I was pleased to see a new political movement launched yesterday. Call More United it has the backing of some notable figures, including Greens and LibDems but also the former leader of the UK's GPs, Dr Clare Gerada as well as some from the left and right.
It says it will not put up candidates for election, but it will crowd fund support for candidates who support its beliefs. Those beliefs are, it says, that we need:
- A fair, modern, efficient market based economy that closes the gap between rich and poor and supports strong public services
- A modern democracy that empowers citizens, rather than politicians
- A green economy that protects the environment and works to reverse climate change
- An open and tolerant society where diversity is celebrated in all its forms
- A United Kingdom that welcomes immigration, international co-operation and a close relationship with the EU
That feels like something a great many would be able to support. But is it enough to make a change? I'm not sure. I feel something more principled would have been of use. Like this:
- We believe in the state and its duty to underpin the stability of a society and economy in which all can flourish
- We believe that we humans are endlessly inventive and must have the opportunity to be so at work, in business, in our communities, places of education and leisure
- We recognise the constraints on our actions imposed by the environment and our finite resources and these constraints require us to make choices on how our resources are used
- We will not tolerate discrimination that challenges human diversity in that decision making process
- We support measures to make society more inclusive believing that more equal societies are of merit in themselves
- We believe in a democracy that fairly reflects the views of the people who partake in it
Supported by a statement of beliefs along these lines:
- We believe in a mixed economy where the state and private sectors work in cooperation to undertake those tasks best suited to each to enhance the most effective use of the resources of the economy for all who are dependent upon it
- We only believe that this is possible if the political, business, charity, union and state sectors are subject to similarly high degrees of transparency and accountability
- We believe that it is the duty of the state to address market failure, including harm to the environment and the inappropriate allocation of reward from commercial activity
- We believe in free education to undergraduate university level
- We believe the state must support an integrated health service whose sole priority must be the delivery of health care free at the point of supply without consideration of profit being made
- We believe that decent housing is essential to a life well lived and that the state must be an active partner in the delivery of that accommodation if the market cannot do so at prices that can be reasonably afforded by those in active employment
- We believe that the state has to support those who are disadvantaged whether in the short or long term and ensure that they can live as full members of society
- We believe in fair taxation and the need for the state to invest in delivery of that goal
- We believe that the state has a duty to protect the interests of its citizens without posing threat to their well-being or liberty in the process
- We believe that the state must ensure that the elderly have dignity in retirement and make provision to ensure that this is delivered
I strongly suspect that debate would improve this list.
Sometime I suspect someone is going to have to nail a list something like this to a door. Nothing less, I suspect, will do.
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:
It’s not a ‘new’ movement, though, in the sense that Lib-dems aren’t ‘involved’; they’ve actually created it. Firstly, check the company out out via the registered company number. Two of the four registered directors are Paddy Ashdown (under his real name) and Austin Rathe, who was head of membership at LDHQ before leaving last November or so to get involved with a different project. The website is professionally built, using Nationbuilder.
More.UK is the very opposite of grassroots, and is the very opposite of objective. It’s a lib-dem attempt at astro-turfing. I bet you twenty of your shiny, taxable dollars that the MPs they end up ‘supporting’ are Lib Dems, or (erhum), PLP members who have decided to defect. This is the source of the ‘new party’ rumours (again, *not* uninvolved in politics) and is actually a shockingly partisan bit of politics masquerading as ‘apolical’.
And you think ‘movements’ happen out of nowhere?
Think again
Well, yes, there is a clear difference between messy and organically grown grassroots movements and shiny astroturfed ‘mock’ grassroots movements created to a specific political end. I should ask you to think again.
Haven;t you noticed I challenged all their principles?
How much rethinking do you want?
Thanks for the information.
I agree with you totally. Your principles are excellent. The 5 fundamental beliefs of ‘More United’ are far too generalised. While any initiative to deliver a fairer, more sustainable society is to be welcomed, strategically ever more fragmentation ends up diluting the core message to the electorate that ‘There Is An Alternative’, at least until FPTP voting is abandoned, which isn’t going to be any time in the foreseeable future. The country DESPERATELY needs the progressive parties to unite around a detailed manifesto offering practical solutions to the well documented problems facing the majority, under a modern macro-economic umbrella that makes it deliverable. What you suggest is a realistic starting point. Incidentally I think the name ‘More United’ (and its logo) are not meaningful to the general public, but maybe they’re not the immediate target. I’m a bit confused.
“The 5 fundamental beliefs of ‘More United’ are far too generalised”
What they are, or appear to be, is PR approved & focus group tested.
Which is why I offered an alternative
Well, until we get PR this might have to be the way forward. Although their list seems to have been written by Anthony Giddens – it is wooly and warm sugar coated neo-liberalsim all over again.
However, look how the last nasty lot of Tories tried to choke off the mostly on-line 38 Degrees and meddle with party funding streams to the detriment of an opposition. In other words – the idea can easily be undermined by those claiming the sovereignty of parliament.
I tell you though – if the Lib-Dems (the arch opportunists of British politics) are behind this then I will be very wary indeed.
I do not trust parties whose names contradict themselves ‘Liberal/Democracy’. All I’ve ever done is seen the Lib-Dems being one or the other (mostly Liberal) and failing totally to steer a clear path between the two.
I had to laugh at this one:
-A modern democracy that empowers citizens, rather than politicians.
Ha ha – oh dear – isn’t this how we got BREXIT for goodness sake? It depends on who is doing the empowering – Gramsci – where are you!!!!?
Richard – I’d rather follow and support your version. Goodness knows….along with your stuff there is SO MUCH good stuff out there that new movements could draw down to start afresh.
Dear me………………where is our courage?
Sorry, but I’m deeply unimpressed by “More United”, which has the whiff of the various private armies that were being set up under Harold Wilson’s second premiership – ie, an exercise in fissiparity, spawning a multiplicity of Parties, reminiscent of the doomed “breaking the mould of British politics” SDP, which only delivered Britain to 14 more years of TINA, followed by neatly 20 further years of TINA, up to today – when what is needed is unity.
If More United were to transform itself into the “Movement for a Progressive Alliance”, which called on ALL progressive forces, organisations and Parties (including Labour, of course)to come together to oppose – and defeat – the most deceitful, dishonest, cruel, corrupt and reactionary Government in 200 years, then it might have a purpose.
But attempting to set up a new Party now is just a distraction – real rearranging the deckchairs on the Titanic, on a par with the failed SDP (the “Gang of Four” should have stayed in the Party and fought there for the changes they were seeking) – when what is required is a real coming together of existing political forces, to fashion a new compact with the people, that can win power and THEN totally to rewrite our constitutional arrangement to ensure a neo-feudal, proto-fascist, Party, whether of the Right OR the Left, but presently exemplified by the ruling “Nasty Party”, can NEVER again won dictatorial power on a mere 24% of the total electorate, a circumstance made worse by the apparent fact of the Nasty Party actually having fiddled the susy in up to 24+ constituencies – funny how the MSM have gone all quiet on that, isn’t it, while obsessing on eg nonexistent bricks through nonexistent Party office windows?
As is I hope clear by offering an entire alternative agenda I too have concerns about this but not the idea per se
There is a grass movement for this type of idea – I have been to such a meeting
And whether it is a new party or alliance it is not possible within existing structures
Or the existing abuse
Nor the existing rules of the Labour Party
So to draw attention to it is right even if it is not the answer as yet
Yes of course – but let’s start moulding this emergent ‘movement’ now and keep it away from the political opportunist/careerist contingent that already exists in the monolithic parties now.
We have to get the word out that ‘it’ really does need to be different this time.
As ever I feel that I may be stating the problem but feel unable to actually do anything about it. I’m somewhat pathetic really………..heavens…what to do, what to do..?
“susy” should say “system”. Apologies.
Two immediate thoughts:
Firstly, re: More United’s manifesto: “A fair… … market based economy…”. Isn’t this an oxymoron?
Secondly, a suggested revision to Richard’s otherwise admirable proposals: “We believe in free education to *postgraduate* university level”
(Certain professions require postgrad qualifications, and the current, and insufficient, £10K SLC loan repayable at 6% + RPI, out of which £9K pays for tuition leaving just £1K for the student to live on for 9 months, effectively excludes poorer students from continuing in further education.
As Scholarships or bursaries for Masters courses are now virtually non-existent outside Oxbridge – and rare enough even there – this loan structure is grossly unfair, and should be replaced by full grants to qualifying students, as in earlier years.)
So what do you suggest is the basis for a list market economy?
Sorry, sometimes one can read through typos/autocorrects, but I’m afraid I can’t make sense of this one.
Anyway… I’m surprised you take issue – I’m completely on your side insofar as you clearly propose state intervention in your alternative declarations.
Considering that M.U. fail to mention state economic involvement even once, I question the possibility of any ‘fair’ outcomes in the ‘efficient market economy’they propose, both in general and in particular.
Moreover, promising a “modern, efficient market economy that supports strong public services” sounds to cynical old me like nothing other than a policy of continuing PFI, outsourcing, and privatisation.
Why not think it describes the only likely workable solution we have?
It’s what I believe in
I wonder which particular door you had in mind? Luther is supposed to have had 95 principles, which would be way too long to stick up on any door these days.
Probably the modern equivalent would be to issue a ‘declaration’ — perhaps on the lines of the so called Falkirk Magna Carta. Somewhere we could all meet in the middle of the country — the Derby Declaration?
It looks as though the ‘More United’ principles, whilst succinct, are so wide ranging as to be attractive to any remain supporter who isn’t a rabid right winger. That would get the maximum number of people able to apply for crowdfunding support. So I suppose that could possibly translate in to a general Parliamentary coalition.
Like JohnD I much prefer your principles but they are much more ‘principled’ and so are likely, I fear, to have a less wide appeal.
I’m also a bit wary of their first principle of a “market based economy”. Perhaps that means an economy based on markets in which case, whilst that’s a bit better, I’m pretty sure no economy has ever existed that didn’t have markets. And “a market based economy” suggests that they are close to considering markets to be perfect, which we all know they are not.
Still I suppose it’s a start.
Will Mr Own Smith please adopt some ideas of Mr Richard Murphy. This enthusiastic Welshman claims to be radical,
Needs a demon chancellor who is not afraid to say to those who have most of everything, well you can’t have it all, you have to share.
“A fair, modern, efficient market based economy that closes the gap between rich and poor and supports strong public services”
Naivety beyond belief is inherent in this statement, or more likely the usual liberal cross-dressing exercise of pretending you can effectively regulate the inherent unfairness of markets within a capitalist system.
Show me one example from history when that has been achieved, just one example from the several centuries of capitalism’s global dominance would be a good start!
I would not be surprised to see a bunch of New Labourites jump on the bandwagon though, as it suits their non-sensical view of the world.
I have for some time presumed you were some sort of troll Keith. Now i know you’re also an idiot, but at least you disclose the stupidity of many in the Corbyn camp
You want to end markets? Go on then show me one economy where that has worked
I entirely agree that there are problems with markets: my work has been about countering them and I believe that to a fair degree (not perfectly) that can be done. That is why I call for greater transparency, accountability and the closing of the tax gap which eliminates tax cheating
But you’re saying let’s get rid of markets. Where has that worked? Please supply a list. It should not take you long
Why are you being even more insulting than usual today Richard?
And why do you say I am in the Corbyn camp, when all I have done is posted evidence that much of what has been said about him here and elsewhere may be either untrue or misconstrued for obvious political gain (some of which I see you chose not to publish yesterday when it was merely referring to published material from established sources such as the Telegraph and Labour List)?
I do like to see balanced debate but I won’t be voting as i’m not a Labour party member nor have I ever voted Labour, so have no skin in the game other than being a paid up citizen of this country.
As for your comment that “But you’re saying let’s get rid of markets”, if you read my words that is not what I said at all. But to believe and accept without questioning that markets are fair and efficient, when a market is almost never such a thing would be entirely wrong. Markets always reflect (and usually amplify) the existing inequalities in terms of wealth, power and influence. Financial markets even more so.
You know little or nothing about me Richard, but an idiot or stupid I can assure you I am not. I have never called you stupid or an idiot as i respect your opinion, experience and intelligence. Perhaps more respect for others who have different opinion, experience and intelligence would be more worthy unless you want this blog to be full of “me too” group thinkers who worship your every word.
At times of change it is better to look forwards than backwards, otherwise we would still be stuck with the economic thinking of the stone age, the slave age, the feudal age, the imperial age etc, etc.
I note you did not answer my question or even try to do so: no doubt you had realised the inherent flaws in your own arguments
Please don’t post again
I really am bored by your trolling.
Oh, and yes, your conclusion that I should really respect the opinion of others is what all trolls have said all along
Just read the recent contributions, most of which make valid points. However, while agreeing in general with Andrew Dickie, I don’t agree that it’s not the right strategy to start a new party. I believe his suggestion is in fact re-arranging the deck-chairs. There may in fact be a unique opportunity for a brand new political party under a new banner. But it would have to be identified with a name that’s not going to frighten the horses. Unfortunately, anything incorporating ‘Labour’, ‘Socialist’, or ‘Liberal’ is out of the question. I concede there are die-hards emotionally wed to these words but there comes a time when the old must give way to the new. Timing is everything and I think now might be the right time. As PSR reminds us – it really is a Gramsci(and a Minsky?) moment. Out of chaos comes order.
Over the years I’d always hoped that the Green Party would have captured the imagination of many more people but I fear the ‘brand’ has become too marginalised to have mass appeal, albeit research has indicated significant support for its policies by people who don’t vote for it. It’s a simple enough focus-group research task to eliminate words that switch ‘ordinary’ people off and ones that are seen as positive. Suggestions on the back of a post-card!
As has been written almost ad nauseam for decades, the cornerstone of any manifesto incorporating a list of core principles and policies has to be a macro-economic plan that shows in digestible language how the manifesto can be delivered and why the prevailing ‘ideology’ is not only economically illiterate but is the root cause of most of the socio-economic problems that have accrued during the past 40 years – here and globally. Yes, it’s a tall order but so was climbing Everest until 29 May 1953. Since then over 4,000 people have succeeded but not without some fatalities.
As mentioned, there is now a huge and growing pool of really talented people from across different disciplines who could make a formidable contribution to such a new party, without carrying too much past baggage. Maybe, Richard, you could be the catalyst to bring them together – or even the midwife for the birth of a new political baby. Now there’s a thouight. If I was younger with more energy I’d willingly join you. Incidentally I’m very impressed with David Malone. I hope we see and hear more of him (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FE-84S7Xyac).
The MU beliefs are trying to be all things to all people.
“A fair, modern, efficient market based economy that closes the gap between rich and poor and supports strong public services”
One could read that as meaning a mixed economy (as you do, in your alternative).
Or as meaning a market economy, and continuing the lie of “trickle down” economics, and that funding for better public services must always be delayed until some unspecified future date.
Or as meaning the Blairite approach, of an unrestrained market economy, but harvesting some of the temporary/illusory wealth from the finance sector to make some improvements in public services.
What we need is a mixed economy.
And an industrial strategy.
Which is sustainable.
And a Government that recognizes it has the responsibility to manage the macro economy. Right now, that means more public investment, to make up for the expected reduction in private investment, which would otherwise lead to a Brexit recession. (You have mentioned this, but I think it needs to be said more often: if we now have a recession, it will not be an unavoidable side-effect of the Brexit vote, but because the Government failed to invest to counteract the Brexit effect.)
With a specific aim of reducing wealth inequality at the level of before-tax income, not just via transfer payments and better public services. (Though the latter 2 are also needed.) Government handouts don’t make de-industrialization acceptable.
And with a specific aim of reducing the ratio of household debt to GDP. Writing off student loans would be a good place to start. And banning payday loans. And we need to work on ways to reduce mortgage debt.
Back to MU: “a close relationship with the EU”
More ambiguity: does that imply EEA membership or not?
That is a tricky question for the left, I think. If you’d prefer to be in the EU, then it’s easy to say that the EEA is the next best thing. But in democratic terms, it’s the worst of both worlds: follow the single market rules, without having a say in making them.