The Anti-Political Party

Originally published in Young Fabians Anticipations magazine, ‘Big Ideas’.

What is the function of a political party in an age characterised by anti-politics? What use is political activity in a time where it is met with cynicism, with distance, and with apathy?

Anti-politics (as developed by Elizabeth Humphrys and Tad Tietze) can be understood in three ways. The first has been touched on – detachment, disinterest and disbelief in politics, its processes, and its efficacy. This manifests itself not just as a lack of engagement in politics because of its distance from working class people, but also the rejection of politics-as-is, best exemplified by the understanding of Brexit as a protest vote against a political establishment.

A second understanding is of anti-politics as a political strategy. Across the world, we see anti-politics as both the face and the shroud of political rupture. Donald Trump, serves as an obvious example of the latter, masking a socially-regressive continuation of the status-quo with anti-political rhetoric that asserts his ability to ‘drain the swamp’, the irony of his membership amongst and collaboration with the same people clearly lost on him. More benign versions of this can be found in the direct democracy once espoused by the Five Star Movement that in principle seeks to give citizens greater power by using the internet to bypass reliance on representatives.

The Yellow Vest movement in France serves as a deep foray into anti-political strategy. Explicitly forgoing political representatives, they instead came together as a “General Assembly of General Assemblies” with each of the 75 participating local assemblies sending two delegates (one woman and one man). This led to the Commercy Declaration, explicitly denouncing attempts by those within the movement, politicians who attempt to align with them, and even unions, to “appease the eruption”.

It may be too early to conclude, but even so the Yellow Vests represent (at least in part) the final understanding of anti-politics, that of a consistent strategy of social revolution, as put by Humphrys and Tietze: one that seeks to concretely intervene in order to build a movement that overcomes politics by overcoming the state.

The Yellow Vests do not speak of gaining power in government. They eschew “self-proclaimed representatives and spokepersons”, they reject the idea of “hand[ing] over [their] voice to a handful of people’, and perhaps most importantly seeing themselves as people who organise themselves, who come together interact with each other, organising “solidarity soups to live beautiful moments together and get to know each other in equality”.

In building a movement independent of politics, the Yellow Vests have found a sense of solidarity. In organising themselves, they have created a space to escape the transactional relationships that encroach ever more into our social lives, and where “speech is liberated, where one dares to express oneself, to train oneself, to help one another”.

So again I ask: What is the function of a political party in an age characterised by anti-politics? What use is political activity in a time where it is met with cynicism, with distance, and with apathy?

To preface what follows, I should make it clear that I in no way wish to demean or understate the work done and the fights won by Labour’s activists, volunteers and affiliates. The goal instead is to galvanise, to encourage and to radicalise our vision in the face of an increasingly perilous moment. This country, and as intimated by the rupture of anti-political activity, the world, cries out for change. The alienation wrought by capitalism is engendering a social reaction, that can be channelled against the sickness and the rot, or give way to the vilest humanity.

Thus, in an admittedly vague direction, I would argue that Labour, in an effort to develop a broad social (as opposed to political) movement, should increasingly use its institutional position to further the self-organisation of working class people, with working class taken to mean those of us who have no alternative but to sell our labour. The Community Organising programme already has a multitude of successes, and plans to increase the number of co-operatives, and support the development of tenant unions once in government further working class independence.

We should not stop at politics however. It is not just the Conservative Party and their policies we want to remove from government, but an unjust socio-economic system that is premised on exploitation and enforced precariousness under the guises of efficiency and innovation. One in which atomised individuals have no real recourse to defend themselves.

Labour must develop a social movement, one that sinks into every field. Not just so a thousand flowers might bloom, but also so that there is a deep well of experience, of ideas, of vitality that can be drawn from when the opportunity for practice under a Labour government arrives. One that creates spaces that turns from being distinctly political, to a social endeavour. One where what begins as political activity becomes sports clubs, reading groups, co-operative childcare and car pools.

That is, Labour should act as the foundations for the self-organisation of the working class, acting as a body that gives communities the confidence to lead themselves, to pursue alternatives ways of mobilising, to develop new ways of integrating political practice into their communities, as opposed to relying predominantly on political representation that history has shown to become ossified and restricted by the political process.

The Yellow Vests show the strength of such an orientation. Labour should give more communities the opportunity to engage with our ideals, to see first-hand the potential of the transformative program we believe in, to see the trust we have in their agency to organise themselves, by themselves, and for themselves.

Only a society that believes in an alternative will choose one, and what better alternative is there than one you built yourself?

Ending the Age of Economic Insularity

Originally written for the Young Fabians ‘Anticipations’ magazine issue ‘The Soul of Foreign Policy’.

Between 1960 and 2000, the growth rate of developing countries has halved from 3% to 1.5%. Some regions such as Sub-Saharan Africa have even seen an absolute fall in per capita income. This is a result of the orthodox policy prescriptions advocated by developed countries and leading international institutions such as the IMF and World Bank. What these policies –broadly summed up as trade liberalisation, privatisation and deregulation – have failed to take into account is that developing nations in general lack the economic infrastructure or industrial expertise required to compete on international markets. Privatisation and deregulation prevent the formation of said infrastructure and expertise by denying governments, and thus by extension citizens, the right to determine the direction of development in their interest.

This has left many developing nations in a permanent state of destitution, unable to develop their economies and raise the living standards of their citizens. In spite of this reality, the intuitions we have built fail to address these problems. The IMF was intimately involved in many of the debt crises of developing countries. Western nations have indirectly supported despots, and when countries such as Kenya attempt to protect their industries by legislating against the import of used clothing, institutions such as the WTO provide a platform to stop them. It is difficult not to feel that this situation has been imposed for the benefit of advanced nations.

This state of affairs leaves countless people reliant on subsistence farming. Developing nations fall into repeated debt crises that only exacerbate the situation, opening the path for political instability, demagoguery, and the subsequent abuse of the rights of people who have committed no crime other than being born in a certain part of the world.

What is to be done then? In a globalised world, economic policy and foreign policy are increasingly intertwined. Economic opportunity is an essential aspect in promoting individual freedoms, and conversely, individual freedoms are necessary for citizens to determine the development of their countries.

This calls for a reformation of foreign policy, using our advantage as a developed country to promote economic development in a way that fosters cooperation and peace. By sharing our skills and technology, as opposed to foreign aid, we can produce lasting and productive outcomes that put developing nations on the path to sustained development.

This however, will not be enough. Another key aspect would involve the development a hegemony between developed nations, citizens of developing nations and progressive politicians who are willing to reform and develop institutions with the explicit intent of increasing and enhancing the range of human rights afforded to citizens. Economic development is a key factor in enabling this, and the relationships between parties should reinforce this by providing political weight to the promise of development. Pressure on politicians could be exerted by including conditions of improvements in human rights in accordance with UN constitutions, with supervisory parties ensuring progress is taking place. It should be noted that the aim of this is not necessarily to create liberal democracies, but to give citizens a chance to engage together to decide the kind of society they wish to see, in accordance with their cultural and social values.

Such a strategy would be at the core of reforming the global capitalist system into a system that puts people at its core. The age of economic insularity is over; you and I are dead, long live us!

Employing Society

Originally posted on Havering Young Labour, Dagenham and Rainham Labour, and Young Fabians blogs.

Political earthquakes taking the form of Brexit and the US presidential election have brought inequality, globalisation and automation into public debate. Global trade and new technologies have made the world a richer place, but have failed to address the worsening domestic inequalities found in many advanced economies.

In the UK, the worst examples of domestic inequality are often found in deindustrialised areas. Already victims of global competition and then chronic underinvestment, a third punch to the gut was administered through the financial recession and following austerity. Families find themselves at increased risk of poverty by virtue of where they live, and the increasing casualisation of work doesn’t help. The increase in zero-hour contracts leave some trapped in an involuntary cycle of low paying work and unemployment. The rise in self-employment bodes ill too. The Resolution Foundation estimates that the average wages (in real terms) of the self-employed are lower now than they were in 1995.

It should be no surprise that a rage is building against the machine. For some the wheels are falling off, for others it stalled long ago. Allowing this state of affairs to continue will only drive further division in our society. Policies going forward must recognise the failure to address these inequalities over the last 40 years. It must also recognise that though cash transfers support those suffering from poverty and unemployment, they do little to change the forces at work that cause these inequalities in the first place. Structural changes are needed across the economy in order to build one that provides everyone with the choice of a fair wage and the social benefits that stable employment can bring.

One way to begin tackling inequality would be the introduction of a voluntary job guarantee, giving unemployed individuals the choice to work on public projects for their local community and improve their skills, in exchange for a socially inclusive wage. With proper implementation a job guarantee could serve as a powerful tool around which structural economic issues could be solved.

First, it promotes a minimum standard of employment. Earning your keep shouldn’t mean submitting yourself to exploitation. Giving employees an alternative would encourage firms to improve practices and compete to retain their employees, promoting higher productivity and work standards that benefit us all. Firms that can only compete because they subject employees to poor work conditions would be rooted out. In the end the job guarantee is always there to support displaced employees as the economy changes meaning nobody loses out.

The job guarantee also provides a direct channel for local investment. Administering the scheme through local agencies would ensure projects are planned around the specific needs of each community and its residents, avoiding a top-down approach. Investment wouldn’t only target structural needs, but also environmental and cultural ones which would enrich and enable communities in ways that profit-focused investment might not be able to.

Finally, and perhaps most importantly, a job guarantee is focused on the individual. The skills and interests of those on the scheme are matched to the needs of their community (with some compromise). A job isn’t just about earning an income, but also a way to develop and improve ourselves. A job can be an outlet where we share our potential and passion for the benefit of those around us.

Would we rather support others by giving them the chance to contribute to society, whilst improving their skills and knowledge?

Or do we leave them on a scrapheap of excess labour, marginalise them and sacrifice what their potential could have brought into the world?

The answer should be clear.

There literally aren’t enough jobs to go around

There are currently 749,000 vacancies in the UK according to the Office of National Statistics (ONS).

To date, of people aged 16 to 64:

• 1,640,308 are considered unemployed, which is defined by the ONS as ‘people without a job who have been actively seeking work within the last 4 weeks and are available to start work within the next 2 weeks‘.
• 2,150,523 are considered to be economically inactive, but want to work. Being economically inactive is defined as ‘people not in employment who have not been seeking work within the last 4 weeks and/or are unable to start work within the next 2 weeks‘.
• 34,791 are considered to be economically inactive, and discouraged workers. Discouraged workers are defined as  a ‘subgroup of the economically inactive population who said their main reason for not seeking work was because they believed there were no jobs available‘.

These statistics are based on self-reporting, so they are susceptible to the bias of each individual’s understanding of their situation. But let’s say it is safe to assume that on the whole, these answers are accurate (after all, they are used to shape national policy). Therefore provided they were given the appropriate opportunity, there are up to 3,825,622
people looking for work who are currently unemployed.

As a measure of unemployment of people aged 16 – 64 it would mean an unemployment rate of 9.3%, as opposed to the headline figure of 4.9%. Additionally, it means there are 5 people looking for work for each job available.

This is before part-time workers who would like more hours are included.

• 1,143,000 of those working part time only do so because they could not find full time employment.
• Based on a 2014 study by the ONS, on average, those how wanted more hours wanted 11.3 more hours per week.

This gives a total figure of 4,968,622 , and a rate of 12.1% for underemployment (people who would like to work more hours) in the economy.

An economy where nearly 5 million people cannot find adequate employment is not a recovering economy, despite what the current government might believe. High unemployment holds down wages and makes it easier for businesses to mistreat workers as they do not have to compete with each other to attract new employees.

Rather than being workshy or conniving benefit scroungers, many people may genuinely find it difficult to find acceptable employment. Increasing welfare bills are a symptom of the poor state of the labour market, not part of the cause. So-called ‘wealth creators’ are not creating enough jobs, and treating other humans like spare parts to be left on a shelf is not a humane or acceptable state of things. On-going mass unemployment is a direct result of the failure of governments to ensure there are enough employment opportunities for all people. It results in a permanent reduction in the potential quality of life not just for those individuals, but also the nation as a whole as we lose out on the skills, ideas, goods and services these people could have brought to the economy.

---

If you’d like to look up this data for yourself on the ONS website, here are the references:

Economically inactive, wants work: LFM2  ¦ Economically inactive, discouraged worker: LFL8 ¦ Unemployment level: LF2I ¦ Total population aged 16 – 64: LF2O ¦ Vacancies (excluding agriculture, forestry and fishery): AP2Y, ¦ Economically active, part time, couldn’t find full time work: YCCX

 

The EU is not the answer to Conservative hegemony

Originally published at The London Economic

The hijacking of the EU referendum into a Tory civil war shows how divisive the issue is within the Conservative party. In an effort to definitively settle the issue, Cameron unleashed a eurosceptic sentiment that threatens not just his leadership, but also confidence in Brussels, as a growing portion of the European project begins to reflect on whether it is still fit for purpose. So far the race appears to be too close for Cameron’s comfort, as polls show the electorate evenly split on which shade of blue they’d prefer.

One of many arguments emanating from the left against leaving the EU is feeling that that the Labour party in its current state would be unable to effectively challenge a Conservative party unbound from EU, leaving it free to run amok. This view doesn’t take into account how regularly the Conservatives have failed in the current parliament (mainly due to their own hubris/incompetence, pick your favourite) by continually placing land mines for themselves to step onto. Fortunately for them Corbyn, who refuses to play in the Westminster theatre, instead favours a ‘kinder, gentler’ approach. As such, has not used the opportunities to dig the knife into the government, much less twist it for political capital. This is reflected in polling that has consistently shown the Conservatives to be ahead of Labour, despite their venomous attacks on the services that many people rely on. There is much to be said about the role of the mainstream media in maintaining this, but that goes beyond the scope of this post and would involve confirming my biases.

Despite their passivity the opposition has still opened the political narrative beyond austerity, which has given space for the notion that the status quo is failing. Across the world, economies are stagnant, vital public services are being cut, and populist movements are on the rise as people look for alternatives, both on the left and the right. The idea that the leaving the EU would allow the Conservatives to double down on their current ethos is misguided and represents an abject failure to identify the predominant source of increasing tensions across the globe, which I would summarise as institutionalised economic idiocy.

Irrespective of this, there is a more noxious problem with relying on the EU to control the Conservatives, rather than building a national, left-wing movement that is more in touch with the electorate. Whether we like it or not, the Conservatives were democratically elected. There is no use raising qualms about the fairness of the electoral system, unless you mean to say that it is a fair system as long as the party you want to win wins. Relying on outsourced sovereignty to an undemocratic body is not the answer to Conservative hegemony, and to me, exhibits contempt for the decisions made by citizens of this country, almost as if to say they are wrong for choosing what they believe is in their interest. I don’t deny that there are problems with the British political system. As a system of governance, democracy is far from perfect, and the electorate can and is subject to influence by media and misinformation, but at the very least, it guarantees a fair form of representation, as well as making those we elect accountable for the decisions they are supposed to make on our behalf.

By its nature, the EU is undemocratic. The EU commission, which has the sole right to propose, change or remove legislation, is made up of appointed members that are not democratically selected by the citizens of Europe based on what they offer to legislate on our behalf. The elected EU parliament is only able to pass or reject legislation, as well as remove the current commission through a vote of no confidence. This comes without the ability to decide who will participate in the new commission, making the original vote somewhat defunct, as they cannot influence the direction of the commission. As such it is fair to raise concerns about outside influence on these commissioners, namely by lobbyists of large corporations. This leaves the EU free to arrange legislation in private, as we see with TTIP, which aims introduce corporate courts outside of natural jurisdiction where corporations can essentially sue national governments for legislating against their profits, even if the government was acting in the interest of its citizens.

A return to an unadulterated self-government would be a key step in providing an effective left-wing alternative to any threat of Conservative hegemony. Shifting the ideology of a nation is no mean feat, but is certainly not aided by ceding power to an unaccountable supra-national entity. The deeply undemocratic nature of the EU as already shown itself to be a threat to democracy, as we saw in Greece, who despite choosing to reject more crippling austerity, were crushed into submission by the EU, a scandal made worse by the empirical evidence against austerity. In Spain, similar uprisings are now wary of the Greek experience, and have begun to align with more mainstream views that will restrict their ability to develop solutions to the issues that plague not just Spain but much of the Western world.

In reality, the EU has neither the will nor a reason to be any less vile than the worst excess of the Conservatives. To assume so is to turn a blind eye to the on-going turmoil in Europe, largely inflicted by leading states on the poorer and less influential southern states. At least here in the UK, leaders are held accountable by elections. In the EU, the blind lead the increasingly unwilling, and face no fear of dismal for their blunders. It would be better for the world the British left used Brexit to launch a revolution against neoliberalism, as opposed to relying on the receding benevolence of the unelected.

 

Unsuprisingly standard and poor

Moritz Kraemer, chief sovereign ratings officer of everyone’s favourite credit rating agency Standard & Poor’s (one of the ones that helped cause the financial crash by not rating things properly) released an opinion piece titled ‘Brexit threatens UK’s top credit rating.’

The EU referendum is a hot topic and both sides have proven themselves to be incapable of saying something that might actually help voters make an informed decision, at least in the mainstream media. Instead there is a lot of fearmongering and Mr Kraemer, not to be left out, has a pop at it too.

He mentions a lot of stuff but it was mainly these two comments that caught my eye:

“Leaving the EU, our credit agency believes, would be a negative for the U.K.’s sovereign credit rating.”

and:

“Consequently, a vote for “Leave” would likely lead Standard & Poor’s to lower the U.K.’s AAA rating… the U.K. would lose its place in the increasingly exclusive club of AAA-rated sovereigns.”

To borrow a little context from Wikipedia, a credit rating is ‘an evaluation of the credit worthiness of a debtor, predicting the debtor’s ability to pay back the debt‘.

Following this through, Kraemer believes that the UK leaving the EU would hinder the Government’s ability to pay back it’s debt, though he goes no further than stating the potential for ‘significant adverse financial and economic impact’ and ‘risks to effective, transparent and predictable policymaking’ as explanations for why.

This would be applicable if the UK borrowed money in a foreign currency, something that is at the root of the ongoing turmoil in Greece. The difference between Greece and the UK however is that the UK Government is the monopoly issuer of the currency it has borrowed in.

A simple way to describe this would be a parent who wanted to make sure their kids did their chores.

In order for their children to recieve their pocket money, they must to earn a certain amount of paper tokens. They can only earn these tokens by doing chores, as mandated by their parents.

Is it ever possible for the parents to run out of tokens they owe to their children?

Of course not. So long as the children’s parents are prepared to produce the tokens and hand them to their children, they will be able to fulfil their obligations to provide their children with tokens.

So it is the same for the UK Government. The Bank of England (an ‘independent’ subsidiary of the UK Government, but a subsidiary nonetheless) has an infinite capacity to create new money like other Central Banks, which we saw in action when they created £375 million of new money for quantitative easing.

Provided the Government’s debts are denominated in its own currency, it faces no financial constraints in being able to service them. The choice to default on the debt is a political one, not an economic one. The same is true of similar countries with their own Central Bank such as the US, Japan and Australia, among others.

This does not mean that there will not be economic effects from a Brexit vote. But let’s make our decision on facts. Not statements designed to scare and misinform.

 

Why run a deficit?

Unless you’ve been living under a rock (or living on a planet that makes sense), you will have no doubt heard repeated rhetoric over the last few years from politicians of all shades, stating that “tough decisions” must be taken to close the deficit and balance the budget.

Without prior knowledge, all these claims make sense, but all these claims do is propagate myths built on the misunderstanding that the government finances are comparable to a household, politically constraining the government’s ability to support the private sector’s ability to net save, and in turn subduing the consumer demand required to keep the economy growing.

In my previous post I covered national accounting and the zero-sum relationship between the government, private and foreign sectors. As stated there, an attempt by one or two sector to spend less than its income (i.e. save) is balanced by the remaining sector(s) spending more than it income, resulting in a deficit. On average, the private sector is a net saver, and its desire to save can be met either by a government deficit, a trade surplus, or a combination of the two. A strong trade surplus provides an alternative source of earnings for the private sector (as well as more taxes for the government) which can be saved, reducing the need for a government deficit. An example of a country like this is Germany, which has a history of running a trade surplus that helps sustain its budget surplus.

In countries with a trade deficit (typically developed countries where it is generally cheaper to import goods from abroad due to lower manufacturing costs), the ‘burden’ falls on the government to provide a source of earnings to support saving (the alternative is an increase in private debt, which increases the susceptibility of the economy to shocks), and run a deficit. A simplified illustration of the flow of money between the government and non-government sectors is shown below (note that there are other sources of income  other than taxation, but this is the primary one).

Government spending provides a safe financial asset for the non-government sector to use as payment for goods, services, debt and taxes, as well as an asset to hold as a form of savings. The national debt simply represents the cumulative sum of all government deficits, and the sum of all financial assets (denominated in £s) held by the non-government sector. Deficit spending increases the supply of these assets in aggregate, increasing the amount that can be held for the purpose of saving. During downturns, deficit spending (this typically occurs in the form of welfare payments, which increase as more people become unemployed during a downturn) helps reverse the fall in aggregate demand by meeting the non-government sector’s desire to save, without lowering its level of spending.

So deficits, not so scary right?

I will (probably) touch on why the government can sustain its deficits, and why the size of the deficit on its own is irrelevant to the health of the economy in the next post.

National accounting: easy as pie

This is the first of at least three posts in relation to deficits and public debt. I hope by the end of this you should have enough knowledge to understand why things haven’t returned to normal since 2008. This post covers national accounts, which underpins most of what I will mention.

At the simplest level, the economy is compromised of 3 sections, namely the government sector, the non-government (private) sector, comprised of households, business firms and banks and the foreign sector (the sum of which equal to imports – exports).

Following the rules of double-book accounting (i.e. if I pay you, my balance  goes down by the amount I pay, and yours goes up by the same amount, so in the end between the two of us there is no net change in the amount of money) these sectors must (no ifs, no buts!) add up to zero. In essence, a deficit (the amount of spending that exceeds income) in one or two of the sectors must be balanced by a surplus (unspent income) in the remaining sector(s), this applies at all times.

Our current government has decided to aim for a surplus by 2020, a noble aim if you don’t understand national accounting. Unfortunately, we are currently running a trade deficit, as such, the foreign sector is running a surplus! This means we are spending more on goods abroad than we make from selling our goods abroad. Therefore for the government to derive its surplus, the private sector as a whole must run a deficit to fund the foreign sector’s and government’s surplus, so the accounts will add up to zero.

As the government’s deficit falls, the private sector’s deficit will rise, and our ability to spend less than we earn is compromised, making deleveraging (paying off our debt) increasingly difficult and, could be a driving factor in why household debt has risen so rapidly since 2010 as consumers resort to debt to make ends meet.

So next time you hear someone on TV or radio insisting on balanced budgets, what they are really doing is promoting unsustainable economic growth based on private debt, a tale that only ends in tears.

Note. There are times where running a surplus is appropriate, something I might touch on later. For a more mathematical explanation (simple algebra) of national accounting, click here.

 

A foreword for the year to come

After the 2015 General Election I realised for all my moaning about the government, I was never able to produce objective arguments against what I perceived to be wrong with their actions. I also realised criticism alone doesn’t change things, nor do idyllic ideas about how society should be, they have to be joined by pragmatic solutions fostered from evidence and debate to change things for the better. In aid of this I spent a lot of time trying to learn more about politics, and eventually I stumbled into economics.

To some degree, learning about economics led me to believe money is the root of all evil, in the sense that being born into a life of poverty can lead to exclusion from society and can force people to do things they might otherwise not have done, had they had the opportunities we take for granted. I strongly believe in the government’s role in ameliorating these conditions, but it is often held back by a desire to cling to the sometimes false safety of unreasonable orthodoxy, often maintained by misinformation. So as my little effort to push against unreasonable orthodoxy, I began this blog, to share what I learn, in the hope that someone else will gain something from it, and be able to scrutinise the actions and words of those who lead us, regardless of the colour of their tie.

2016 – Left foot forward?

As the world slowly completes its recovery from the financial battering that was 2008, we see winners like the UK and US, and losers such as Greece, victims of a dogmatic pursual of policy that defies logic, at the cost of ordinary people.

The social costs of austerity are becoming  apparent here too, and public opinion may start to turn as  enthusiasm for spending cuts falters lining the Chancellor’s road to a surplus with political obstacles, more so when the global economy appears to be a repeat of the previous decade as household debt exceeds pre-crash levels. As it stands however, Osborne is on track, with his journey certainly been aided by a splintered opposition more prone to fight amongst itself and shoot itself in the foot rather than attack the failures of the current government.

It’s not all doom and gloom though,  new Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn emerged relatively unscathed from his trial by media-stoked fire as he was catapulted from obscurity to opposition leader. Next year promises to be an interesting period in UK politics, as he continues to defy the expectations of the political class, and in doing so providing an alternative to Westminster orthodoxy and austerity.

Across the world we see similar events to Corbyn’s meteoric rise and an increase in anti-austerity movements. In Canada, the Liberal Party of Canada led by Justin Trudeau took power, on a mandate of increased deficit spending. Closer to home we had the rise of Syriza (now broken), and now Podemos in Spain. Whether this momentum can be converted into a political vehicle to bring about change will be a question for 2016, as a failure to find answers to global issues such as economic inequality, migration and terrorism (all of which in my opinion are linked to some degree) will allow right-wing populists such as Donald Trump and Marine Le Pen to gain traction and use fear of the ‘other’ to promote narratives that divide people.

Judging by the unpredictable nature of 2015, 2016 is likely to surprise to carry just as many surprises. For most of us, all we can do is grab a seat, watch, and hope the world doesn’t end in flames.