In 2010 George Osborne used the Labour leadership vacuum to create the "country's broke and it's all Labour's over-spending's fault" narrative.
Tonight George Osborne will try to use another Labour leadership vacuum to create the "we must balance the books or we'll go to hell in a handcart" narrative.
The 2010 narrative was very obviously not true, but it caught hold.
The 2015 narrative is also very obviously not true. But what does that matter in politics?
What matters is that people will suffer whilst he pursues this agenda.
The question is whether or not Labour will challenge it?
I am sure the SNP will.
And that the Greens will.
But will Labour?
It's a question that needs an answer and there appears to be no one to provide it.
No wonder George Osborne will be smiling tonight.
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:
Very well observed. And I have absolutely no doubt you are right. In an ideal world what would happen is that all the candidates would agree to suspend their campaigning to agree and present a united response that rejects Osborne’s return to the 19th century, with all that it inevitably brings with it (as you explain elsewhere). But that won’t happen. And in any case I strongly suspect that at least two of the Labour candidates support Osborne’s twisted world view, and with the other Miliband cheerleading from the wings they may well be odds on to be the next leader of the party.
Having paid some attention to the labour leadership contest so far, I can say with relative confidence that with the exception of the new entrant, Jeremy Corbyn, there will be no challenge from any of the labour leadership contenders. I fear that Osborne has little to worry about from most of the other labour mp’s as well. As temporary leader, Harriett Harman has her eye firmly on Boris Johnson’s job as London mayor and is not going to put up much of an objection.
All of this makes me very worried both for the future of the labour party and that of the most vulnerable members of our society. In my opinion, of the current leadership candidates, Jeremy Corbyn is the only chance labour have got of presenting any sort of credible challenge to the conservative mantra about balancing the books. But with only 11 nominations so far and five days left, my anxiety levels are ever increasing.
Jeremy Corbyn is an exemplary MP and unfortunately I live just outside the border of his constituency. I have met him a number of times and he is a very nice, down to earth and easy to talk to man, who works hard for his constituents and has rebelled against the labour leaders 50 times in parliament. Jeremy Corbyn is nobody’s puppet and is exactly what the labour party need right now. There is still five days left for nominations, so I am clinging onto hope for dear life.
So for the moment, no, I don’t think there will be any serious contention for George Osborne to worry about from the labour benches.
The Other Miliband Boy (OMB) is in the press today telling us that Labour had gone backwards and needed to touch base with the economic savvy (being unconcerned about how people got rich was a big mistake – including the Banks) and ‘social justice’ of the Bliar years (debateable – did they do enough?).
Oh dear. At least we know how the modern Labour Party members actually think (with the exception of a few notable characters); yes, the Labour party should exist for ITSELF – and for on-one else.
If Labour aren’t prepared to challenge the narrative then the best thing they could do is die quietly and let the Green party, which IS prepared to challenge the narrative, take over (at least in England – there are other options in Wales and Scotland). From what he’s said so far in his leadership campaign I get the impression Jeremy Corbyn would be happier in the Green Party anyway.
I suspect he’s not ready to move though
I sincerely hope Labour will be firm on this issue
I am not optimistic
I think Labour are going to capitulate on this issue, as on so many others. I think we need realignment on the left and a “Red/Green” party pursuing an agenda which is both socialist (some would say social democratic) and environmentalist. I recommend the latest paper by Neal Lawson “Downfall: Is Labour dead?” I think the answer is almost certainly yes; Neal says “hopefully not but quite possibly”, but his diagnosis of the problems is similar to mine.
Excellent read
Recommended
Howard, the labour movement made The Labour Party; now organised labour has been brought to its knees, by a thousand instruments – Blair helped the undermining process – took the easy route – rather than giving a vision and leadership for organised labour to achieve its goals. Working men and women were once idealists and built a movement through belief, comradeship, guts, sweat and enterprise. Legislation and neoliberal narrative through the Press, TV, the 3 major parties has almost destroyed that confidence and belief – that change can be brought by organising labour. Although the Green Party is not rooted in organised labour it is the only potent force I see outside nationalism. I waited 10+ years for The Labour Party to pick up and be an opposition, a spirit for change. I now enjoy the Green movement my local region has tremendous enthusiasm and many projects on the go that are exciting and community based- even healthy activities like community gardening, tidying local environments and cycling – all good for sustainable and healthier people. The Greens have much to learn about economics, we have lectures, book club and guest speakers from diverse organisations. Members are keen to learn and study. I am very optimistic and have noticed the young are on the move and not shackled by the past – lets hope the 16+ get the vote. I think Corbyn “thinks” – you’re never too old to be optimistic and show you recognise where the next movement will be built and join in.
I’ve had fun talking to Green Party groups
Thanks for the comments
Tony_B,
“The Greens have much to learn about economics, we have lectures, book club and guest speakers from diverse organisations.”
I just found out my local Green branch had talk from a “man from Positive Money” (before I joined). Also, most unfortunately, the Greens have adopted their misguided policies at national level. No doubt you’ve seen the heated discussion elsewhere in this blog.
The problem I have with this is the Green leadership might very feel they have ticked the box called ‘Monetary Policy’ and hence need invest no more intellectual capital in the subject.
This is desperately sad as in doing so they will end up blissfully unaware that there is a far greater (and in this case correct) description of why governments are not households. Its called Modern Monetary Theory (MMT). Please see this presentation (to Aussie Greens)…
https://vimeo.com/117137212
I remember watching this a while ago
I may do so again and share
@Stephen Ferguson. Agreed thats why I raised the point. I have heard the same at my branch where members have only a superficial view and Yes, ticking the box (covering the base) is never enough especially for a new and growing movement.
@ Stephen and Tony
I see you are new members of the GP, so maybe didn’t realise how things with policy work. It isn’t down to the leadership to choose policy it is down to the members so certainly no ticking boxes from that side (Manifesto is slightly different in that it’s a bit more up to date than the PCC but is still based on it).
Issue is here that the PM proposals got through conference in Sep 13 so can’t be changed for at least 2 years after it was accepted. I have been a bit busy with branch work as I am coordinator and standing as a PC in the GE (2.5% pleased with that)to be able to start on trying to change it this September, but will probably have failed as more debate and more people need to be onside and understanding the issues involved. There are quite a few of us (Not all are MMT’ers either but plenty are and it is great to see how many have picked up on MMT)that have been arguing against it.
Andy,
Thanks for insights and very glad to hear there is some awareness of this issue at senior GP level.
I’m in the Scottish GP, but as a sovereign-level issue I want to push all UK GP members to the realisation that their party has a unique, golden opportunity to destroy – and I mean totally destroy! – the plausible, but completely false, mainstream narrative that ‘we’re broke’.
If only the Greens ‘got’ MMT. Sadly, they currently don’t – otherwise they wouldn’t for example make the stupid claim that their GE manifesto was ‘fully costed’.
As the party that appreciates humanity (along with its economy) is only part of the real world, it should be one of the Greens primary precepts that the economy is constrained by the real world (e.g. manpower, industrial capacity and, most importantly, the environment that sustains us).
In other words our policies should NEVER be guided by imaginary financial constraints. If that was taken at face value then the self-destructive words ‘of course we will tackle the deficit, but…’ would never pass the lips of the GP leadership ever again.
Finally I find what Aussie-based Brit MMT economist Steven Hail said this week on this very matter completely inspiring…
“Far from fearing the use of an MMT frame to campaign for progressive economic policies, my experience suggests to me that Greens and other progressive politicians should seize on MMT as a frame for discussing such policies, and openly discuss the insights it provides. Defy anyone in the media, academia or politics to disagree with you. They will be unable to construct viable contradictory arguments. You will win the debate.”
https://www.facebook.com/green.modernmoneytheoryandpractice/posts/837535729662905
just imagine the impact if Caroline Lucas, Natalie Bennett took Steven up on this.
PS Andy, just saw you commented on his facebook page. Well done, there’s hope for us all yet!
Well, well.
I’ve just driven home from work listening to Radio 4’s PM. It strikes me that we are at one of those ‘end of history moments’.
Who’d have thought that ‘double devolution’ would mean that Labour politicians would seek to not disagree with a misinformed public that they had bankrupted the nation (but the same party kept the country in one piece at the edge of the darkest financial abyss in modern times)? Or that people with different ideas to received wisdom would be noted and marked as a threat (I’ve often thought that I should appear here under a pseudonym). Or…..well……….you know. It looks as those our collective gooses are cooked.
I’m looking forward to your next book Richard, but I will not be commenting anymore on this blog or reading it. It won’t change anything. We are deep amidst an evil now – a man made evil that has nothing to do with God or the Devil but is of men and only men. And it will continue to press home its machine-like logic.
It would be nice to think that one day better, more enlightened times will arrive again and that we should also be alive to see those days. Goodness knows what we and our loved ones will have to go through though to get to that point.
It has been very informative coming here and it would have been nice to have met many of you personally. Good luck to you all and especially you Richard. Thanks for letting me contribute.
I think that one has to know when one is beaten but then be prepared to fight on another way. My aim now is just to take what I have learnt and in conversation with others raise these issues face to face when I have the opportunity to do so and hopefully spark further interest and a change of view in others.
Wish me luck!
‘Bye.
Mark
I am worried: what has happened?
Are you OK?
Richard
Mark
I assume you won’t read this if you are sticking to what you say in your comment, but if you do this is just to say this is extremely sad news. Regarding using your real name on here, well for what it’s worth I’ve worried about the same thing over the years, and, as I’ve admitted before, routinely self censor what I contribute – for obvious reasons given my university is like many others and now has a clause which states that staff can be disciplined for bringing the university into “disrepute”, however that might be defined.
And as you may have worked out from my comments I too am dismayed and immensely depressed by what I see going on around us (as I would guess are most people who read Richard’s blog). It’s vile and dire, and I despair that anything can be done about it, not least because the hegemony enjoyed by the elite is now so all encompassing. But even believing that I still think we need blogs like this to inform and stir us, or as Tony Judt said in “Ill Fares the Land”: ‘…the disposition to disagree, to reject and to dissent – however irritating it may be when taken to extremes – is the very lifeblood of an open society. We need people who make a virtue of opposing mainstream opinion. A democracy of permanent consensus will not long remain a democracy.’
Richard is an arch example of this, of course. But for me this blog offers an opportunity to learn, but also, and perhaps more importantly, appreciate that there are many other people out there who are ‘opposing mainstream opinion’ each in our own way, but who through this blog become some kind of virtual community. It’s sad news indeed that you won’t continue here.
Best wishes
Ivan
I have sent to Mark, just in case
Mark – this blog is about all of us here-I find this blog uplifting, including your contributions which are articulate and above all, humane-I’m sure I’m not alone in saying I will miss your spirited comments.
I often feel like collapsing in despair especially given that I’m in a vulnerable situation myself. Of course talking to people has no substitute but best to do it with campaigning groups rather than as a lone ranger. There will be ‘trouble ahead’ and this blog lets us know that there ARE people who care out their infuriating as a our dumbed down culture can be at times.
Hope to hear from you on here again-but if not-all the best to you and yours.
All the best Mark, will miss your excellent comments.
But remember, there’s always hope.