Corbyn Gives With One Hand And Takes With The Other
Jeremy Corbyn rode dramatically from the brink of electoral collapse into a result which even the staunchest Corbynite may not have predicted. He did so, according to pundits, on a wave of youth support. But Matt Gillow argues that his youth-oriented policies — scrapping tuition fees, banning unpaid internships and zero-hour contracts — would actually hurt a large proportion of the electorate.
UK Politics
Matt Gillow
So famously ‘for the many,’ Jeremy Corbyn makes a superhuman effort to be very much ‘for some of you.’ It has become increasingly clear in the 8th June fallout that those of the Labour leader’s policies which were attacked by the Right as virtue signalling are very much that — none more so than the pledge to scrap tuition fees, and the post-manifesto promise to wipe existing debt. £100 billion to clear the debt, £11 billion per year on fees; at the cost of fewer working class students going to university and an exodus of investment in post-Brexit Britain as corporations flee. Progressive.
But then, giving with one hand and taking with the other is certainly an area of consistency for the Labour leader. The recent Taylor review noted the benefit of flexibility in employment — for employers, and indeed for many employees. As a student myself, I know the value of being able to come back to a zero-hours job out of term-time. I know how beneficial internships (paid or unpaid) can be to padding out a CV and helping to prepare for a career. Of course, it’s true that I, unlike many on zero-hours contracts, am not required to provide for anybody else — I’m not dependant on getting enough hours to provide for children and family. My point is this; there are better ways to ensure that the labour market can work for everybody than slapping a blanket ban on types of employment that do work for large sections of society. Whether that’s through greater transparency (a ranking of the best companies to intern for; a list of companies that employ zero-hour workers) through more effective welfare (introducing a basic income,) or incentivising businesses to provide more secure opportunities. I certainly don’t agree with all of those options, but they support the argument well; whether you’re on the Right or the Left — there are surely better options for making employment fairer than simply slapping a blanket ban on certain types.
It’s very much the way with the politics of Corbynism. Service with a smile and a dagger behind the back. Sexy, but not very sensible at all, policy making. Many in the Parliamentary Labour Party know that abolishing fees is unsustainable — it’s why Labour introduced them in the first place (a fact that often slips minds when it suits) and it’s why the Welsh Labour government are set to raise the £9,000 cap despite a commitment to match Corbyn’s scrapping plans. Indeed, to much uproar, John McDonnell has withdrawn his intention to wipe all student debt since the election.
But the order of the day, supposedly, is big, bold policy — not tweaks and fidgeting. This isn’t a bad thing: British politics is stale and increasingly divisive, but the Conservatives must be big and bold in their own way, rather than pandering to a Left-wing which was defeated at the ballot box barely a month ago. Indeed, Theresa May (or whoever will replace her) must outline the benefits of fees, rather than a cap on student places, in getting less privileged students into universities. She must outline the usefulness to many of flexibility in the Labour market (see: the Scandinavian ‘socialist utopia’ and their wobbly employment laws.) There is a case that is there to be made for the Right — one of individualism, enterprise, and small government — but for whatever reason it’s being left unsaid.
The venerable Maggie Thatcher said many things, but perhaps the most apt, now, was the assertion that ‘you don’t move to the centre, you move the centre to you.’ The Conservative Party would do well to remember that, and make the liberal case for liberal policy. To refuse to do so is to make unsustainable policy the norm, and shift the Overton window dramatically leftwards.
