legal course of redress for those affected. As noted by the <a href="http://hrlibrary.umn.edu/undocs/html/56_1979.htm">UN Human Rights Committee</a> back in the early 1980s: “It would be unconscionable” not to hold that state responsible for violations “on the territory of another state, which … it could not perpetrate on its own territory.”</p>
<h2>What happens during armed conflict</h2>
<p>A second strand of criticism is that in war situations, human rights law (such as the European Convention on Human Rights) should give way to the law of armed conflict (such as the <a href="https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/geneva_conventions">Geneva Conventions</a>). Here too, international bodies have <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/95/7495.pdf">repeatedly</a> <a href="http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/116/10455.pdf">affirmed</a> that human rights law does, in principle, continue to apply during wartime. Yet this does not mean that states are subject to the same human rights obligations in war as in peace: both the continued application of the law of armed conflict, and the factual circumstances of war, can modify the extent of the armed forces’ human rights obligations. This includes the possibility of lawful derogations if necessary.</p>
<p>Human rights law is flexible and realistic. For example, if a suspicious death occurs, human rights law requires the state to investigate. But, as <a href="http://hudoc.echr.coe.int/eng#%7B%22fulltext%22:%5B%22al-skeini%22%5D,%22documentcollectionid2%22:%5B%22GRANDCHAMBER%22,%22CHAMBER%22%5D,%22itemid%22:%5B%22001-105606%22%5D%7D">the European Court has acknowledged</a>, this obligation will be very different for police in Manchester or soldiers in Basra, where the security situation may affect the ability to investigate. </p>
<p>Ultimately, the proper co-application of human rights law and the law of armed conflict will not frustrate military operations, and would not prevent, for example, the killing of an enemy soldier during battlefield hostilities. Although the right to life continues to apply, it is interpreted differently in times of war. Unlawful killing will remain prohibited, but during hostilities a violation of the human right to life will usually be found only in relation to conduct that violates the law of armed conflict. </p>
<p>However, the further away one moves from the battlefield, and outside of active hostilities and certain detention frameworks, the co-application of the two types of law will lean closer to a human rights law standard, in line with the level of control exerted by the armed forces. </p>
<p>This means that the recent criticisms have directed fire at the wrong target. Properly interpreted, and with appropriate use of lawful derogations, human rights law does not place an undue burden on the armed forces. Nor does it undermine their ability to effectively conduct military operations. And even if human rights law did not apply, there would still be wide agreement that the actions of armed forces must be subjected to scrutiny, and that rogue and unlawful behaviour must be addressed. This can only be achieved when effective investigations take place. </p>
<p>Investigations of suspected breaches of law are necessary not only for securing the rights of affected individuals, but also for the interests of the military itself. By ensuring accountability where necessary, by disproving baseless allegations, and by demonstrating a commitment to the rule of law, the armed forces publicly demonstrate their integrity and professionalism – and ensure the public’s trust.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66504/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Noam Lubell is leading an international project of expert meetings aimed at producing a new document on 'Best Practices for Investigations During Armed Conflict'. The project has received funding from the Swiss and Dutch Governments. </span></em></p><p class="fine-print"><em><span>Daragh Murray does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The UK government plans to suspend parts of the European Convention on Human Rights in future conflicts.Noam Lubell, Professor of Law of Armed Conflict and Head of Essex Law School, University of EssexDaragh Murray, Lecturer in International Human Rights Law at Essex Law School, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/665012016-10-04T15:47:26Z2016-10-04T15:47:26ZDon’t be fooled, the Conservatives remain utterly divided on Brexit<p>The Conservative party has been in turmoil over Europe since the late 1980s. Divisions erupted back then over how Britain, led by the Thatcher governments, should respond to the quickening pace of European political integration.</p>
<p>A new political generation of hard-line eurosceptics emerged within the Tory party. Leaders, from John Major to David Cameron, have been struggling to contain this group ever since. William Hague and Iain Duncan Smith embraced a virulent strain of anti-Europeanism, but their obsession with the EU didn’t resonate with British voters back then. The Conservatives remained electorally marginalised.</p>
<p>In 2006, Cameron urged his party to stop <a href="http://www.britishpoliticalspeech.org/speech-archive.htm?speech=314">“banging on about Europe”</a> in order to develop a fresh, modernising appeal. This strategy was initially successful in taking the Conservatives back towards the centre ground. But even Cameron was unable to stem the eurosceptic tide. Too many people in his party feared being eclipsed by the emerging UK Independence Party (UKIP). That was ultimately why Cameron agreed to hold a referendum on the UK’s EU membership (having staved off an initial attempt by his backbenchers to hold a vote in 2011). His decision came against the advice of many senior Conservative politicians.</p>
<h2>Trouble ahead</h2>
<p>Even now the referendum has been held, the political divisions in the Conservative party have not been assuaged. The debate at the Tory conference in Birmingham has made that clear.</p>
<p>The party remains divided into three distinctive Brexit camps. Followers of Liam Fox and David Davis favour a “hard Brexit”, while some former ministers, such as Anna Soubry and Nicky Morgan urge a “soft Brexit” that they hope will see the UK working closely with EU partners. A group of ministers in the middle led by Chancellor Phillip Hammond accepts that “Brexit means Brexit”, but would like the UK to retain access to the single market at a minimum.</p>
<p>The Conservative party membership is heavily in favour of a “hard Brexit”. But as former education secretary Nicky Morgan pointed out in a speech on the fringe in Birmingham, handling Brexit badly would weaken the Tories’ reputation for economic competence. It could potentially weaken their appeal to swing voters in marginal seats.</p>
<p>Nor has the referendum resolved the question of what kind of European future the UK should seek. This despite the new prime minister’s declaration that she intends to activate Article 50 by the end of March 2017.</p>
<p>The <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-the-norway-model-is-a-flawed-blueprint-for-brexit-64404">“Norway-plus”</a> option is the most attractive for the political and financial elite (and indeed to many voters) who still have considerable influence over policy in the Tory party. But unfettered single market access requires acceptance of free movement, budgetary contributions, and EU regulations without an ability to influence the rules of the game at European level. This option looks increasingly implausible to British and EU diplomats.</p>
<p>On the other hand, shifting towards a unilateralist trade policy would inflict an enormous structural shock on the British economy. That would divide the Conservative Party from its electoral base in corporate business and the City of London. Years of uncertainty created by protracted and complex trade negotiations would threaten inward investment (the UK is more <a href="https://theconversation.com/how-brexit-would-reduce-foreign-investment-in-the-uk-and-why-that-matters-57909">dependent on foreign investment</a> than any other advanced economy). Key investment decision would have to be postponed or cancelled – as car manufacturer <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/sep/30/nissan-hard-brexit-compensation-new-uk-investment-tariffs">Nissan</a> has signalled.</p>
<p>The failure to secure <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-36630606">“passporting”</a> rights for the UK’s financial services sector to trade in Euro-denominated activities would imperil London’s position as one of the world’s leading financial centres. For this to occur under a Conservative government’s watch would be an extraordinary development, given the importance that Tory leaders have accorded historically to sustaining the support of financial interests.</p>
<h2>Anything left to govern?</h2>
<p>Then comes the issue of the threat Brexit poses to the British state. Conservative politicians will have to make choices about the UK’s economic future within an increasingly dysfunctional and crisis-prone political system. The territorial politics of Scottish independence, turmoil in Northern Ireland, and fragmentation in England (witness the attempt by London to secure greater autonomy over taxes and spending) threaten to break Great Britain apart.</p>
<p>A referendum is any case inimical to how Conservatives in Britain have traditionally thought about constitutional politics. After the 1975 referendum, the then Conservative leader, Margaret Thatcher, argued that parliament had the right to ignore the referendum result. Constitutional authority flowed from the <a href="http://www.academia.edu/15033464/Understanding_Britains_Yes_to_Europe_The_Official_Public_Information_Campaign_January_-_June_1975_presented_to_the_Queen_Mary_School_of_History_First_Year_Colloquium_30_April_2015">doctrine of parliamentary sovereignty</a>, she said, not the direct will of the people.</p>
<p>Yet here are MPs implementing a referendum decision with which two-thirds of them fundamentally disagree, and believe will have negative repercussions for their constituents. The referendum imposes a new divide in British politics between plebiscitary and parliamentary democracy.</p>
<p>The stakes for the Conservative party are high indeed. Negotiating a “successful” Brexit is a major challenge for Tory party statecraft. They have to identify a plausible model for a British future outside the EU which recognises the will of voters expressed in the referendum result. They have to do that without sacrificing the Conservative party’s traditional credentials of economic stewardship. Meanwhile, May has to hold together a party which Europe has threatened to destroy more than once over the last three decades.</p>
<p>The June referendum was intended to clarify the UK’s relationship with Europe for at least a generation. The risk is that it simply provokes an almost never ending round of political turmoil and schism.</p>
<p><em>This article also features on the <a href="http://ukandeu.ac.uk/the-conservative-party-and-brexit/">UK in A Changing Europe</a> blog</em></p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66501/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Patrick Diamond is affiliated with Queen Mary, University of London and the think-tank Policy Network. He is a member of the Labour party. </span></em></p>Half the party banged on about Europe so much they got a referendum. Now the Conservatives are divided about what happens now.Patrick Diamond, Lecturer in Public Policy, Queen Mary University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/663522016-10-04T12:40:53Z2016-10-04T12:40:53ZHow the Tories are starting to win over ethnic minority voters<p>A previously unthinkable question is being asked at the Conservatives’ annual conference in Birmingham. Can the Tories establish themselves as the dominant electoral force among Britain’s ethnic minorities?</p>
<p>The party’s relationship with ethnic minorities has been historically strained. The 1964 Smethwick election featured victorious Tory candidate Peter Griffiths supporting the deplorable slogan “if you want a nigger for a neighbour, vote Labour”. This was followed by Enoch Powell’s notorious 1968 <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/3643823/Enoch-Powells-Rivers-of-Blood-speech.html">Rivers of Blood speech</a> that <a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/april/20/newsid_2489000/2489357.stm">attacked the government’s</a> immigration policy (which was, ironically, delivered in Birmingham).</p>
<p>Labour’s <a href="https://web.warwick.ac.uk/fac/soc/CRER_RC/publications/pdfs/Research%20Papers%20in%20Ethnic%20Relations/RP%20No.12.pdf">race relations legislation</a> in the 1970s helped establish it as a political standard bearer for racial equality. The legacy was powerful enough to consistently deliver support from socially mobile, middle-class British Indian voters throughout the New Labour years.</p>
<p>But times have changed. The 2015 election saw the Conservatives win a million ethnic minority voters for the first time in its history. They ended up with an <a href="http://www.britishfuture.org/articles/ethnic-minority-votes-up-for-grabs/">eight percentage-point advantage</a> over Labour among British Hindu and Sikh voters following the 2015 election, taking 49% to Labour’s 41% in both groups. </p>
<p>This sharply contrasts with figures from 2010. <a href="http://www.theosthinktank.co.uk/files/files/Reports/Voting%20and%20Values%20in%20Britain%2012.pdf">Research</a> on that year’s election gave Labour a 14 percentage-point advantage over the Tories among British Hindus. The Conservatives also trailed Labour by 48.5 percentage points within the UK Sikh community. Prosperous, socially mobile Indian voters are seemingly ditching red for blue in their droves.</p>
<h2>Opportunity knocks</h2>
<p><a href="http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2015/01/labour-losing-ethnic-minority-vote">Recent studies</a> have suggested that British Indian, Pakistani, and Black African voters hold increasingly lukewarm attitudes towards Labour.</p>
<p>From 1997-2014, the percentage of Indian voters identifying with Labour fell from 77% to just 45%. The trend is similar for other ethnic minorities. For Pakistanis, the drop is from 79% to 54%. For Black Africans, it’s from 79% to 59%.</p>
<p>Little wonder the Tories seem to sense the chance to establish electoral predominance in a country where ethnic minorities will comprise 20-30% of the national population by 2050.</p>
<p>And sure enough, the British public has started to see the Conservatives woo a certain demographic. David Cameron, for example, introduced an initiative committing major recruiters such as the BBC, NHS, HSBC and KPMG to name-blind job applications – a process aimed at tackling racial bias. </p>
<p>Theresa May went on to directly reference racial injustice in her very <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/statement-from-the-new-prime-minister-theresa-may">first speech</a> as prime minister and launched a <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/prime-minister-orders-government-audit-to-tackle-racial-disparities-in-public-service-outcomes">“public sector race audit”</a> – a review into how ethnic minorities are treated by the NHS, schools, police and the courts.</p>
<p>Tory efforts to develop stronger electoral relations with Britain’s ethnic minority voters are rooted in both principle and pragmatism. The Conservatives clearly realise they cannot credibly claim to be a “one nation” party without commanding the support of a significant proportion of Britain’s ethnic minority voters. Nor can it achieve a sizeable parliamentary majority without building such support.</p>
<h2>Eyes on 2020</h2>
<p>Of course, ethnic minority voters should not be treated as a homogenous bloc. Based on previous polling evidence, Pakistani and Bangladeshi Muslim voters largely maintained their traditional partisan loyalties to Labour in the 2015 election. It’s even possible that Labour’s vote could strengthen within these sub-electorates. Jeremy Corbyn’s consistent opposition to military interventions in the Middle East and frequent criticism of Islamophobia could certainly help.</p>
<p>The problem is, this would primarily increase Labour’s support in areas of the West Midlands and northern England which are already “solidly red”. That’s unlikely to be beneficial in terms of parliamentary seat gains. In marginal constituencies where socially mobile ethnic minority voters are increasingly living (particularly those of Indian origin), the Conservatives could be well positioned. Indeed, <a href="http://www.electionpolling.co.uk/battleground/targets/conservative">half of the top 25 target seats</a> for the Conservatives have black and minority ethnic proportions of over 20%. In the Harrow West constituency, it is above 50%.</p>
<p>While Corbyn’s commitment to racial equality is beyond question, his economic policy agenda is a tougher sell for some voters. Aspirational middle-class ethnic minority voters who are apprehensive of the high-tax, anti-austerity, state-interventionist model of political economy supported by a Corbyn-led Labour Party are genuinely up for grabs in an increasingly open and fluid electoral marketplace.</p>
<p>But to really increase their share of the ethnic minority vote, the Tories must address Labour’s historical ownership of racial discrimination matters. If the 1970s was the decade where Labour gained full control of the race equality agenda, the Conservatives ought to spend the rest of this decade taking it for themselves.</p>
<p>The Conservatives must convince the growing number of upwardly mobile ethnic minority voters that their stronger reputation for sound economic management is matched by a serious commitment to delivering results on racial fairness. Then they can become a more palatable electoral choice for a greater number of ethnic minority voters by the 2020 election.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66352/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Rakib Ehsan receives funding from the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC) for his PhD.</span></em></p>Labour once claimed racial equality as its turf, but the Tories are fighting back to woo this key demographic.Rakib Ehsan, Doctoral Researcher in Political Science, Royal Holloway University of LondonLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664192016-10-03T16:34:42Z2016-10-03T16:34:42ZThe great repeal bill: why you should keep an eye on the legal side of Brexit<figure><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/140141/original/image-20161003-20239-eavpk9.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&q=45&auto=format&w=496&fit=clip" /><figcaption><span class="caption">
</span> <span class="attribution"><a class="source" href="https://www.flickr.com/photos/halchtergang/3696145482/in/photolist-6CBHhf-773d3H-52WZw1-7n39my-qS2zCe-fPXRtf-s6yqv1-fPXKgb-dxJD2i-2FJ2oH-ockKLm-e7v3oT-fKDhdN-nV1XCz-FzCxfA-6AR7Pp-cZtAds-fPFauF-cb8vhq-uSTYZu-8rBdLK-qDjCgj-kNuMAZ-54mChh-oJd94r-nXtRvy-cqgCTC-4YXQup-7YmJzZ-7EkQhV-EJGn2Y-4M3qvA-hz4Ani-9EjPuS-dprx4Q-osDMM6-9AjUv4-nt4PoU-FzE5Jh-dvnMQT-7Hda6u-a23y1C-9WYqF9-9jjb29-dWifEv-49UWs-9Nwzbs-7axSJJ-awXvKn-9AjTig">Hauke Sandhaus</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/">CC BY-NC-SA</a></span></figcaption></figure><p>As she began outlining her vision for Brexit at the Conservative Party conference, Prime Minister Theresa May stated her intention to propose a “great repeal bill” to replace the <a href="http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1972/68/contents">European Communities Act</a> – the main law governing the application of EU law in the UK.</p>
<p>This is a very important move that marks the beginning of the end of EU law being automatically applied in the UK. That makes it important for British citizens to keep an eye on how the government handles the repeal bill. Will there be sufficient democratic scrutiny of changes that will affect practically every aspect of British life? </p>
<p>Despite its title, the act won’t actually repeal any substantive EU law at all. In fact, it will do just the opposite: it will keep all pre-Brexit EU law in force in the UK. After leaving the EU, the UK can then go through all the laws once covered by the European Communities Act and decide which it wants to keep and which it wants to discard. </p>
<p>The bill will probably be passed as an act of parliament in 2017, but it won’t take effect until Brexit day – which will probably be in spring 2019. That’s because the UK still has to comply with EU requirements until it actually leaves.</p>
<p>But this doesn’t mean that the law will be meaningless. It will prevent post-Brexit EU law from applying to the UK automatically as an EU member state. It will overturn the current rule of EU law “supremacy”, which gives EU laws priority over all other UK laws. It will end the jurisdiction of the EU courts in the UK. And it will provide a system for removing or amending EU laws which apply to the UK – which is the opposite of what the current law does.</p>
<p>The bill also offers a degree of legal certainty at a difficult time. Businesses will be reassured that Brexit will not suddenly create a legislative vacuum for a big chunk of the law, such as intellectual property and environmental protection. </p>
<p>But it won’t bind the European Union to anything. If the UK decides to keep any existing laws that relate to trade, or any other relations with the EU, it will have to be agreed by both parties before having any practical effect.</p>
<h2>Who is in charge?</h2>
<p>One crucial matter looks set to dominate debate over the bill, and will certainly dominate its application in practice. This is the process for repealing or amending particular EU laws retained by the act as and when the UK wishes to do so. The key issue here is whether the government or parliament should decide what to keep. This is part of a <a href="http://eulawanalysis.blogspot.co.uk/2016/10/who-exactly-will-take-back-control.html">broader debate</a> on the respective roles of the executive and parliament during the Brexit process. </p>
<p>The government <a href="https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-announces-end-of-european-communities-act">has made it clear</a> that it wants to make at least some of the key decisions without putting them to a parliamentary vote. </p>
<p>Acts of parliament need to be approved by both the House of Commons and the House of Lords, following a process of several readings where there is a chance for public input and amendments. So the government may need to push through the changes it wants as “<a href="http://www.parliament.uk/business/bills-and-legislation/secondary-legislation/">secondary legislation</a>” – these cannot usually be amended by parliament (either of the two houses can veto draft secondary legislation, but this is rare). </p>
<p>Using secondary legislation to repeal EU laws would be controversial because it would remove parliament from the process. Secondary legislation was often used in the past to put EU law into place and was criticised for this very reason. Using secondary legislation to overturn or amend those EU laws exacerbates the problem. </p>
<p>The government’s negotiation of important EU laws was at least always scrutinised in depth by parliament, whereas there is no such level of scrutiny for the adoption of secondary legislation in the UK – unless some special rules, involving some form of effective parliamentary scrutiny and amendment, are developed. </p>
<p>The government may also seek powers not only to fast-track the repeal of EU laws which apply in the form of secondary legislation, but also those which apply in the form of acts of parliament – such as workers’ rights. This process is particularly controversial as it involves the government directly amending an act of parliament, which then becomes known as a “<a href="http://www.parliament.uk/site-information/glossary/henry-viii-clauses/">Henry VIII clause</a>” because it has bypassed parliamentary scrutiny.</p>
<p>In my view, such clauses should be rejected for the post-Brexit process as a matter of principle. If an EU law issue was deemed important enough to enshrine in an act of parliament while the UK was a member, it should be for parliament to repeal or amend it once the UK has left. </p>
<p>Laws on workers’ rights and the environment, given their particular importance, as well as other issues where parliament usually plays the main role, should only be changed by acts of parliament. The government says it doesn’t wish to weaken workers’ rights; ensuring they could only be weakened by act of parliament would put that promise into practice. </p>
<p>Overall, then, the great repeal bill won’t tell us what Brexit is. That will depend partly on which EU laws are repealed after Brexit day and what relations look like with the EU thereafter. But it is a significant part of the legal Brexit process so the British public should keep a close eye on developments to make sure the government is held to account.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66419/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Steve Peers does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>The government is taking back control of British law with great eagerness. Here’s what to look out for.Steve Peers, Professor of Law, University of EssexLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664412016-10-03T16:07:18Z2016-10-03T16:07:18ZMay’s Hard Brexit means taking back control – from Britain’s elected parliament<p>Prime Minister Theresa May’s <a href="http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/2016/10/full-speech-theresa-mays-britain-brexit-speech/">opening speech</a> to the Conservative party conference brought a dramatic start to proceedings and marked the start of the real Brexit narrative. </p>
<p>By ruling out any kind of “soft Brexit”, May nailed her colours to the mast. She is going full UKIP. She equated soft Brexit with back-door attempts to remain in the EU, which, she argued, would be unacceptable to the British public. She said:</p>
<blockquote>
<p>We have voted to leave the European Union and become a fully-independent, sovereign country. We will do what independent, sovereign countries do. We will decide for ourselves how we control immigration. And we will be free to pass our own laws.</p>
</blockquote>
<p>But May also made it clear that she intends to take the decision over Article 50 herself, without giving parliament a vote. This is somewhat ironic given Brexit was supposed to give Westminster back its sovereignty. This means the government will be making decisions over environmental policy, social policy, and economic policy without a vote in the legislature. Choices that will define the country for centuries to come will be made without parliamentary scrutiny.</p>
<p>Supporters of leaving the EU point to the outcome of the referendum as though it answers all manner of democratic omissions. But now, this parliamentary democracy is denying Britain’s elected representatives any say in the decisions they were elected to make. </p>
<p>Regardless, we are where we are. Article 50 will be triggered no later than (but possibly before) March 2017. European Commission president, Donald Tusk, warned that “once Article 50 is triggered, EU27 will engage to safeguard its interests”. Increasingly, both sides seem united on the fact that Brexit means Brexit. </p>
<p>Given that, the 48% who voted remain (and those members of the 52% who voted leave simply to “kick Cameron”) will be left with a difficult decision. They simply can’t spend the next few years attacking the situation Britain is in. But that shouldn’t have to mean letting hard Brexiteers demand that everyone makes Brexit work the way they want it to. They burnt the house down and now want everyone else to rebuild it.</p>
<p>So, having given it some thought I would argue that remainers have to accept that Britain is <a href="https://theconversation.com/uk/eu-referendum-2016">leaving the European Union</a>. Short of a sudden change of heart from May, Boris Johnson, Liam Fox, and David Davis, it is highly unlikely that it will remain. I’m also increasingly convinced that the EU will be delighted to see the back of Britain. To be fair, this is a member state that has spent the past 40 years getting everything it wanted and then moaning about it.</p>
<p>However, we now know that Brexit means hard Brexit. It will not be a “soft, social democratic” Brexit. With the Labour Party in full retreat over this, the biggest issue of the day (it wasn’t even originally deemed <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2016/sep/26/why-isnt-labour-debating-brexit-at-its-conference">worthy of debate</a> at its party conference), there is very little option other than to accept that the Tories will be setting the framework for what the UK will look like after April 2019.</p>
<p>Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn’s inexcusable silence on this renders Labour irrelevant to the real problems faced by society. Every aspect of British life relates to the EU. Indeed, Conservative peer Nigel Lawson called Brexit <a href="http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-36717050">an opportunity</a> to finish Margaret Thatcher’s work. He may well be right. Corbyn’s lack of engagement carries its own message of indifference to reality, and for that he should be ashamed.</p>
<p>We have yet to see how Scotland and Northern Ireland will respond during the negotiations, nor whether Wales will have a belated change of heart when the funding vanishes. And England itself may well be challenged by Cornwall, Yorkshire, and Lancashire facing massive social uncertainty.</p>
<p>But for now, May is firmly in charge. She is a new prime minister, leading a new administration, with what she takes as a clear mandate for Brexit. But even if the electorate gave a loose 52% victory to leave, that can hardly be described as a ringing endorsement for the hardest Brexit possible. That, it seems, will be what Britain gets, though, whether it likes it or not.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66441/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>Andrew S. Roe-Crines does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.</span></em></p>Theresa May gave the green light to leave the European union and turned it into a mandate to make all the decisions herself.Andrew S. Roe-Crines, British Politics Lecturer, University of LiverpoolLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/664482016-10-03T15:12:32Z2016-10-03T15:12:32ZPhilip Hammond plays the pragmatist but lacks the vision to deliver as chancellor<p>Pragmatism was a key watchword of Philip Hammond’s first conference speech as chancellor. He reiterated his intention to abandon the strict fiscal rules of his predecessor. He also announced new spending on housing and other infrastructure.</p>
<p>Yet, despite the talk of policy change, his speech continued to repeat the same mantra of fiscal consolidation and balancing the budget. It lacked the vision and content to deal with the deep-seated problems of the UK economy.</p>
<p>Despite his attempts to insist otherwise, Hammond’s speech was more ideological than pragmatic, and again revealed the flaws in current macroeconomic policy in the UK. The chancellor’s rhetoric may have softened, but his commitment to an ideologically-driven agenda of austerity remains in place.</p>
<h2>The need for change</h2>
<p>The chancellor was eager to give the appearance of change. He wanted to signal that a different approach is needed to match the new circumstances in which the world finds itself. He was careful not to criticise his predecessor, though his move to a looser fiscal policy is a clear sign that previous policies are unfit for the present and future.</p>
<p>The commitment to achieving a budget surplus by 2020 – a much prized target of George Osborne – has been the most high-profile goal to be abandoned. In truth, this target was always arbitrary. It had <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/jun/12/osborne-plan-has-no-basis-in-economics">no proper basis in economic theory</a> and <a href="http://theconversation.com/the-two-big-failures-of-george-osbornes-budget-56753">its pursuit has come at the expense of slower growth</a>. Hammond’s move to a more pragmatic policy is an admission of the folly of his predecessor’s fiscal rules.</p>
<p>Yet, if the chancellor’s speech is anything to go by, the change in fiscal policy is likely to be too modest to make much of a difference to the UK economy. The announcement of extra borrowing of £2 billion to speed up housing construction is hardly a game changer. This investment will address neither the acute housing needs in the UK nor the lack of investment in the wider economy.</p>
<p>The problem here is the lack of ambition. Hammond rightly noted that infrastructure is important for the productive capacity of the economy but he fell short of the spending commitments needed to make it work to that effect. </p>
<p>The timidity of Hammond’s spending commitments highlight the lack of vision at the heart of his economic strategy. The impression is that ideology is still ruling economic policy, preventing the necessary investment in the UK economy that could help to secure a more sustainable recovery.</p>
<p>With low interest rates, the government should be borrowing to invest, not relying on the confidence fairy to magically restore investment.</p>
<h2>Missing elements</h2>
<p>There were also important things that Hammond missed out in his speech. There was talk of record levels of employment, but nothing on the <a href="http://touchstoneblog.org.uk/2016/07/uk-real-wages-decline-10-severe-oecd-equal-greece/">slump in real pay</a> that has harmed many millions of UK workers. The unprecedented drop in real pay has placed restrictions on aggregate demand and is a key reason why economic growth has been subdued. There was also nothing in his speech about the <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/may/10/uk-trade-deficit-hits-new-record-of-24bn-pounds-eu-referendum-brexit">large trade deficit</a>, despite its negative effects on economic growth.</p>
<p>Reference was made to <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/2016/feb/18/uk-productivity-gap-widens-to-worst-level-since-records-began">lagging productivity</a> in the UK but there was no clear solution on offer beyond rhetoric on improving skills and education. Hammond exhorted industry to invest more, but this was not underpinned by any plan to unlock the money within businesses and divert it to productive investment. Issues of short-termism and corporate governance (including workers on boards) were also missing.</p>
<p>Predictably, Brexit loomed large in Hammond’s speech. But, as in other speeches at the Conservative conference, Brexit acted as a smokescreen to deflect attention away from the home-grown problems of the UK economy. This diversionary tactic can only go on so long. It is imperative that attention be given to the need for reform within the economy as UK leaders talk about what a post-Brexit UK will look like. The connected problems of low pay, low investment, and low productivity require a coordinated approach that goes beyond the austerity policies sadly reiterated by Hammond in his speech.</p>
<h2>Ideology wins again</h2>
<p>The renewed talk of pragmatism in UK macroeconomic policy has a rhetorical appeal, but beneath the surface there remains a continuity in the policy stance of the current government. The ideological bias against deficit spending remains deeply-rooted and there is still no genuine commitment to rebalancing the economy away from household consumption towards investment. The personnel and rhetoric may have changed, but the supporters of austerity <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/business/ng-interactive/2015/apr/29/the-austerity-delusion">remain in charge</a>.</p>
<p>A truly pragmatic macroeconomic policy would entail a wholesale reversal in fiscal policy and a resolve to invest for the long term. In this case, it would seek to challenge the established policy and political consensus in the UK.</p>
<p>Lamentably, as Hammond’s speech underlines, the UK still awaits an economic strategy that can improve the fortunes of the economy. We are all poorer for the absence of such a strategy.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66448/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
<p class="fine-print"><em><span>David Spencer receives funding or has received funding from ESRC, EPSRC, and FP7. </span></em></p>The truth is, George Osborne’s ideology still rules, even after deficit chasing is abandoned.David Spencer, Professor of Economics and Political Economy, University of LeedsLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.tag:theconversation.com,2011:article/663762016-10-03T12:11:44Z2016-10-03T12:11:44ZBoris Johnson and ‘global Britain’: foreign secretary bids to set a new tone<p>The former darling of the Conservative party conference must have been nervous before delivering his 2016 speech. In the past, the unkempt orator and former MP for Henley had fired up the foot-soldiers with humorous attacks on the opposition. Would his old admirers forgive and forget?</p>
<p>Thankfully for Michael Heseltine, his speech to the 2016 conference was warmly received. The audience was obviously in a magnanimous mood, because it was equally receptive to Boris Johnson when he spoke soon after. </p>
<p>Johnson was at a slight advantage, having fewer sins to live down than the euro-enthusiast who challenged Margaret Thatcher for the leadership. Nevertheless, Johnson’s first speech since his ill-fated bid to succeed David Cameron was bound to receive unwelcome scrutiny. His critics <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-just-called-africa-8964843">pounced gleefully</a> when he referred to Africa as “that country”.</p>
<p>For more objective Johnson-watchers, it was a fascinating first outing for the new foreign secretary. It wasn’t exactly an orthodox display of statesmanship, but there was no disguising the extra ingredient of gravitas. Far from trying to pander to the party right wing, Johnson praised the BBC and reaffirmed his enthusiasm for immigration. He spoke of a “global Britain” that “sticks up” for free markets and democracy. There was a joke at the expense of European Council president Donald Tusk, but it was genuinely funny and almost affectionate.</p>
<p>Recent reports of Johnson’s <a href="http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/boris-johnson-just-called-africa-8964843">undiminished ambition</a> are about as surprising as the revelation that leopards still sport spots rather than stripes. However, the post-Brexit Boris might be very different from the previous specimen.</p>
<p>In part, the change has been enforced by the nature of his new job. But Johnson will probably have calculated that his future prospects are best served by pitching his camp in “One Nation” territory. Whatever his secret views on the EU, they are clearly less evangelistic than those of some of his cabinet colleagues. On many domestic issues, he is far to the left of rivals such as international trade secretary Liam Fox. Johnson might not be Theresa May’s favourite person, but he could emerge as an improbable ideological ally — and maybe, in time, a suitable successor.</p>
<p>May’s decision to send Johnson to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office looked like a Machiavellian masterstroke. Here was a glamorous appointment for him, which would buy his silence and increase the dissension within the ranks of senior Brexiteers. This seems to have worked to the extent of stirring up Whitehall <a href="http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/08/25/boris-johnson-liam-fox-and-david-davis-meet-to-clear-the-air-aft/">turf wars</a> between messrs Fox, Davis and Johnson. Whatever the outcome of this interesting tussle, the prime minister probably felt that Johnson’s capacity for self-destruction would guard her against an imminent challenge from that quarter.</p>
<p>For Johnson’s part, the offer of the Foreign Office was one he could hardly refuse after his abrupt retirement from the leadership contest. As poisoned chalices come, this was quite an attractive one, complete with the most opulent office in London.</p>
<p>It is also a job that depends upon personal credibility – the ability to command the respect of fellow foreign ministers. In this respect, Johnson himself must have realised that he was facing an uphill battle given his <a href="https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1889830/boris-johnson-insists-he-has-good-relationships-with-world-leaders-despite-gaffes-including-calling-turkeys-president-erdogan-a-wankerer-from-ankara/">previous record of undiplomatic utterances</a>. Whether or not he succeeds, in making the attempt he will have to modify his behaviour in front of his domestic audience. Johnson will have to diversify his repertoire, saving the well-worn and carefully-cultivated “loveable buffoon” persona for the occasional compulsory outings — such as Conservative Party conferences, which will probably continue to hanker after the old act.</p>
<p>Since the Brexit vote, British politics has become disagreeably unpredictable. Before we know it, opponents of the new foreign secretary might even be jeering at “Boring Boris Johnson”.</p><img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/66376/count.gif" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />
The foreign secretary still knows how to please a crowd, but he’s added a dash of gravitas to his offering.Mark Garnett, Senior Lecturer in Politics, Lancaster UniversityLicensed as Creative Commons – attribution, no derivatives.