I have said for some time that we need to be worried about what is happening in this country, and beyond. I make no apology for that. I believe that we face a crisis. The weekend's developments in France support that thesis. What seems likely is that the people of that country will be faced with a choice between a Thatcherite opponent of the welfare state and a far right neo-fascist in the 2018 presidential election. The centre ground of any persuasion, the left and greens appear to have been wholly sidelined as a result in the choice that France will have to make. That is an extraordinary situation and it is time to consider the necessary conclusions because this is not just a French issue; the move to the Right is very clearly one that is happening in many countries.
In my opinion the move to the Right is now too serious to pretend it is not a threat to the stability of our societies and democracies. We need to be serious about this: if electoral choice can effectively be reduced to choice between the right and far right in France then mainstream politics has failed very badly indeed.
Some on the left will say the obvious thing to do in that case is to present a radical alternative. This is the Labour alternative at present. It does not seem to work: like it or not there is no obvious narrative to it that speaks to most people or persuade them of its benefit.
Others will suggest aping the right. This is what some others on the right of Labour seem to be doing at present. It has little better prospect than the Labour left alternative: Labour has aped other parties for some time now. People end up voting for the real thing because they are bemused as to what Labour stands for.
Then there is the moderating tendency. By default this has become identified with the LibDems. There is little doubt that despite making compromises that utterly undermined their credibility the LibDems did temper the worst of the Tory instincts between 2010 and 2015, but as a sales proposition it is very obviously hopeless.
The Scot Nats are united by a single goal.
The Greens aren't, but that doesn't matter because most people think they are.
I trust I will be forgiven for such generalities, but I think they are useful at a time like this: there is an urgent need to identify problems and the point I want to make is relatively simple. Offering compromise, moderating tendencies, policy confusion and single-issue solutions (Scotland, exceptionally, apart) is not proving to be anything like a match for the certainties of the Right at present.
To put it another way, whatever the reason people have lost the political hope that most parties, whether notionally of left, right or centre, sold them until recently. In place of that hope they have embraced the alternative, which is fear.
This is not entirely irrational. When the centre ground of politics, from Ken Clarke leftwards, has proved to have remarkably little to offer most people in terms of an explanation for how we have reached this point in history, and seems to have little obvious plan on how to move us on towards something better then people have not just abandoned particular parties, they have abandoned the whole political approach to government that those parties embraced for so long.
So debate is out, and anger is in.
Moderation is old hat, and it is OK to be extreme.
Doubt has been foregone: certainties are demanded, even if none are really available.
And the embracement of compromise has gone: inflexibility has replaced it.
With all that has come prejudice. Which is unsurprising: after thirty or more years of neoliberalism selling a ‘winner take all attitude' this has, unsurprisingly permeated the political narrative. And we are left with a politics of the hard right against the far right.
Saying all this is, of course, the easy bit: suggesting we are headed for hell in a handcart is something political commentators have done for a long time. How to change the direction of the cart, and upgrade it to something looking more like a charabanc is the harder part. And, I stress, one blog cannot provide all the answers. But let me suggest an outline of the issues to which I may well return.
First we need to recognise that the structure of politics that we have all been familiar with is not only dying, but has to be discarded. That may be hard, but if old tribalism is to be maintained then the chance of a united front against the Hard Right is very low indeed, which will hand them victory on a plate, as France is proving.
What that means is that old loyalties to parties may need to be abandoned: we face a crisis to the world of politics as a we know it. This is not one party in crisis in isolation. This is the system failing and unless a significant number of people can rise above the remnants of the old system and work together to build something new we will head for what might as well be called fascism. That is the real threat: there is no room for pettiness in the face of it.
Second, we need to be willing to hold our noses in that case. Like it or not there are some people whose views we might have found unpalatable who we will have to cooperate with if the fight against the Hard Right is to be won. This will be required within and beyond parties. And we will have to realise that this is the price we will have to pay for now to keep democracy alive because working with people with whom we differ will be better than being oppressed.
Third, we really do need to know what we are fighting for. If it's just about power then forget the whole thing: this will be readily apparent to anyone and will be rejected immediately. It is precisely the politics of power without principle that is being rejected by people at present. They have seen through that. So principle has to be at the heart of any such campaign.
And that politics of principle has in that case to have a clear narrative.
It will say that people matter.
It will stress that this is true individually. And collectively.
It will stress rights. But also responsibilities. Both exist.
It will emphasise the role of government in delivering justice.
It will make clear that justice is not just about law and order. It is also about the right to work, health, education, security, care, protection in old age and when vulnerable, and to participation in society.
It will stress that this is something government cannot and should not do alone: there will be a commitment to the mixed economy.
What is good about the private sector will be supported and encouraged. But that will require a a commitment to building a level playing field so that cheats cannot abuse honest businesses.
It will commit to sustainability. This requires a commitment to people where they are. It requires a commitment to the environment. It accepts that change is inevitable. It seeks to manage the disruption in that process.
It will require a proactive policy towards migration. Migration is not to be condemned: it is to be celebrated. But there is no point pretending it is not without its difficulties, because they exist. In that case like other processes of change, migration will have to be managed to ensure communities can accommodate those who wish to arrive in them, and survive when others wish to leave.
It will have to commit to economic stability. This is the bedrock on which democracy is built, and the yardstick by which it is measured. But this will require a much greater understanding of the basis for economic stability, which is not the wholly arbitrary indicator of a balanced government budget. A commitment to explaining the economic realities of the world in which we live is at the heart of the understanding on which a new democracy will be founded.
It will have to commit to protecting those subject to prejudice because in an inkling that could be anyone we know or love.
It will need to respect difference and yet work for the common good.
It will have as its goal a community in which it is possible to hope.
In the process it will seek to abolish fear.
This the fight those who believe that democracy must prevail must join together to win.
It is a struggle between those who care and the Hard Right.
And for the sake of us all those who care must win.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I have recently joined More United which embraces the ideas and philosophy raised above. There are other similar organisations seeking to change the way we do politics but this has to be the way forward now for everyone who shares the same basic values.
I absolutely agree, Richard,about the threat from the hard right. I do not believe a lot of people realise how seriously bad things could get, especially when the promises of the right are shown to be empty. They are not going to apologise but instead double down on the fascistic methods they have used successfully so far.
I have no sense of the political situation in France or Germany and the battle but not the war has been lost in the USA for the time being. However we in the UK are in the forefront right now as the right try to rewrite Brexit to advance their project.
I do not want to repeat points I have posted before but the essence is that Parliament has the ability to stop the right by refusing the Government a blank cheque in the Brexit negotiations. The one thing most citizens can do is pressure their MP (unless they are committed right wingers) to do this. I have outlined the mechanism in earlier posts.
There are a lot of issues about politics and economics that need rethinking. At this stage we cannot even agree on a vocabulary. I would support the aims you outline and describe them as liberalism but a lot of people will not touch that term because of its (mistaken in my view) association with “neo-liberalism”. However we must not get bogged down in that just now. The urgent task is to strengthen the resolve of our elected representatives to preserve our democracy.
Agreed
Agree with most of this though I think having a wider view than a single goal is a positive attribute of the Green Party. You don’t mention climate change though. I don’t entirely understand why the right is always opposed to action on this except that their pronouncements are always backward looking and anti-scientific, anti-factual. I realise in the USA it’s because big money is wedded to big oil but is that true everywhere? Unless it’s to gain votes by telling people they can carry on as usual, stay cocooned against what’s happening. I think we who are opposed to the right need to work together but can’t see how to do this on an electoral level when the system is set up for political parties. Independents occasionally succeed at a Council level but very very rarely HoC. We do work together on various campaigns but can’t carry it through to elections. And often it’s about priorities. “The environment is important but class is the major issue.” Or change the order on that sentence of ‘class’ and ‘environment’, or substitute your own words. We need pluralism.
I do mention environmental sustainability. Very deliberately. I think it one if the biggest issues we face. But I admit I did not do detail. You won’t even find tax mentioned – but it is implicit I. The need for a level playing field.
Another fine article, Richard. I believe that a progressive alliance of Labour, LibDem, Green, SNP, and Plaid Cymru could deliver something like this. But people need to loosen the chains of tribalism to liberate their brains.
Agreed
I agree – but wonder if some of the parties you mention see the seriousness of the threat? & that it is time to focus on the bigger picture/train coming down the track/pick your own metaphore.
I doubt they do as yet
But some of them do read this blog…
I think if a political party was to start talking about how it will actually do things to improve people’s lives on a day to day basis, and to give them hope, as opposed to fear, they would gain support and win elections.
There is a need to do some smarter targeting of different demographics to offer a platform that can win an election. here is my starter for a manifesto that the public would get behind:
i) Offer tuition fee cuts or abolition for the young; offer student loan writeoffs; At the same time offer something for those who didn’t go to university so that they are not pitched against each other by the right wing press (I’m not sure what but this is crucial – perhaps replace the student debt with a nominal tax rate)
ii) Offer state funded paid traineeship/apprenticeship schemes for the youth that don’t want to go to university. Offer financial incentives to firms that support trainees in the long term; perhaps make certain elements tax deductible.
iii) Stimulate productive industry for the future and research in areas such as sustainability technology – this will also provide the traineeship opportunities above; (introduce green new deal in all forms)
iv) Invest heavily in renewable energy infrastructure to reduce our reliance on dirty fuels.
v) Create a state owned energy company which offers clear, fair pricing structures which do not increase prices unless necessary on an annual basis, and any profits are reinvested into the company and subsidising low tariffs for low income earners/ the elderly (How popular would that be? The private energy companies would lose all their business I feel). It would have an emphasis on green energy sourcing.
vi) Invest heavily in flood defence schemes in affected areas – this will be popular in Tory heartlands where Labour could normally make no progress
vii) Accelerate the nationalisation of the railways. Impose strict rules on fair increases. Scrap the arrangement where rolling stock is leased from the banks.
ix) Invest in sustainable transport initiatives in areas where there is strain on infrastructure. Park and ride schemes for example. Be ambitious.
x) Invest more in broadband and especially rural broadband to appeal to business and small rural businesses in particular
xi) Offer public sector workers a much needed payrise. Offer a similar benefit to those in private sector employment so that the right wing press does not turn it into a private/public divide and conquer rhetoric.
xii) Create larger, regional social housing corporations with heavy capital funding with a mandate to refurbish existing and build a new generation of social housing.
xiii) Offer a new form of right to buy for social housing (you can buy your own social house, but if you want to sell it on at any point then you have to sell it back to a social housing company for a restricted rate (e.g. you will still make money on it over the years but it will not be the same as if you were selling it on the market). It will then stay as social housing. Prohibit subletting of those bought properties.
xiv) introduce minimum standards for rented housing with a regulatory body with teeth to stop people being ripped off. Introduce licences for landlords which can be revoked by the regulator if they abuse their position. At the same time the landlords will benefit from generous government subsidies from the renewable/sustainability investment being provided by the government, so that should help offset the press attack against “Anti- landlord measures”.
xv) Reform pensions to remove the opacity over their management. Introduce rules to stop siphoning off of people’s pensions (detail from experts needed here);
xvi) Invest pensions into UK infrastructure projects. Play up on the patriotic element of this – investing in the UK’s future;
xvii) Invest in the Navy – again – play up on the patriotic element here. The Navy is in a threadbare state. We will barely be able to support a renewed Trident with the state of the Navy at present. Ditching Trident is a vote loser and has no popular support – Corbyn’s approach to the military / defence of the UK is one of his weakest points in terms of appealing to the UK in general. It’s important to be anti war and to be vocal about the appalling wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc etc – but you also have to convince the public that you can be trusted to defend them should it become necessary.
xviii) Turn RBS into a state-owned bank providing basic banking services for the UK’s citizens and with a policy of investing in UK infrastructure and business – play up on the patriotic element.
This is just the start of a list of what I think are win/win policies that could help a government win a landslide election. The key is to introduce policies which provide hope and positivity but will also have an obvious beneficial effect on people’s day to day lives. It’s crucial to beat the right wing press/government at their own game. Don’t allow them to play off different groups in society against one another. You have to be able to spin things so that they appeal to different sections of society. The current government has a terrible level of economic and societal competence. If a party actually had the balls to introduce the above as a manifesto it would really shake things up.
A good list
Thanks
Ever since 2008, I have feared we will be at least to some extent recapitulating the experience of the 1920s and 1930s. No doubt we will make different mistakes this time, but the direction of travel suggests we are heading for a major international crisis in the next 5 to 10 years. That is what you get with ignorant bellicose government, and angry populations. Perhaps not a widespread war this time, although it can’t be ruled out. Unstoppable mass migration caused by sudden tipping-point effects of climate change?
It’s not pretty
Excuse the question, but are you familiar with the French electoral process ? The reason for the lack of any visible left wing challenger for the France general eletion is that Socilist primaries are not held until the 21st January next year.
Yes
And no one expects them to end up in the final election
Nothing to disagree with in your post.
All I would add is that now like no other time before we have a huge pallete of political opinions and ideas to make use of.
The Right has used them very creatively and to its benefit (but to the increasing dis-beneift of too many of us).
The Left hasn’t because in my view it idealises human nature too much or is just totally confused because of dominant neo-liberal ideology. I think that most progressives must now start dealing with some of the more base human realities.
Somehow, a new narrative has to be created by the Left using the techniques of the Right. Fire must be fought with fire. We must be prepared to lie if necessary and we must be prepared to twist Right of centre ideas into Left of centre ideas ruthlessly.
A lot of this sounds unpalatable I grant you. But I cannot see another way through at all.
I am not sure about lying
But all politics is ruthless
I learned that nearly 40 years ago
The General election is also to be held in June 2017, not 2018.
I would suggest that any party that wants to achieve power must do at least three things :
1) Accept that the lines of traditional politics have permanently changed. There is no longer a defining left / right divide, and traditional supporters can no longer be relied upon in elections. Hilary Clinton discovered this painfully when solid blue “union” states fell to Trump. In the UK Labour now faces potential wipe-out by UKIP in core constituencies if it continues to ignore the new shape of politics. The key emerging division is between those with advantages in the Global economy ( young, well-educated, city-dwellers ) and those left behind, many of whom used to be core labour voters. Deciding where you stand on this line is critical. Immigration is clearly beneficial to the advantaged (growing GDP and international job opportunities) but negative for the low-skilled (more competition for housing, jobs, and enables employers to undermine workers rights that took decades to achieve).
2) Develop policies that can deliver truely inclusive growth. These must address the emerging opportunities and threats in the new Global economy, which means throwing out a lot of the old narratives about what is good for growth. High on the list would be to focus on opportunities in the green/circular economy which can actually reduce costs and promote growth (in contrast to the right wing narrative that views environmentalism as a brake on jobs and growth). In particular, showing that a rising carbon tax actually promotes growth by creating the incentive for rapid private investment. Support for real R&D to SMEs, along the lines of the German Fraunhofer model, rather than the fat public bribes to big companies announced in the Autumn statement. (I think we all now know what was in the secret letter to Nissan that kept them committed to the UK!) And of course finding practical solutions to managing immigration that work, rather than pandering to self-righteous ideologies of either left or right.
3) Learn to communicate in ways that resonate with the electorate. Blair had Alistair Campbell, Cameron had Andy Coulson, both for a reason. Media people are often unpleasant and unprincipled, but successful political parties need them to communicate properly. The left will have to hold its nose and employ the right advice if they want to get their message across in ways that speak to the electorate. At the end of the day it is no good to write in the Guardian about how air pollution levels in our cities still exceed WHO guidelines on a high percentage of days, and need action to meet EU standards. You need to tweet “We would never give poisoned food to our Kids, so why is it OK for them to breath toxic air? If Teresa May had children she would understand this!”
At the end of the day the left now faces a choice. If it continues to focus on its own internal high principles and traditional approach it will be consigned to obscurity.
Agree with everything you’ve suggested. Just a few additional points. Re Lesley’s query as to why the AltRight don’t buy into climate change is simply because they see it as a Green conspiracy to load businss with additional tax. The junk science they quote to support their position emanates from a very small number of scientists all of whom are in the pay of American oil, gas or mining induustries.
This leads me to the next point. I suggest the growth of extreme right wing politics is almost entirely based upon wealth inequality. I’d wager that 99% of those who follow these extremist politicians would not do so if they did not feel insecure, hence fgearful of the future. Economic insecurity is the breeding ground for fascism because its perpetrators always direct people’s attention to scapegoats – any target that will easily play on the electorate’s emotions, and immigrants are currently the easiest. The symptoms then become framed as the cause.
None of the current AltRight/Natonalist/Popularist leaders appear to have any clue as to how a modern fiat monetary system works. Beneath their divisive rhetoric they are just the same neo-cons as the prevailing ‘elite’ against whom they rant and rail.
It strikes me that politics is becoming ever more like religions, with all the implicit divisiveness and potential violence. Of course there has always been a religious element, either overtly or covertly, driving political agendas. I was bemused to learn that Theresa May is counting on her Anglican God to guide her through Brexit – the very same God who a short while ago ‘informed’ her that Remain was the right option. And UKIP’s new leader is a ‘committed’ Catholic. Institutionalised religions have survived thousands of years by playing on people’s fears and ignorance.
I don’t know what more to say as it’s all been said so many times by infinitley wiser people than me, starting with Marx 150 years ago. Asset driven global capitalism is on its death bed. Until it is replaced by a radically new economic system that enables all societies everywhere to achieve, share and enjoy the objectives you have articulated, there will be political chaos. What we are currently witnessing are sparks of dissent that could all too easily lead to societal conflagration. When fear becomes the principal determinant of group behaviour, there is little regard for rationality, logic, compassion and inclusiveness. Like you I am deeply concerned as to where this political trend will lead.
“Soldiers! in the name of democracy, let us all unite!” Chaplin’s Dictator speech continues to resonate – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGZMvV9KBp8.
Much to agree with there
May’s reliance on God is truly worrying – and I have religious belief
Politics as a second religiousness, at the same time as strong leaders. Spengler?
Apologies for all the typos. As always, written on the hoof!
Like me!
I agree with pretty much all of this – the only additional thing I’d say is that I think Labour is failing not because it’s presenting a radical alternative and it’s being rejected, but because it isn’t actually presenting a radical alternative.
John McDonnell doing his best Ed Balls impression when calling for “fiscal discipline” isn’t radical.
Failing to commit to reversing Tory (and ConDem) cuts isn’t radical.
Failing to oppose the draconian RIPA legislation isn’t radical.
Facilitating “hard Brexit” through failing to oppose Article 50 in parliament isn’t radical.
Running a no-hoper candidate in a bid to sabotage the Lib Dem challenger in the Richmond byelection isn’t radical.
I could go on…
It took me longer than Richard to realise that Jeremy Corbyn was faking it. Credit to Richard for seeing it a lot earlier than most of us
best
Howard
Howard
As ever, we are thinking much of one mind
I am quite sure you are right
Best
Richard
I would agree in the sense that the current Labour leadership seems to be leaving a wide open goal, into which the scary prospect of a Blairite renaissance (c.f recent big meeting of the usual suspects plus others, and pre-announcement of a New Year real announcement) being able to score a series of undefended penalties (apologies for slightly mixed metaphor), and gradually retake control of the party. (Apparently, they are not planning to form a new party, although I rather wish they would, and leave Labour to be real Labour).
What Richard seems to be proposing sounds a bit Third-Way-ish; More United even more so. And we know how that ended.
But @Howard Reed, what do you mean by “Jeremy Corbyn was faking it”? What was he (and presumably still is) faking? (Genuine question).
If you mean I am saying the left talking to itself is a waste o time: yes that is what I mean unless you want the right to succeed
Effort of an ‘I’m purer than you’ kind is simply about creating space for fascism right now
And the left seems either to want to do that or is quite unable to identify the risk it is facing at present
Good question, @Mike Ellwood.
What I mean by “Jeremy Corbyn was faking it” was that in both the 2015 and 2016 leadership elections he gave the impression of having a well-worked out socialist policy agenda for the Labour Party which would be ready for a general election in 2020 – or possibly earlier. But since then we’ve had no real indication that his policy proposals (to the extent we’ve heard any) are really any different from Ed Miliband – at best, it’s tepid soft-left stuff. So Jeremy is “faking it” in the sense that he is not coming through with a well-worked out radical policy agenda (except in the case of not replacing Trident, where he is certainly committed to that, and I agree with him, but at the moment it’s not a policy which is that popular with the public, unfortunately).
I agree with all that
Howard, I agree with most of your comments about the lack of a radical alternative from Labour. As Chair of my local branch I despair at the policy vacuum. However it is increasingly difficult for Labour to promote any positive policy in the face of the hostile media and so our leading politicians are in my opinion far too timid. The reality is that Labour cannot win the next GE outright as the loss of Scottish MPs has seen to that. My own view is that there is nothing to gain from this timid approach and we should therefore be much more radical and indeed honest with the electorate. We face considerable economic difficulties which are likely to be compounded by Brexit, we have a huge balance of payments deficit , we have sold off most of our successful companies etc etc. Now really is the time for honesty about our place in the world, but I guess my comments will go unheard.
I wish they were heard
I agree with Howard on this this one – only that Corbyn I think is blinded by his loyalty to his Shadow Chancellor who has totally lost the plot and seems to be rehashing the same old tosh that Richard and many here rail against.
you people are unbelievable,why is it always left is best and the right are racists,nazi’s,brexiteer’s,ukip blah blah blah,seriously you people have done more harm to this country with your leftist agenda’s and are responsible for the murders of innocent Britain’s up and down the country with all these terrorist attacks,your bleeding hearts defending these people,housing them and walking on eggshells so as to not offend them and if anyone dare mention or comment on the culprits and there religion then you leftards jump straight down there throats and shout racist,oh i forgot you can’t be a racist because its not a race,so what do the leftards come up with next,oh yeah lets bring out another phobia because we can’t use the race card,absolutely pathetic.and lets not forget all these innocent white british children being abused etc up and down england by the very same religion,and all these poor children have nobody but the leftist to thank for that with there PC b*llocks and human rights and we don’t want to offend the culprits or be seen to come across as racists even though the one’s responsible for these sick racist crimes against white western children in england are all of the same background and follow the religion of peace. honestly the list goes on and on,all of you leftists should hold your heads in shame for the misery and loss you have caused to this country,there is only 1 threat i can see and more and more people are actually starting to wake up now and see the same too and that threat is the left,because the proof is all around us what you are responsible for and it certainly isn’t pretty…and for the record are any of these acts,laws and destruction of great britain down to the right? NO
I publish this for others to comment
The idea that a commitment to caring, to equality and to addressing the issues that create harm is the cause of people’s anger and crises is, to put it mildly, bizarre. More precisely, I think it completely wrong.
But others might wish to comment
I’d refute it sentence by sentence, but there aren’t any sentences.
Then your first problem is with reading
Daryl sounds to me like an excellent candidate for the Private Eye message boards, innit
Can you remind me what the political views of the man who’s just been sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Jo Cox are? Oh yes, that’s right, a neo Nazi; i.e an extreme right winger.
Now maybe you’d like to give me specific incidents of the terrorist murders carried out all over Britain, and who they were carried out by?
I think you’ll find that the child abuse carried out in places like Rotherham was carried out by people who like preying on the weak and vulnerable. That kind of disgusting behaviour isn’t confined to Muslims; was Saville a brown skinned Muslim?
You hard rightists really are disgusting. The problems of social deprivation, exploitation and inequality have been caused by decades of right wing policies; but hey, don’t ever admit any responsibility eh? just try and pass the buck onto everybody else.
A good response to publish the above.
Despite the near complete agreement on this blog I commend Mark Blyth on Global Trumpism https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Bkm2Vfj42FY. We should not be writing off vast segments of our fellow citizens.
Hi Daryl
Did you realise that since before 1979, the UK has been dominated by Right wing politics and econommic thinking – even the Labour party. So since when – as you say – did the ‘Leftist agendas’ have any precedence over the Right in the last 45 years? You’re blaming a political system that does not exist. This is not a Left wing country and has not been for a long time.
We have been living in a right wing world that has become progressivley MORE right wing as time has gone on. Even the Left has been dragged Right.
And it is the Right who are responisble for the world you live in now.
I don’t blame you for being angry but you cannot blame the Left when the Left has been in retreat for so long. You can blame the Left for retreating – sure – I agree with that – but the harsh realities of life you mention (and taken at their face value) have been created by Right wing thinking both here and in the USA.
To me, you come across as someone who is angry and hurt which makes you vulnerable and therefore all too easily and ruthlessly able to be manipulated by the Right which is why I forgive you your rant above.
But I warn you Daryl that you and the far too many others of you need to wake up quick, because all you are actually doing is supporting the political ideas that are actually causing these problems. You (and too many others in this country)are supporting the very regime that hurts you because you rely tiem and time again about the ancient (and wrong) history of the Left.
And the cause of these problems are firmly found in the Right which is becoming more extreme.
And all you and those like you will end up being is expendable cannon fodder for those on the Right who do not care a jot about you or me or anyone except themselves and being in power.
As I said: Wake up! This is not an order or a decree. It’s an invitation. Accept it.
Best Wishes
PSR
I hope you won’t take my comment about religion as a personal affront. I’ve always considered Quakerism to be the least dogmatic and most radical of the monotheistic belief systems with much in common with Buddhism, which isn’t really a religion in the accepted sense. I have huge regard for the often dangerous front-line work done by Quakers both historically and today. I used to be a frequent visitor to the Friends’ Meeting House in Manchester.
Absolutely no offence taken!
I think that in our personal lives we put forward a thesis, we consider the encountered antithesis and we move forward on the basis of a new synthesis; a constant dialectical process based on thought, expedience and pragmatism.
One would think that two people with opposing views would recognise that the continuation of a civilised form of life is more important that the destruction of that civility through a totalitarian insistence on the supremacy of one view over another. 2016 has shown us that an increasing number of us are now prepared to go to any length to destroy “the enemies of the people”.
Why has emotion displaced reason? Are the majority capable of reason?
I am sure that David Cameron’s favourite philosopher was David Hume, who believed that reason should be subordinate to instinct. Cameron’s instinct told him that he could win a referendum; I don’t think he bothered to reason through the implications of losing. If we all become “slaves to our passions” then compromise is jettisoned.
Richard thanks. Even by your high standards this is a very thought provoking post. There are many interesting replies and much to agree with, with the exception of Daryl. Daryl’s post is however full of “passionate intensity” (Yeats) and certainly generates heat. Somehow we need to “rage, rage against the dying of the light”, if you forgive me from quoting two of the greatest poets these islands have produced. The left is very good at producing light but in this post-truth world this is insufficient.
2016 was politically a dreadful year but containable. There is a possibility that the EU could start unraveling next year. I know that there are some on the left who see the EU as a neoloberal organisation and certainly needs reform. However I am terrified about what will happen if it disintegrates. It will make even the Trump victory look like small beer. It probably won’t be outright war as in 1939-45 but things could get very nasty indeed.
I share your fear
And I think it is well placed
2017 is not looking good
Richard
It would help if there was a simple, catchy term for “support for a post-neoliberal, progressive, social democratic, sustainable, tax-justice, pro-market-economy socio-economic model with strong localist and community protection features” Any suggestions? “Murphyism”, “Every Person Matters” ?
Emphatically not Murphyism
Indeed a bit too much like Murphy’s law; a new word like Justicism is needed; but a wordsmith rather than an Astrophysicist is needed.
I think a major reason for the rise of the hard right is the failure of the centre and the left to confront or even acknowledge issues on immigration. I have a simple theory on this: I can’t test if it is correct, but I offer it anyway. The first point to tee it up is that most people do not think deeply about political policy — they don’t have the time and/or the inclination — they live by soundbite politics, by clichés, what they are fed by the mass media, and of course that is mostly dominated by the right. The BBC try to be impartial but find themselves targets for the left and the right whenever they stray to a message that strays one way or the other — they can’t win.
The second point in teeing it up is the centre and left think that the immigration issue is dominated by people worrying over immigrants taking up housing and services, taking thankless low paid jobs (even though it is impossible to find British people willing to do them) and terrorism (even though the chances of being caught up are very, very slight). These things do concern people, but people on the left and the centre ignore fundamental issues over culture — or multiculturalism — and they sneer at those suggesting it can be a problem, belittle those who display articles of nationalism, and mock people for not being able to articulate what it means to want to maintain an identity of Englishness or Britishness.
So my theory is this: migrants come here for many reasons, but primarily because here is better than where they came from (to escape war, poverty, religious or political persecution). There are many reasons why that is true, and we even have played a negative role in it by our colonial past, support of terrible regimes and inexcusable foreign wars. But it is what it is — here is better than there. The people voting for the right don’t see the causes, in fact they don’t always see the cons of fleeing from some of these places only the pros of here, Britain. They just see the outcome and they say, “if here is better than there, why on Earth are they wanting to turn here back into there? If you import the life you led, you import the strife you fled”. I said it was simplistic.
People think there is not enough effort on integration, too much effort on translation, too much accommodation on things that clearly rub against our culture — importing backward steps on women’s rights, animal slaughter, sexual equality, freedom of speech and religious tolerance. It is generalising, of course it is, but surely there are efforts to be made on this. I do not believe that the vast majority of people now going over to UKIP and sustaining the Tories in these latest depressing polls are racist, I just don’t — a significant minority may be but not a majority. I think most people are happy with a certain level of multiculturalism; but there are limits and we are pushing on the boundaries of them.
At the moment, the centre and the left are not acknowledging these issues at all. Jeremy Corbyn says immigration is a net benefit to the country, period — whilst traditional non-metropolitan labour voters continue to leak away. The hard right have total free reign on this issue because the centre and left have just abandoned the playing field. If we are not careful they will twist and distort it further into something completely terrifying.
stemfr – a very interesting comment.
I agree the left has been bad on immigration, and has been bad on labelling people who have doubts as racist when, I also agree, they are generally not – most recognise the fact that few of us are not either immigrants or the issue of immigrants. Yet the most numerous recent immigrants are the Poles. The same nation who had an RAF division in the war for goodness sake – and many married into the local population and certainly few went home. They may be Catholic but apart from that they’re pretty similar to their host nation!
The problem is really austerity. You’re BOUND to resent immigrants when the government hasn’t paid for adequate school places and keeps static or cuts the NHS when the population is increasing , doesn’t invest in trains so they’re completely overwhelmed – and so on. The ‘we’ve got no money’ message is the one that needs challenging.
That is why the left needs to be really radical and not accept any right wing heritage at all. We need to kick out this illogical austerity and invest and progress!
I agree with your diagnosis
Thanks MayP for the considered response, but with respect, are you not just doing exactly what I said in my second paragraph? “The problem is really austerity” is only half of the problem. To continue to deny that some elements of multiculturism are not acceptable to sections of our society that are not inherently racist or prejudiced leave the field open to the right and hard right. Tory hardliners and UKIPpers will own the debate on their terms. We honestly need some sort of open cultural conference in this country, where people can freely express opinions and get these issues out in the open. We’ll hear some horrible and offensive things, but facts, reason and logic would destroy those views, whilst allowing genuine concerns to be aired about the negative effect of some cultures on rights that British people have fought for or fought to defend. Perhaps this could lead to a bill of rights that finds the right balance between privacy and openness, religious freedom and freedom from religion, free expression and insult/offence, etc.
There are issues to address and they are not all austerity based
In some places near where I live the impact of migration has been rapid, and significant culturally
Some of the responses are racist: let’s not deny what is true. Not all are. Some are genuine stress. All societies can handle change; but not all societies and places can handle rapid change easily. This si the real issue. We actually need change: migration can really be of benefit. But we need to work out how to prevent people feeling overwhelmed and some are. I accept that.
I do no0t have an obvious answer as yet
I am not a immaigrant or ” the issue of immigrants”, I am English, as a child I had a uncle who was polish, clue as to why that wasn’t a problem “they’re pretty similar to their host nation “, the wave of uninvited immigrants coming since the late 40s are not , this is not a good thing.
Hang on: where I am almost all migrants look like most other people in my community
I very rarely realise anyone is a migrant until I hear an accent
Your claim is not true
And let’s also be clear, those who have come from outside the EU to the UK have been invited in many cases and required permission invariably
So again, your claim is not true
“Hang on: where I am almost all migrants look like most other people in my community”, is that supporting my point, and don’t you live in Norfolk,(sorry if I am wrong about that ) but ill write this anyway , I live in innercity Bradford and have done since the early 80s, here they don’t “look like”, also I am not talking about migrents , who come and go , I am talking about immigrants who stay.
And I did address what you had to say on those people’s invitation to stay
and ps “what claim ” am I making that’s not true, the fact that one of my uncles was polish ??
I made clear what was not true: I specified it quite clearly
Last post from me tonight – promise! Have just watched** this from Slavoj Žižek, who is always ‘challenging’ in more ways than one. I hope it’s relevant to the topic as I think he may be on to something important: ‘Why There Are No Viable Political Alternatives to Unbridled Capitalism’ Actually it’s probably better not to watch him 😉 but either just listen or read the transcript here: http://bigthink.com/videos/slavoj-zizek-on-the-failures-of-the-leftist-movement. If you don’t have the time, the will or patience, his final words are: “Either a new form of the left will be reinvented or here is my simple but I love it answer, or look at Hollywood, I always trust Hollywood. Hollywood is warning us all the time Hunger Games, Elysium and so on, that’s the society we are approaching. Twenty percent of people live in the privileged zone, the majority is out. That’s the future.”
(** The video didn’t work in my browser so if you still want to watch and have the same problem, here’s the YouTube link – – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U7JgfB8PaAk).
The Hunger Games analogy haunts me, often
It is horribly too potentially true to be comfortable
With the exception of the rather silly (typical Hollywood cop-out) ending to the film, Elysium is probably a much closer representation of where we might be heading, I think, Richard. Then again, it could be The Road – or even Terry Gilliam’s dystopia in the film Brazil. In the shorter term the gigantic off-world haven where the rich live in Elysium will be here on Earth, and obviously on ground that will not be submerged by the sudden rise in sea level that’s now an inevitable outcome of the collapse of the millenia old feedback systems and mechanisms that have sustained our planet for so long. So cities with many high rise building and skyscrapers, as in New York, may well become militarily protected havens for the rich, as could Hong Kong and Tokyo and so on. In the longer term, however, that is, in 30 to 50 years of so, the increasing push to get to Mars and for commercial space flight surely signals an end point similar to that portrayed in Elysium.
Sticking with the gloomy theme, it’s worth noting that the UN estimates the Earth has sixty more harvests before food production tanks to a degree that millions will starve. And to add to that, George Monbiot’s Guardian column this week should be compulsory reading for anyone who thinks Trump’s presidency isn’t going to be a disaster for the environment and quite possibly signal the end of any attempt – however misguided and weak – at stemming the human races’ march into a future dominated by climate change that will be catastrophic for millions. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2016/nov/30/donald-trump-george-monbiot-misinformation
On which point, I’ll reiterate something which I’ve said on your blog a couple of times before over the years. The vast majority of the rich and powerful aren’t bothered about climate change because they believe – indeed, I’d go so far as to say that those who have thought about it know – that they can buy their way out of the mess that is unquestionably now upon us (the only questions being when and to what extent). And interestingly, it’s this knowledge/belief that is yet another unifying factor in the creation of a global elite of the rich and powerful who no longer have any affinity to place, or to people who are not of their “kind”. In large part they will achieve and maintain – indeed quite possibly even extend – their ultra-privileged and protected status by using their wealth to develop technologies that protect them and their ilk, to the obvious detriment and destruction of many of their “lesser” fellow men (climate change is after all the ultimate zero sum game). Which takes us back to where we started, as this is, of course, the underlying presumption of films such as Elysium and The Hunger Games, and long before that Soylent Green, with one of the best still being Philip K Dick’s/Ridley Scott’s, Blade Runner.
Having always been a fan of science fiction (my first read at 11 being Isaac Asimov’s Foundation and Empire series) I held the belief for most of my life that the dystopias so many SF books portray were nothing more than that – fantasy. I now see clearly that they are not, and that they are the direction in which we as a race are heading. The question is not, therefore, whether a dystopian world is our fate, but what form, and exactly how vile for most of our race, it might be.
You’re cheery today!
I admit I have not seen Elysium – suspecting its embrace of Ely is superficial
But I agree with your view on the attitude of the wealthy to climate change. Their awareness that they are in fact part of the rest of society is limited. The reality will hit them hard, and too late, and maybe just after the rest of us
So you think we should be worried about what is happening in this country and beyond Richard. You think it’s a crisis. You think the move to the right is too serious to pretend it’s not a threat to our societies and democracies.
You rightly say that the present Labour alternative is no alternative and then you suggest
“ we need to be willing to ‘hold our noses’ in that case. Like it or not there are some people whose views we might have found unpalatable who we will have to cooperate with if the fight against the Hard Right is to be won.”
Hold your nose Richard? Should you not be biting Nicola’s hand off considering the way Labour treated her before the last election?.
Miliband “Let me be plain. We’re not going to do a deal with the Scottish National party; we’re not going to have a coalition, we’re not going to have a deal.
(Me It’s just too unpalatable! I’d have to hold my nose!)
Miliband “Let me just say this to you — if it meant we weren’t going to be in government, not doing a coalition, not having a deal, then so be it.
(Me it smells.. My nose would be pained beyond belief. My sinuses would be in meltdown.
Miliband “I am not going to sacrifice the future of our country, the unity of our country, I’m not going to give in to SNP demands around Trident, around the deficit, or anything like that.
(Me It pure stinks!!!)
Miliband “I just want to repeat this point to you: I am not going to have a Labour government if it means deals or coalitions with the SNP. I want to say this to…………………….
Me.Whatever Ed.
And as for poor Darryl I think the rise of the far right is probably down to not just the failure of the left to confront or acknowledge issues on immigration but the faiure to confront anything that isn’t politically correct!!
You know Richard one of the things that I have learned in our Post modern society is not so much that truth doesn’t exist but that all of us have a bit of the truth in us. Darryl included.
Dave Evans suggest that the new model might be called “Murphyism or“every person matters” but do you or your acolytes actually believe that?
“You yourself dismiss Darryl with a sniffy
“I’ll leave it for others to comment”
What’s the matter Richard? Cat got your nose? Or are you too preoccupied with More important matters to reply? If so, that would be a first. You seem to find any amount of time when it matters to you.
And then Shandy quips rather pompously “I’d refute it sentence by sentence, but there aren’t any sentences.”
How hypocritical to say every person matters with this kind of arrogant dismissive attitude. Personally I’m left of centre but I do try to be balanced in most of my thinking.
If any of us are going to have any harmony in future and because I have hope borne of faith It is obvious to me that in some respects Darryl is right. People are afraid to speak their minds any more in case they are flayed for it Those of us on the left haven’t even considered that other points of view might even exist.
Starting with Brexit, many of those who voted leave did so minus racism, misogyny, bigotry. What the left needs to learn and double quick is that our worldview is not the only correct worldview all others must be coming out of some “dark” place. They’re not. As I say, we all have a part of the truth.
You are right Richard. It has become about anger and not listening . But we need to get back to listening and I think that Darrl deserves a thought out and respectful response.
Dear Grace
Thanks for your comment.
I would address the issues you raised in the first half if I understood what you were trying to say, but despite trying I am not sure what your Miliband references are meant to refer to. I trust you will forgive my oversight.
And I am sorry you took exception to my not having time to comment yesterday. I was between several meetings at university and two groups of students when I posted that note. Those students and their needs are what pay me now. This blog is done in my free time.
Which also explains why I feel no obligation to reply to anyone. What I do here is my choice. If I block people it is because I do not like being abused. Maybe you do. But I don’t. If I am short with people who demand I rebut neoclassical economics quoting source texts at their whim and demand it may be because I have better things to do and they are knowingly seeking to distract me. And if late last night I did not reply to you it was because my iPad’s battery died just as I was about to post. And I went to bed instead.
But I do listen.
I do read widely.
And I write to sort out my own thinking on issues. I choose to share it. And I am, by and large, happy for peopl’s to comment. But when you’re doing so it’s my space you’re entering.
I would not give Daryl and his views time of day in my house.
Actually, I would ask you to leave if you ranted as you jphave here. And why not? I have a thick skin, but have no great desire to be told what duties I have with my time by someone I do not know and who clearly assumes they know my diary and obligations better than I do. Which is just rude, to be polite.
And this is important. You see, what I want in politics is care, empathy, understanding and some tolerance. And maybe I am not at my best in writing when faced with the opposite: I accept that accusation. I do not always suffer fools, time wasters and right wingers gladly on this blog, but then I do make clear that they are not invited in the Comments policy . But having admitted this I would suggest that you too might also have some issues you might wish to address. Coherence is one. Respect is another. When you deal with them I might provide the fuller reply you demand, but aren’t getting for precisely that reason.
Regards
Richard
“Grace Sutherland” well said . As of no interest to anyone used to consider my self left of centre but now? and as for brexit I voted to stay, hold my noise and voted on the same side as David Cameron and George Osborne and still lost, I have voted evry time since the early 80s but I don’t think I will be voting again.
Might you explain what you are agreeing with?
surppose its her attempt to pick up on (in a confused manner the way you are so dismissive of some people .notice you didn’t take any heed of me saying that I used to consider myself left of centre ,and don’t think I be voting again, but your type are not really botherd by the likes of me , thank you
Not bothered?
I asked your opinion
Is that not bothered?
I am confused
To me much of the hard right has been created by the Right anyway and the silence of the Left. Particularly the Right’s undermining of the ethos of a Government supporting the people of the nation.
People I work with who voted for BREXIT and UKIP are people who have seen the NHS fail, seen their wages reduced, seen the welfare state pull away from them, have been failed by key institutions, have seen pensions shrink etc., etc.
They have also been let down by the Left’s dalliance with neo-liberalism as well as some dodgy dossiers.
All of these phenomena are then blamed on something else – immigrants, unions, the EU.
The Right know what they are doing. But all of us need to speak up more and tell people what is closer to the truth. Me included.
It is time to don our tin hats and stick our head’s above the parapet and join the fray.
Dear Pilgrim, The Left have not performed well in the last ten years, maybe longer, but I am not going to blame them for what the Right is doing to our societies. The responsibilities lie with the perpetrators.
Trump’s win is based on anger about the state of the country and liberalism is often mentioned. In most people’s minds that is a social view which calls for equality, tolerance and responsibility for the community. To blame this for what has happened in America, the static wages, the poor social conditions, the cuts to public services, is breath taking.
The real culprit is noe-liberalism, the 19th century economic doctrine once known as laissez-faire capitalism which is about the state playing only a small part in economics affairs.
Today we heard Steve Mnuchin is likely to be appointed Treasury Secretary, A Goldman Sachs man who has founded a hedge fund with Paulson and Soros.
Most of his other appointees have similar backgrounds. We have similar things here with the Brexit leaders and their media suporters. It is not poachers turned gamekeepers, it the gamekeepers have become the lords of the manor.
It must rank as one of the biggest con jobs in history.
I cannot disagree with you about the Right Ian – they have just been more effective because in my view they have less qualms about going for the jugular than the Left have. They are even prepared to risk the unity of the nation in order to benefit and get into power.
But I do believe that the Left in this country has lost faith in the people because they think that they have been won over by neo-liberalism and cannot be redeemed. So the Left has donned the clothes of the neo-liberals to attract voters and unfortunately caused confusion instead. This has also happened to the Democrats in America.
The Left should have renewed its old messages and had faith in its principles. Instead it played a high risk game of copy cat in order to adapt to the voter instead of delivering a compelling alternative narrative.
In fact, you could say that the Left was already playing a populist tune long before Trump and UKIP came along. It was a high risk populist strategy that failed. And it alienated many traditional followers who – being ognored – walked into the arms of Trump, Farage and too mnay other denizens of the deep.
It is certainly one of history’s biggest con jobs Ian. What the right are doing is a trick pulled by the totalitarian regimes in the 20th century. To accuse others of the very thing you yourself are doing.
Hence, the nonsense about ‘elites’ and the ‘political class’ from people like Farage and Trump, and their billionaire backers who control much of the news media.
Hence the accusations from the right’s angry guillible followers like Daryl that all society’s current ills are the left’s fault, when in fact they are caused by the very rightists that are conning Daryl and his like.
It was a struggle to eat my breakfast today. My appetite was consumed by your post. It appears to me that we (humanity) have a plethora of ideas; ideas we do not lack, and as you and other contributors so clearly demonstrate, Richard, the world would be a better place, if only…
As I approach the last quartile of my own life it is with profound feelings of regret. Perhaps it is trite to expect that we should take up arms against the real champions of chaos, but no-one would suffer if we made war on CO2, poverty, prejudice, loneliness, indifference, indeed, all would benefit.
Even Daryl, I suspect, will share a wish to leave the world a better place. Surely, the real dilemma, perhaps the real culprit, is our willingness to accept discourse over action?
If political ideas have failed us, the myths of meritocracy, neoliberalism, collectivism, et al, if the impasse of left, centre and right no longer hits the spot, where are we to focus our attention?
As far as I can see the outlook is grim, and I have been a lifetime optimist. I do not see leadership. If we have the ideas how will this ever translate into action? This blog and its many counterparts demonstrate that there is an evolution in ideas that could form the basis of a different approach, and yet the status quo is so entrenched.
As I see it, the present vacuum created by the fragmentation of the centre and left will inevitably give free rein to a radical right unless (dare I dream?) the purpose of this lurch to the right is the only way we will gather whatever it is that it takes to bring back common sense and a moral purpose to politics. Perhaps I am still an optimist after all?
You are looking for silver linings! And why not?
Bob, I’m in pretty much the same position as you but I couldn’t have said what you did half as eloquently. Thank you.
It’s funny over here on the hard right to read that compromise has failed and it’s time to put your foot down. Your solutions sound to me like David or Ed read them out in 2015.
Over here the foot has been at our neck for decades, what we know of compromise is nothing more than a placating phrase to be repeated anytime UKIP has gained ground. Spoken by a disinterested elite, who refused and refuses to, consider the possibility that they are the catalyst for the tide of people who used to be liberals, ceasing their begging for compromise.
And the hard right cares, saying we don’t would be like implying you don’t care about Rotherham. There is no victimless caring in politics, nor selfless hatred.
Assuming you are who you say you are then let me suggest three things
First you assume that the majority (because the majority are not hard right) are an elite, which is wrong
And you assume that what I wrote is what the elite believe, when it clearly is not
And you believe that political innovation is only possible on the right, which I do not accept
I’d suggest you’re complacent. And that’s interesting
On the immigration issue, these elites speak in a way to placate the right, they then act completely contra to it. It seems to me that your idea is to do the same but with less lip-service to the right.
Thus..
If I am complacent it’s not because I’m confident in my own side, but because I’ve seen that my oppositions ideas for innovation are further polarising..
and I don’t think you can be certain that your coalition will have a majority. http://www.atlasofeuropeanvalues.eu/new/europa-regio2.php?c2=society&map%5B%5D=&map%5B%5D=&map%5B%5D=&map%5B%5D=&map%5B%5D=269&map%5B%5D=&map%5B%5D=&button=
If you are saying lip service to the right is tolerance of intolerance to others on the grounds of race, gender, sexual orientation, religion and other issues where discrimination is commonplace I am entirely happy to pay no lip service at all
I am happy to discuss migration but that never justifies intolerance
That’s what I’m saying, there’s a growing possibility that your uncompromising approach to saving democracy may result in a loss and a level of intolerance that the majority didn’t want, but prefer over what you offer.
And that what might make your winning majority are the ex-liberals who swung right. It’s pretty obvious to me that more than lip service is necessary if you want to prevent the far right from growing and winning.. ultimately that means the unpalatables you must to hold your nose for and actually compromise with, are us.
Real equality is not negotiable to me
When it is, well next they come for you
I accept the possibility that they might
But I also have faith in the ultimate decency of people
Have some faith in us, they say our lot perceives a threat before yours and over here we see people coming for us too. People who’ve never developed a liberal democratic society in history. People who may become the demographic majority and put an end what we enjoy here forever, and the people who will open the gate.
With respect I have tried to engage with your racism
But I won’t be again
I have no time for hard right policies