Friday 28 August 2015

Argentina should be wary of putting all their Malvinas eggs into the Corbyn basket!

Argentine Pope Francis holding a placard calling for Anglo-Argentine talks on the future of the disputed Falklands/Malvinas Islands is a timely reminder that the dispute will not go away.  Meanwhile, a monumental change in Britain's political landscape could well be encouraging some in Argentina's political establishment that progress on the Malvinas Sovereignty Question could now be sooner rather than later.

The monumental change I refer to is the rise of Labour left-winger Jeremy Corbyn, who has seemingly been transformed from hard-left backbench MP to front runner for the Labour Party leadership.  It is known that Mr Corbyn has some sympathy with Argentina's position on the Falklands/Malvinas dispute.

Argentina itself will go to the polls in just under two months time, as the Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner Presidency draws to a close.  The presidencies of both Mrs Kirchner and her late husband Nestor have not only seen Argentina reaffirm it's claim on the remote South Atlantic archipelago, the period has also seen progress that was made on building trading links between mainland Argentina and the archipelago completely reversed.

From a personal perspective, I am a believer that long term compromise between the UK and Argentina over the Falklands/Malvinas is desirable, under the right circumstances.  I am a believer that the correct solution would be a land split that balances Argentina's obvious geographical claims against Britain's claims of self-determination on behalf of the Falkland Islanders. 

The split of the land would see East Falkland (where the overwhelming majority reside) remain a British Overseas Territory, whilst West Falkland would be transferred gradually to Argentine control.  I also believe that such a solution would be acting in the economic interest of the Falklanders.

To highlight my position in more depth, I am going to draw attention to two previous posts I have written on this subject.  The links are below:

A Falklands (Malvinas) Compromise
http://andyjwatson1975.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/a-falklands-malvinas-compromise.html

Is the Argentine post-Kirchner Malvinas debate now underway?
http://ajw1975.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/is-argentine-post-kirchner-malvinas.html

Ahead of elections in Argentina in late October, my message to all Argentine Presidential Candidates would be to be wary of cosying up too much to Mr Corbyn.  Should he win the Labour leadership contest as expected, a lot of questions will be raised about the future of the Labour Party itself. 

Amongst those questions are how viable it will be for a man who has rebelled so much against his own party in the past, to suddenly lead a united party.  Another question is the possibility that the party could split, as it did with the Social Democratic Party (SDP) breakaway of the 1980s. 

Voices on the Labour Right have been making noises with the aim of discrediting Corbyn.  One of those voices is Alistair Campbell, who has been best known as Director of Communications and Strategy for former Labour Prime Minister Tony Blair.  Campbell has recently referred to Corbyn's foreign policy generally as a minefield, stating his belief that Corbyn's desire for Britain to leave NATO on it's own could cost Labour the 2020 general election. 

With the current British Conservative Party being widely perceived as clear blue water conservatism, I will not say that a Jeremy Corbyn led Labour Party has absolutely no chance of winning Britain's next general election in five years time.  But if he did, I would be surprised at this stage if such a left-leaning Labour party could win with any kind of substantial majority.

Taking this uncertainty on board, the Argentines need to examine how they can make progress on the Malvinas question.  Should the Argentine Malvinas claim stay as it is without any compromise, and Argentina merely expects close relations with Corbyn to deliver a transfer of sovereignty without any challenge, then all it will serve to do is play into the hands of Conservative politicians who would argue that the United Kingdom's security would be in grave danger under Mr Corbyn!

Saturday 15 August 2015

Rail Ownership is a classic reason why Britain needs Proportional Representation!

As the Labour Party leadership election moves towards it's final phase, the future ownership of Britain's railway network has emerged as a key issue.  Should the railways eventually come under the complete ownership of the state, this will be the third occasion in which Britain's railways will have switched between either public or private ownership since 1948.

The way I see things is that we don't have a completely privatised railway anymore anyway, courtesy of the Blair Labour government bringing the track and signals back into public ownership, through the creation of Network Rail, following the collapse of Railtrack.  Plus, the private train operators don't have permanent control of a section of the rail network, courtesy of the franchise system.  Ultimately, we really have a mixed private/public system.

I can drive, but I am not a car owner at present.  I do in fact use the train most days, and sometimes travel around the North West of England or into a neighbouring region.  Whilst I am no railway buff, I do certainly make more use of the railway than the average Brit, and I certainly don't consider the majority of my train journeys to be problematic at all under the current private/public system.

It is true that I could save a lot of time by having my own transport, albeit at the expense of exercise!  But moving the railway back into the public sector would have little impact on me saving time with my journeys.  That said, I do see benefits of a fully integrated publicly owned railway eventually, by simply allowing existing private franchises to run their course.  For instance, the whole railway would be more accountable to the public as a whole, rather than shareholders.

On the other side of the coin, it is all very well to talk up a future Labour government bringing the railways back into full public ownership, on the basis of the popular support the policy has.  Would it be a sustainable policy? 

Under Britain's current First Past The Post electoral system, I would argue that it is not necessarily the case.  A future Conservative government with a false majority could in theory look to privatise the railways once again in the future, even if we are talking 20 or 30 years in the future.

Electoral systems based on more proportionality do generally produce more sustainable policies, due to the need for more than one party to support and shape a policy in question, and subsequently pass the legislation.  Consequently, any future government wishing to simply undo a previous government's policies, could only do this with broad support also. 

First Past The Post (FPTP) democracies by contrast produce broad church one party governments who generally have a disproportionate number of parliamentary seats, compared to the number of seats that the average coalition government would hold under a more proportionate system.  That is why FPTP produces false majorities!

Should a future Conservative government seriously wish to privatise a nationalised railway once more, a proportional electoral system would simply mean that a privatised national railway will need to be a popular policy with support across society, which would translate into support from at least one other political party.

It does not matter if the next Labour government is led by current front runner Jeremy Corbyn, any of his current leadership rivals, or somebody completely different.  I know that most Brits at present would probably opt to go with re-nationalisation.  However, public ownership of the railways without electoral reform will purely serve as the latest instalment in game of pass the parcel between the private and public sectors.

The railways are too important for either side of the political spectrum to kick about like a football.  They are a symbol of the need for more stable policies, and A CLASSIC REASON WHY BRITAIN NEEDS PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION.