Polly Toynbee had an excellent article in the Guardian yesterday summarising the approach of the Tory far-right and making clear that Brexit is but a step in their plan to turn the UK into an entirely different state from that with which we are familiar where all vestiges of the post-war consensus are swept from view. In response I have done a couple of mind maps, on on the hard right alternative and the other ion what I consider to be the centre ground alternative to which I believe many political parties in the UK could, and I think should, at present subscribe, whilst allowing for differences of emphasis, of course.
This is the hard right alternative:
Click on the image and then click the resulting image to get a large version. Alternatively, this is the text version:
- The policy platform proposed by the hard right within the Conservative Party
- Dominic Raab
- Liz Truss
- Priti Patel
- Et al
- The ‘Britannia Unchained' Group closely associated with the fundamentalist ‘free enterprise' Institute for Economic Affairs
- The principal objectives
- To deliver unfettered market capitalism to the greatest possible degree
- To shrink the size of government
- To remove the social safety net of the welfare state
- To distribute the return from doing so to those on the highest incomes; those with wealth and to the largest companies
- The practical consequences
- Government withdrawal from traditional areas of activity
- The environment
- Employee protection including the abolition of the minimum wage, reduced health and safety obligations, reduced employment protection and attacks in the remaining rights of trade unions
- The protection of minorities and the tackling of discrimination, including on the basis of gender, sexual orientation, faith, race and other issues
- Overseas aid and development
- Higher education
- Significant parts of health supply
- Pension provision
- Support for trade and industry
- Substantial tax reform
- Reductions in corporate taxation, or its eventual abolition
- Likely abolition of inheritance tax
- Significant cuts in or abolition of capital gains tax
- Flat rate income tax across all income ranges
- Likely increases in VAT, including its extension to housing, food, health care and education
- Free movement of capital and migration policies to suit its owners
- The ending of many benefits
- Cuts in support for those who are unemployed
- Continuing reductions in benefits for those with disabilities
- Reductions in housing support
- Reductions in the real value of state pensions
- Increasing obstacles placed in the way of claimants to reduce uptake
- Reduced transparency
- Less accountability for government
- The outsourcing of many services putting them beyond public and political accountability
- Reduced corporate disclosure requirements
- An end to Freedom of Information
- Reduced press regulation to provide freedom to far-right media outlets
- Government withdrawal from traditional areas of activity
And this is the centre ground alternative:
This is the text version of that:
- The policy that should be promoted by all parties that have the interests of the majority of people in the UK at heart. There should be broad consensus across:
- Labour
- The SNP
- LibDems
- Plaid
- Greens
- SDLP
- Sinn Fein
- And some in the Conservative Party
- The principal objectives
- To promote a sustainable democracy
- To protect the environment
- To deliver long-term employment opportunities
- To protect the vulnerable in society
- To maintain a social safety net in a welfare state
- The practical consequences
- Government support for
- Environmental protection
- A strong, mixed economy in which markets and state each do what they are best at, and work in partnership when appropriate (but not for dogmatic reasons)
- Employee rights
- Those who suffer discrimination in all its forms
- Those who suffer absolute and relative poverty
- The correction of market failure, including on:
- Health and safety
- Exploitative products
- Monopoly abuse
- Unfair competition
- The right to:
- Housing
- Childcare
- Lifelong education to provide skills for life and not just employment
- Em0loyment
- Dignity in old age
- Protection, including from the state and employers
- New businesses when markets cannot or will not provide access to capital
- Overseas aid
- International protection of human rights
- Peace
- Controlled migration within an open and accountable policy framework
- Substantial tax reform
- The creation of a progressive tax system because reducing income and wealth inequality is the right thing to do for society
- Increasing tax charges for larger businesses because they are failing to compensate fir the risk they pose to society
- An environmental focus to taxation to help tackle climate change
- A commitment to a welfare state
- The necessary corollary of the noted policy objectives
- Enhanced accountability
- Improved government accounting
- Enhanced disclosure on the control of the tax system with a focus on demonstrating its equity at the broadest possible level
- Press regulation to uphold freedom of expression and to prevent concentrated control of the media
- Electoral reform to enhance the democratic accountability of all elected officials and all forms of government
- Bringing outsourced government service suppliers within the control of accountability
- Government support for
I long for the centre ground to realise that it is in their combined interests to beat the far-right. And now is the time to do it. Then the differences of emphases trhat parties rightly have can be explored. But none are possible if the far-right win.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I agree the right of the Tory Party is too extreme to the to the right and I think Labour is too extreme to the left and I fear that’s why they won’t be elected under the present regime. The electorate is crying out for a centarist party and bizarrely no one fits the bill.
Labour’s leadership is well in that scenario that I have just portrayed
It hardly counts as left at all
Well that’s your interpretation but it’s the electorates which is more important.. it is astonishing the Labour Party isn’t streets ahead at the moment and even more so that Corbyn is more unpopular than May.
Misrepresentation has something to do with some of that
I agree with everything you say in the post, but is your last line a criticism? I take it as more of a comment on what’s happened to us over the last 40 years. I think the term ‘the centre ground’ is whatever anyone wants it to mean. It needs to be spelled out. You do so, but many don’t.
In her article, Polly Toynbee says ‘The great Brexit rift is a war for the nation’s soul between a radical revolutionary right and a social democracy very much under threat.’ Talk about a day late & a dollar short. Social democracy has been rolled back ever since 2010 (at least). Its demise isn’t dependent on Brexit. Austerity can’t be stopped because it has already happened. It is one strand in a 3-core cable – the others being erosion of our rights & Newspeak. This is the centre ground of the Tory party. And Mrs May isn’t under attack from right-wing ideologues – she is one.
Polly & her Guardian colleagues prevented another journalist, Kerry-Anne Mendoza, from giving the Claudia Jones Memorial Lecture (in memory of a black campaigning journalist) Instead, they’d have been better reading her book: ‘Austerity the demolition of the Welfare State & the rise of the Zombie Economy’.
The ongoing claims that Labour is in any way extreme left is ridiculous.
Ordinary people tend to see that. Westminster and the MSM less so. Sadly as we all know the Conservatives have a massive advantage in terms of their ability to manipulate public opinion. With the aid of the Israeli Ministry of Strategic Affairs what they have achieved with the antisemitism row is amazing.
I would consider Labour to be centre right, certainly not left leaning in the slightest. This can be seen in the WM voting patterns where they will either vote with the government or abstain. The SNP could be considered to be centre left with the Greens perhaps a little more left than that. At the moment I do not think that any party could be described as ‘extreme left’.
I agree – including on the positioning
It’s intetesting how opinions differ from people who are Labour Party supporters. My circle of friends, as a generalisation, lean Labour but many fall into the floating vote category and find Momentum extreme. Clearly others on this forum don’t. Still the Labour Party is doing plenty wrong and lack credibility, or that is what public opinion suggests.. blaming that on the Israeli secret service!! Why not just not have anti Semitics in the party?
Please tell me what is extreme about Momentum?
Or Corbyn?
Compare to pre 75 Tory governments
You say pre 75 Governments, that’s over 40yrs ago..so many voters don’t go back that far. I grew up in the 70s with borrowing from the IMF etc and incessant Trade union militancy, wasn’t great. Anyway in most people’s lifetime Momentum are considered extreme.
We never borrowed from the IMF
You mean functioning unions that ensured people got the highest share of GDP in history?
Now answer the question: why are Momentum extreme? In what way?
Lewis says:
“…. and incessant Trade union militancy, wasn’t great. ….”
Why has the left never countered this calumny with reference to the craven incompetence of 1970s managements. ?
It wasn’t the function of Trades Unions to manage industry it was the function of managements who signally failed…and many are still doing so it seems….where there is any industry remaining to be managed.
Andy – I’d go part way with you on the argument that crap management breeds stroppy unions but…
70s unions were run by some pretty dubious characters, Luddite and as far from socially liberal as you could get. To some extent at least they were the architects of their own demise and helped usher in Thatcher. Today’s unions and the likes of Frances O’Grady are very different
At the time I worked for a large IT company that built big, fill-a-hall sized computers. The site engineer and I had to go to a factory to supervise its commissioning. He happened to be the local union rep – this was in Newcastle – lively union country. The factory was up beyond Stoke towards Liverpool with horrendously militant unions who were beyond Fred Kyte in their obstructivess. My union rep mate was crosser than I. Some years later the factory was closed. Nothing wrong with the company management there. A salutary experience.
As I understand it the German system of unions and members on boards was partly a consequence of the involvement of British unions during Post war reconstruction. A tragedy that never happened in the UK
There is no chance of achieving this under the current electoral system. Very few people vote for anything. The vast majority vote against the other main party. PR would make your objectives inevitable. Will Parliament ever allow the introduction of PR? Will turkeys ever vote for Christmas?
I included PR….
I took the trouble to listen to Steve Bannon at the Oxford Union the other day. I know nothing of this man except what I’ve picked up via MSM coverage which is something of which I’ve learned an almost visceral distrust.
I found it very interesting. His analysis of how we got to where we are via globalisation and financialisation is not particularly contentious. Nothing exemplifies the results of this destructive process better than the GFC which we seem well on track to repeat, and the probably imminent demise of General Electric. GE has been the poster boy of American capitalism, its collapse will be very significant.
Where we differ is in how we might address this problem and the right is looking at the problem of what is technically a ‘fascist’ corporate capture of, or alliance with, government and prescribing the solution as being to shrink government.
The logical outcome of this prescription is the free reign of corporate interests which are already showing themselves resistant to government regulation by dint of their financial muscle.
It isn’t smaller government we need, but government doing the right things, adopting the correct policies, and understanding how a proper understanding and control of the economy is vital to being able to achieve that.
If this is to be achieved by democratic process the demos has to believe that the centre left has a prescription for change which can be implemented. The alternative is to allow the ‘populists’ to be hoodwinked into supporting a right wing (national socialist !!!) agenda.
We have been somewhere like this before.
The Bannon prescription for the way forward emphasises the restitution of the industrial manufacturing past. Jobs of a particular kind exported to foreign lands where labour is cheap. Trump tariffs trying to reverse this process are going to create levels of global stress that are unlikely to end well. Trade wars, they say, never end well and tend via mission creep to lead to violence; at the interstate level this implies war.
There is a ‘blue collar’ appetite for industrial renaissance on both sides of the Atlantic because it has a comfortable familiarity, and conjures visions of some lost golden age. We need to looking forward not backwards.
The sort of progressive centrist prescription Richard outlines above is not something that ‘small government’ is capable of delivering. It’s also something that small-minded government, locked into the flawed logic of ‘tax and spend’ cannot be expected to deliver, because it can’t be done.
Agreed
My son came to remarkably similar conclusions watching this
Andy
The biggest problem at the moment in the West (and certainly in Britain) besides the retraction of the State is a lack of real money in the right places in the economy.
In my home town we have a new Sainsburys. At the moment it is nowhere near as busy as it was. Talking to the staff, I have found that a whole swathe of departmental managers have been laid off and the generic staff are basically running the store on the same wages. The dreaded auto-tills have also sprung up and expanded.
I have always shopped at Sainsburys because I have worked for both them and Tesco. I worked for Tesco during the McLaurin era when they were chasing for the top spot in retailing and they were a great company to work for – they did share allocations to workers etc., – it was almost like stakeholder employment. Then it all seemed to stop under Terry Leahy and they began to bear down on the staff to make savings in order to fund expansion. When I worked for Sainsburys the ethos was much more benign and I enjoyed my part-time job with them whilst I was a mature student.
To me the story of my local Sainbury’s signifies the death of the economy under the Tories and Osbourne-ite economic policy. People are going to Aldi and the like not because they wanted to, but because of a shortage of real money in the economy caused by austerity. When people have money and are confident of their wealth they do not (on the whole) mind spending it. Osbourne’s doing down of Britain’s economy killed that. And as Krugman tells us, everyone’s wages is someone else’s wages.
If I were a Sainsburys shareholder, I’d want George Osbourne’s head on a plate. He has been that destructive.
So – back to the matter hand – money (or lack of).
I’ve said before that the reason we have such an abuse of power by the monied is that it is because they buy complicity in the very systems that are supposed hold them in check – political (legal), accountancy and banking systems in particular. They share their wealth with these major groups (also the MSM). Charles Buchanan berated Government for bribing the electorate with welfare but is blind as to how the rich do this already.
A new Left (pretending not to be!!) should play the same game. And the only way to do it is for such an administration to create real money in the form of projects and wage and benefit rises. It is the only way. The people’s QE, Green QE – stuff like that advocated here.
Put money into the economy and manage that process well and see the hard right die off.
Invest in a proper management of immigration along the lines of as has been suggested here and the hard right will die off.
Invest in the inspection of firms who are using immigrants to arbitrage wages and see the hard right die off. And so on. It would work.
It can be done.
Shall it be?
(On the inflation issue – we’d have to watch it to ensure it stayed in range of wages but we’d have to accept this as a consequence and manage it – an invigorated tax system might well do that).
Thanks
Noted
And much to agree with
PSR – I’d just dispute the immigration aspect. For me that is close to adopting the arguments of the far right and the isolationist left. Their ‘framing’.
As Jonathan Portes and others have pointed out, the arguments about the impact of immigration on wage levels are tenuous at best. Add in their positive impacts on critical skills (NHS for starters) in both public and private sectors, the tax they pay and the businesses they have created and the argument falls apart. As has also been pointed out, the UK is perfectly capable of limiting immigration within existing EU terms but has chosen not to. And most immigration is non-EU. Meanwhile by accepting this line of argument we have deeply offended resident Europeans, EU countries and encouraged xenophobic behaviour. Something I personally am ashamed of
The issues of low pay are far more to do with unenforced minimum wage (and it’s too low), insecure, gig-economy jobs and a low investment economy relying on low pay/low skill. The current direction of Brexit will make that worse, not better.
Very well put Andy. Always good to listen to the opposition especially when they are as smart as Bannon – if deeply malignant. As you say, he correctly identifies legitimate concerns of voters
I’d split the ‘corporatist’ world though. For me the malignant centre is finance which has become focused almost exclusively on speculation and asset inflation, exploiting deregulation and their licence to literally print money. Add in money laundering, tax evasion and the rest. Their power then drives the behaviour of much of business, through their role as the only perceived legitimate stakeholder. A drive to under investment, tax evasion, share buy backs and all the rest.
Absolutely there are too many at director level who are only too happy to put their snouts deep in the trough – the obscene payouts at Bet365 and Persimmon being just the most recent examples. But there many others who resent and resist that and who know they need decent public services and infrastructure to provide a healthy (in all senses) environment for their business to thrive – with all its stakeholders.
We need fundamental changes in the City and to the rules around corporate governance. The Conservatives will never do this, except for a few. It needs a party who can think this through and manage not to throw the good business baby out with the corporatist bath water. SNP and LibDems are in the right area but neither has been brave enough to articulate bold policies which would take on those vested interests and build a genuine mixed economy.
Having read Labour manifesto I don’t think it does either. However Corbyn’s history (and no I don’t rely on the media) suggests he is too deeply anti West and anti capitalist to be trusted to lead such a task. Neither does he understand that world except through a narrow highly politicised lens.
Another point you make Andy is to be looking forward to the industries of the future rather than claiming we can resurrect the smokestack industries of a Lorwryian past. That needs the kind of vision and investment that no-one has yet shown they understand.
The degree to which small groups of extremists have been able to exercise disproportionate influence over public policy is alarming. But it also raises deeper questions about the effectiveness of our current political system. Consider in a house of 650 MPs how just 10 seats from the DUP are currently holding the government to ransom, or how the ERG has shifted Conservative policy, although they cannot muster even the 48 votes needed to get a vote of confidence against Theresa May.
This begs the question of how we can move to a system where policy is based far more strongly on consensus, and where national diversity of interests can be more fully reflected in government. Yet any new system must also work without fragmenting representation, in ways that could hand the balance of power to small groups with highly partisan views.
The most obvious step could be ranked choice voting which has two key advantages over the current first past the post system for elections. Firstly it encourages more diversity in candidates to stand for election, as voters can make their first choice for a minority candidate, without fearing that their vote will be wasted. Such a change would dramatically improve the chances, not only for parties focused on green or social policies, but also for new centerist parties to emerge, finally breaking away from the divisive bi-partisan model. This works because it removes the hurdle of getting voters to risk supporting a new candidate who may not be able to win over the established parties.
Secondly, it ensures that the candidate who ultimately wins must have the majority support of those who turn out to vote, even if they were not their first choice. This has a profound effect on “populist” strategies which actively seek to divide and alienate part of the electorate with extreme policies, in the hopes of highly energising their own base of supporters. A first past the post system allows this strategy to work, because in a fragmented field, candidates can get elected based only on a strong minority vote. But ranked choice voting ensures that only candidates who appeal to the majority of voters can get elected, and might be expected to favour more centerist candidates with broad appeal.
As the number of states in America using ranked choice voting grows, it will be fascinating to see what effect this has on elections, and whether this more inclusive model gains wider support. If it does, the dual attractions of both increasing diversity in elections, and ensuring that winners always have inclusive majoirty support, may result in a far more balanced political system.
I hope there are enough people with influence who will read and take on board your pragmatic recommendations, which articulate the only sensible way out of this increasingly dangerous ideological tendency within the Tory Party, which Polly Toynbee articulated.
However, I believe it’s actually more sinister than she – and you – suggest. It is just the Anglo element of a wider plan to have this long-term Neo-liberal programme replace Social Democracy across the West, in which the UK is seen as the keystone. The chaos of Brexit has been a heaven(hell)-sent opportunity for the largely American funders and protagonists. Raab, Truss, Patel et al. are simply their duped lieutenants. No need to explain further; it’s been well-documented for the past 40+ years.
Two major successes notched up by the puppet-masters is to persuade ‘ordinary’ people to vote for them with a promise of jam tomorrow; and to convince (via the media) the majority that anyone who opposes or disagrees is a conspiracy theorist.
So, thank you Richard for your insights, due diligence and persistent hard work. Your contributions are more important and relevant than ever. For the sake of humanity and the planet it’s a battle that has to be won. The people who vote for these wolves in sheep’s clothing must wake up or be awakened to the danger. Otherwise there is a real risk we’ll be dragged back to a 1930s scenario.
If this sounds alarmist – good!
Thanks
“For the sake of humanity and the planet it’s a battle that has to be won. The people who vote for these wolves in sheep’s clothing must wake up or be awakened to the danger.”
Thanks John D for putting this so clearly.
I imagine that – even though they don’t mention it – Polly & Richard are well aware of the dark powers behind all this, notably in America. NancyMaclean’s well documented “Democracy in Chains” makes for a really chilling read. We have every reason to be alarmed.
I gave it to one of my sons
He is reading it as if it is a thriller – can’t put it down he is so shocked by it
Try Moneyland by Oliver Bullough, which I’m working through at the moment, horrified, but not surprised (makes me want to reach for my pitchfork), before moving on to further light relief with Nicholas Shaxson’s The Finance Curse.
Nevermind, we’re watching Cendrillon at the weekend. I’ve heard it ends well unlike so many of today’s stories.
As a PS (and if permitted) I recommend this recent article from Gilbert Mercier which sets out the wider picture in which ‘Brexit’ is just one, albeit extremely important, element – http://newsjunkiepost.com/2018/11/05/the-global-rise-of-fascism-capitalism-end-game.
Can’t say we haven’t been warned … by Orwell, Huxley thru’ to Chomsky, Klein and many others. What does it take to alert people to impending danger?
Labour work with the SNP? Not likely! They had an opportunity to do so but Milliband refused point blank, then at the last GE in Scotland they colluded with the Tories on a ‘stop the SNP’ ticket which resulted in those thirteen Tories being returned from Scotland. So here’s a thought, what would the make up of the current parliament look like of Labour grew up and accepted that the SNP is a political party just like they are.
I wish they would
I recognise all the differences – but there is a crisis to resolve and it affects us all right now
As long as they struggle to work with each other and tribalism reigns, they are going to struggle to work with anyone else
‘Polly Toynbee says in her article
‘The great Brexit rift is a war for the nation’s soul between a radical revolutionary right and a social democracy very much under threat.’
Talk about a day late & a dollar short!
The schematic of the right-wing agenda brought to mind a book from the 1850s I read some time ago. Its title is “The White Slaves of England” by John C Cobden. If anyone wishes to explore the ‘ideal’ society envisaged by the hard right, this book is a very apt starting point.
Cobden has inspired many of these people
I think there is a Cobden Society
I hadn’t realised that there were other activities carrying the name “Cobden”.
John C Cobden was an American who wrote his book in an attempt to expose the hypocrisy of the British moves to abolish slavery abroad while tolerating (and thriving on) the most vile exploitation of the ‘lower orders’ of the UK population. Many miners, land and factory workers and their children would have envied the life led by many slaves in the Americas.
I would never justify slavery – it is just morally wrong – but I found it quite disturbing that debt-peonage, imposed on the people of the UK actually produced higher profits than outright slavery would have, provided, of course, that wages could be kept to a minimum.
The Right/Left issue is easily solved.
We have to move left to get back to the centre. It is as simple as that for me. And if we remained Left of centre I’d be happy (not too far mind – not extreme left).
Bannon and people like Jordan Peterson feed on people’s disenchantment which is genuine and they should be listened too.
But I have seen nothing but rejection from such people about the Left and its supposed capacity to help. What folk reject is the way in which the Left categorises or labels them and their problems.
In a world that is based on conspicuous consumption and having money there is a lot of shame in not being seen to keep up. People do not want to be categorised and lumped in with others whom they wish not to be associated with or are seen as failures of some kind.
This is a society that values consumption as a means of self-worth. In this sense, you could argue that Thatcherism has won or is winning still. And this society interprets things at an individual level – ‘what can be done for me’, let alone anyone else. For so long they have been told that they are customers and tax payers and are entitled. We now also have identity politics coming to the fore that goes beyond working class, middle class etc.
Peterson preaches a form of self-reliance. In his world the State will not be there to help you. You are on your own and its up to you. If you fail – its your fault. If you are in dire straights you just have to suffer and see it out. You must be like a lobster apparently.
If I am indeed right in my thoughts here, the only way a state could go Left is to do it by just doing it rather than labelling it as so. People do not want to know about policy as much as they want to see the results.
We are now so right wing in this country as regards economic and social policy that any ‘move back’ to what were Left-like principals just seems like common sense to me. It seems like the right (and better) thing to do.
The lesson is that a failure to do this will just leave an army of precariat reactionaries who can be whipped up at any time by any unprincipled group and will pose a danger to order and debate. It also means that the political and legal apparatus of our society will also be dominated by money.
We have tried the ‘new-liberalism’. We have given certain parties more freedom and they have abused it and not controlled themselves. It has failed.
So yes – let us move Left but see Left as the new normal, secure and stable state of things. Left is fair. Left is pro-active. Left is win-win. That is the New Left if you like.
Society exists because nature is hard. In the jungle the weak die and become something else’s dinner. Human society rejects that and seeks to subvert the harsh forces of nature. That is why puny womankind has survived bigger and nastier animals than herself. Because we have learnt to co-operate and share in order to survive. The Left has the potential to realise this trait than any Darwinian Neo-liberal Tory or nationalist Government.
But it is even better if we do not label this direction ‘Left’. Going Left is now the right thing to do but the wrong label.
The Left needs a re-brand. That is my conclusion thus far.
And it is worth building on
I think this massive race-to-the-bottom Tory threat is rather over-done — and if you can believe anything written in the Express, so do some top EU officials. One is quoted as saying: “The idea that Conservatives would legislate a race to the bottom is a myth and no one really believes it, even if some Tories have helped create it. The real fear is state subsidies under a Jeremy Corbyn government. British policy has remained unchanged for generations but now there is a real chance of a left-wing government reversing it. We have to protect ourselves and the single market.”
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/995332/Brexit-news-Theresa-May-White-Paper-Jeremy-Corbyn-state-aid
Also I’m not sure where Toynbee gets the idea from that a drastic move to the right would be palatable to the electorate.
Despite all the antisemitism smears, Labour hold a narrow lead in England & Wales over the Tories (43% to 42% in a large Survation poll) — and if Corbyn continues his form of always outperforming the polls in elections where he’s actually presented to the electorate, then there’s nothing to fear.
https://www.survation.com/labour-leads-the-conservative-party-in-england-and-wales-while-snp-have-large-lead-in-scotland/
Along with the back-to-the-troubles hyperbole regarding the Irish border, it’s a useful bogey-man threat to have us drawing up our status-quo bed-covers.
Of course we must not be complacent, but excessive timidity in the face of bogus threats will not help at all.
(Before anyone questions my view on the Irish border, have a read of this piece in which 4 ex-IRA members who actually live near the border tell us that the threat is hugely over-blown too:
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/the-ex-ira-men-united-ireland-it-s-all-guff-1.3041131
)
It’s not just Polly
First, the EU are not saying that
Second, the far right threat is real, as is its entryism into the Tories
Third, the Irish border threat is real and I am inclined not to take the word of some former terrorists on it
You really need to stop quoting nonsense or I will delete you
Reading the far-right prospectus is a horror show – but based on what has happened since 2010 not implausible.
The extent to which the conservative party has lurched to the far right economically (if not yet socially) is incredible. The position of Ken Clarke within the party is a good litmus test of that.
Richard,
I am printing out your diagrams and taking them to my local pub tonight. My recommendation is that others – many others – do the same
Thanks
I hope you get out!
What a splendid idea Joanna!
I do like your mind maps Richard! So pleasing to have everything nice and logically set out.
Can I suggest you might have missed surveillance on your far-right alternative? I know you can’t include everything, and it could come under the government departments not being held to account, but it’s a fairly important tactic for your fascist state – control of information, and unhindered surveillance of the population. The government has already passed the laws to allow this, digitally we have no rights to privacy (I think the news was reporting incessantly on the US presidential election at the time the bill was being passed in the House of Commons). The thought police are already in action.
I thought it interesting that your far-right alternative shows less regulation of the press, while your centre version shows more – I am not sure this would be the case? Of course, in Scotland there are issues with the press and broadcasting; we do not get the same news as you do where you are, it is nuanced to tell us what to think perhaps more blatantly. They rarely report on what the Scottish government is doing unless they can find a way to make it look bad, usually by interviewing a Labour politician. A strange state of affairs. But, anyway, I would think more control of media for the far right, not less? I found it interesting to note that in Norway the state subsidises its newspapers, to give a large enough variety of views in quite a small population. Variety, wouldn’t that be novel.
The issue is that freedom requires regulation, abuse does not
Yes, of course, I wrote before thinking it through and mixed up regulation with control, very different things.
Polly Toynbee says in her article
‘The great Brexit rift is a war for the nation’s soul between a radical revolutionary right and a social democracy very much under threat.’
It might have helped if Polly and most other Guardian opinion writes had not/ do not constantly denigrate Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum and until the last election results, support the Lib Dems. Polly was one of the founder members of the SDP- helping to split the Labour party and give us 13 years of Thatcherism which has led us to where we are now. Perhaps she should also look at the part she has played in England arriving at this sorry point and apologise.
Have you not read what I wrote?
Richard,
You provide a very valuable service with your blog, and you are so right to put the environment at the top of your list.
To everyone else commenting or lurking on here I say it’s time to Extinction Rebellion in the streets and bring London to a standstill and the government to the negotiating table to create a wartime-like coalition to address the issue of the day: climate breakdown. Now. Before it is too late. For more information see
https://risingup.org.uk/XR/
Strange how ‘events, dear boy’ always seem to come unexpectedly from left of field.
I have sympathy with peaceful protest
This meets that criteria and so is appropriate.
Have you any thoughts about Larry Elliott’s article in the Guardian today?
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/22/respect-eu-britain-outside-left-economy
His ideas do not seem so divergent from yours, but he argues that what he wants to see happen in the UK would be thwarted politicaly and economically if we stay in the EU. I can imagine he might be right, but I’m less convinced by his argument that recent economic and political developments in this country (‘the end of austerity’) would provide a guarantee against a regressive post-EU regime here. Are we between a rock and a hard place – ‘socialism in one country’ or root and branch reform of a German dominated EU?
I admit that Larry and I have consumed more than the bottle of wine discussing our differences of opinion on this issue, and neither of us has changed our mind as a result.
I like and respect Larry. in many ways, as you note, we share common concerns, even if they do not result in common policy prescriptions in all cases.
I have three fundamental reasons for disagreeing with Larry. First, I do not think that the UK can bear the cost of the current form of breakfast at that is being considered without imposing considerable stress, burden, and outright cost on the most vulnerable in the UK about whom I have most concern. I do think there will be job losses, falling incomes, rising costs, inflation not matched by wage increases, and so massive social stress. However bad the current situation is, I cannot countenance that.
Second, I think the UK can reform in isolation. Our inequality rankings are, for example, much worse than those for most of Europe whilst Portugal has shown that austerity is not necessary, and can be worked around.
Third, I do not see the EU as a solely economic issue and believe that European unity requires that we remain in membership.
There is no good outcome here: I just think that Larry is putting too much emphasis upon economics in the longer term when politics require that we stay, and that the short-term economic cost of leaving is far too high. having a viable policy from remaining, including using the immigration control opportunities that are available to us, plus the opportunities that really do exist to transform our economy without falling foul of European rules, are a much better option, in my opinion.
Richard,
“I think the UK can reform in isolation” – should that read “I don’t think …”? If not, it doesn’t seem a reason to disagree with Larry.
Otherwise, I’m with you – especially on your third last point that Europe is not just about economy.
I worry about Larry.
The sub headline: “The left needs to work on its own plan to rebuild our economy, and that will be easier after Brexit” Well there’ll certainly plenty to do, but ………easier to do it ? And WTF knock it down just to rebuild it, especially given what else we stand to lose in the demolition. ?
“……the predictions made by those who thought the single currency was one of the daftest ideas of all time have come true…..” Well maybe, but it wasn’t a daft idea it was just daftly implemented, (including allowing and encouraging fraudulent applications from some countries) fortunately Gordon Brown had the wit to see that and keep the UK out of it in opposition to Blair’s ambition to be EU President. Larry alludes to the basic faultline: “….be run along monetarist lines…”. That was a major flaw in the design. Possibly THE major flaw.
“…mitigated by policy easing. Interest rates would be cut by the Bank of England,…” There’s not a lot cut is there ?
“….while the Treasury would sound the death knell for austerity by announcing tax cuts [What sort of tax cuts ?] and spending increases. [What sort of spending increases?] …..Even at its gloomiest, the Treasury cannot come up with forecasts that suggest the impact of Brexit will be anything like as serious as the financial crisis of a decade ago…….[which we haven’t even remotely recovered from yet after an entire decade, with widespread predictions that we’re about to get another lulu crash anytime soon. How much further down do we want to go before we start thinking it’s time to climb up a bit?]”
“… The euro, it was said, would lead to economic divergence not convergence between member states, be run along monetarist lines, entrench high levels of unemployment and leave Europe in the growth slow lane. ” So what ? The UK isn’t in the Euro. Not our problem, our problem is that for no good reason whatsoever we have austerity and massaged employment figures which ignore best part of a million people working on officially recognised zero hours contracts and God alone knows how many more working on no contract at all in the black economy.
Reading this piece, I realise why I long ago stopped reading Larry’s regular output.
I have a lot of time for Larry – still do and always will. He’s no loony Left or a Thatcherite. I read his writing on the Euro before it happened and he was dead right in the end – more so than Bill Kegan whom I also have loads of time for.
My reservations are that he seems to be under-playing what the Tories would do in a non-EU Britain. They would not make an economy that would work for all if BREXIT gave them a chance. It would be awful. It would just help entrenched interests.
So I think that the big problem is that like you say Richard, his approach is a too technical – but probably correct.
It’s just that as yet, I know of no political force in the country that has the technical or philosophical talent to take advantage of BREXIT for the good of everyone in the way he suggests.
I’m really interested in a right-wing perspective on your observations, Richard.
There are a lot of like minded people here who will naturally agree that your view of a centre-left political regime is fairer and better for everyone in the country. I’m one of them, as you probably know by now.
But I do worry that the quality of input from the right to this blog seems to be restricted to top-sheeted, wilfully ignorant and occasionally abusive hip-shooting from angry types who are more interested in point scoring than point making.
For fear of this being too much of an echo chamber, I would love to hear from someone who looks at the policies of the right and says “That makes perfect, reasonable sense to me… and here’s why”. For the life of me I can’t see why anyone would advocate a shrivelled state and the concession of executive political power to an unashamed plutocracy. Isn’t that just the common people begging for serfdom? Why in the name of the wee man would policies which so obviously benefit the extreme few at great cost to the overwhelming majority of us be supported in numbers great enough to give a mandate?
I really don’t get it. All I see is a national propensity for people to saw off the branch they’re sitting on and I’d like to know what it is I’m missing… cos there must be something.
Somebody… ANYBODY… from the right, please post a rational and polite explanation of the motives behind your policies. I really want to know.
I do read right wong blogs to try to get this perspective, for example CapX. I wish I saw much reasoned argument.
The issue with commentary on right-leaning Web sites seems, in general, to be as much of an echo chamber as those you see on left-leaning Web sites. Nothing too surprising about that as it is just human nature.
For me, the difference is that the comments on the left-leaning sites tend to be based more on theory and evidence which has some basis in academic work.
On the other hand, the right-wing commentary tends to be just a regurgitation of the myths promulgated by unscrupulous right-wing politicians over the years. Expansionary austerity, economy as a household, TINA, etc etc. Perhaps unsurprisingly, those of a right-wing bent believe wholeheartedly the myths they’ve read or heard in much of the media over the past few decades. And why shouldn’t they? When they hear/read somebody expounding authoritatively about a topic coming from places named as grandly as the Adam Smith Institute, or Institute of Economic Affairs or Centre for Policy Studies, it certainly sounds legit, especially when almost all mainstream politicians have toed the line in agreement over the past 20 years or so.
Unfortunately, changing minds is almost impossible. As I have mentioned previously, when I attempted to explain to how the idea that the coalition/Tory governments had done a good job since 2010 one of my friends (who has never voted anything but Tory, I’m sure), he simply wouldn’t even look at the evidence! I’m sure many other right-wingers are the same.
A sign of an effective democracy is a strong, organised and capable opposition. It continues to disappoint me that the current opposition parties seem incapable of collaborating to challenge the government on their many failings and instead put self (and even individual) interest above that of the country.
You are not alone
And I am deeply unpopular for saying so
Which will not stop me
Perhaps the answer is for the SNP to put a candidate into every UK constituency. If their manifesto guaranteed the people a referendum on English Independence, I think it might play well.
You cannot imagine how much the SNP is hated in the area where I live
“…You cannot imagine how much the SNP is hated in the area where I live…”
Oh! I think I can, Richard. 🙂
I do pay some small degree of attention to MSM. And even the supposedly Scottish media is rabidly oppositional
Agreed
Don’t worry Richard, being popular is over-rated.
Robin
On the immigration issue:-
I have been listening to what people tell me.
What people tell me is how they interpret the immigration issue. I have lost count of how many people have told me that they have had to reduce the price of their labour because of immigrants being used at work. So all I’m doing here is NOT playing with hard right ideas – I’m just telling people here what people feel and what therefore is the basis for such right wing thinking. Even if what people say is factually wrong – their perception is still guiding their support for the hard right.
But is it more complicated than Portes portrays? Is this the same bloke who cannot get his head around MMT for dubious reasons? Is he a good researcher?
My brother works as a long distance lorry driver. He is issued with a very expensive tractor unit with a sleeping section in it for overnight stays when he has to come off the road because of the tachograph. Then you look at someone like an EU wide haulier who does the same long runs with two east Europeans in the same cab with no sleeping unit on it.
Who do you think was the was the cheapest haulier then? Who might get the work against a haulier who does things by the rules and incur expenses? Whose low wages go further back home in a developing economy? The immigrants – of course. And as you say it is lax policing of these rules that causes these issues to arise. But the net result is the same in that people see this and become resentful of immigrants.
There is another way of looking at it as well. We rely on immigration because of Tory cuts to education access grants, HE students grants and so forth. We have contractors who rely on EU workers because of a shortage of skills sets in the indigenous work force. The Tories strangled the home grown supply of new skills. Result? Skill Immigration.
We have two young apprentice quantity surveyors who we are putting through university on QS courses who would not be able to afford the degree if we were not funding them.
And as you write, it is low wages stopping take up in the indigenous population for certain jobs. But that same wage is very lucrative to an immigrant who will take it.
Ideally those wages would rise instead because companies would not be able to hire at the lower rates. But because immigrants come in, those rates are legitimised and remain low.
And this is another source of resentment. People are not stupid Robin – they know when they are being forced out even if they may not consider the finer points of the mechanisms at work – and yes many are too quick to point the blame at the immigrant themselves – not the twisted economy that has been created for us.
@PSR
Regarding immigration I tend to agree with you.
The studies that have “proved” that there is no link between immigration and reduced pay are open to bias in the interpretation of the results – as are all studies of this type (can’t do a double-blind trial on society!).
With some issues it is better to acknowledge that the argument has been lost and explain how things could be different in the future so: “We’re sorry that labour competition brought about stagnation/falls in your wages but things will be different in the future because of improved minimum wage, higher investment etc.” instead of “You’re wrong/stupid/racist to be blaming immigration so shut up!”.
Even if the link between immigration and pay is questionable the one between housing costs and immigration (in an environment where not enough housing is being built) surely isn’t.
finally, the crucial missing part of any statement about labour shortages in an industry is “the rate we want to pay”, i.e. “we can’t get the people we need to do this job…. at the rate we want to pay”. In a de-regulated labour market scarcity is the only card that working class (in its widest sense) people have to play – and the de-regulated environment is all many people have ever known.
Neil
It’s very complicated – VERY complicated but I agree with you in terms of what we need to do – we need to acknowledge that this is just not racism – it is a result of competition perhaps.
It may not exist through every strata of the economy but it certainly seems to in some of them.
In the 1990’s, a famous toy shop in London was staffed by African nationals. Now it is staffed by east Europeans from what I have seen. It’s the same with burger joints. These are low wage, high volume businesses that rely on a transient workforce.
The big issue for me is that the Government should be looking at the home grown supply of labour and skills in the economy and opening up education to fill those slots.
But I still say that we need a wage rise in this country. There is a wage point at which English born people will pick fruit and veg in our fields. We just have not reached it yet. The wages would have to also cover travel to rural areas from towns etc., and leave enough to live on.
Because wages and costs are supressed by the need for supermarkets to compete on price we are not likely to. So the Tories can call us ‘lazy’ instead.
Hi PSR,
The tragedy of leaving the EU over Eastern European immigration is that (at its current level) it is likely to be only a transient problem. The increase in wages/living standards in Poland is already pulling people back there.
If only we had used the tools available to manage this migration and adopted some interventions in the labour market to support wages then the referendum vote need never has happened.
It comes down, imho, to a catastrophic political failure on the left to put forward a socialist democratic alternative to the policies of the right and to oppose and keep opposing the hard right social and economic policies of the Tories and others, like UKIP, and to counter the myths and lies of the right’s critique of socialist policies and their tropes of rising tides lifting all boats, living beyond our means, the household analogy etc.
In the Labour Party it started with Smith, followed by Kinnock and reached it’s apotheosis with Blair/Brown, moving to the right, cuddling up to business, wealth and the oligarchs of the press as the only way, or so they thought, of winning over “middle England”. When it all went sour after decades of destruction by Thatcher, stagnating wages, loss of skilled jobs, outsourcing, privatisations, soaring inequality, the GFC and a Labour government which did nothing to roll back the tide of neoliberalism but embraced it followed by Cameron/Osborn demolishing the last vestiges of a caring social polity then scapegoating and blaming the “other” became respectable – the EU, immigrants, non-Christians, foreigners more generally were all to blame.
Corbyn is, according to Anthony Barnett, a Labourist – meaning, among other things he is opposed to coalitions. There may well be more Tory years ahead. But after Corbyn, who I doubt will be there much longer, what then for Labour? Are there any real socialists (of the) left? People who will call out the Tories for the destructive charlatans that they are?
@PSR
Agree about skills.
But, sorry, there are never going to be people available to ‘harvest’ and pick fruit and veg because it is not a permanent job – unless you move with the harvest.
There used to be gypsies who did it, there are now Eastern Europeans, who come here perhaps for a sort of education – but it is a purpose for them, and they fulfill a need.
I’ve worked in Europe which for me was life and attitude changing.
I also, a long time ago, did some UK harvesting, which really wasn’t!
Peter May says:
“…But, sorry, there are never going to be people available to ‘harvest’ and pick fruit and veg because it is not a permanent job — unless you move with the harvest….”
Two things occur to me. One is that (in general) eastern European and other migrant workers are several generations ‘closer to the land’ than British workers. British agriculture mechanised and shed workers at an alarming rate during the 20th century and this continued a trend that Thomas Hardy was writing about. Presumably that same trend is going on in the eastern European new EU entrant countries now (?) but without the burgeoning urban industries to absorb their labour, because they in turn are undercut by east Asian wage levels.
The other point is, as you say, contract harvesters have to move with the harvest, from farm to farm to farm and northwards as the harvests ripen, This is highly inconsistent with the rooted ‘home ownership’ model of society which we’ve prioritised since WW2 and emphasised for four decades. Rampant consumerism has also made it so much more difficult to casually relocate; we have so much ‘stuff’ to drag around with us nowadays all of which has become ‘essential’ to our sense of wellbeing.
An article in the guardian by Nicola Sturgeon:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2018/nov/21/britain-deserves-better-brexit-may-peoples-vote
‘…an emerging cross party consensus… ‘ – maybe you WILL get your team together Richard??
Unfortunately with it being the SNP involved, it would make Nicola Sturgeon look too good, so even if other parties are involved I would not get my hopes up. Nose-spite-face is a common (public) reaction to any good SNP ideas sadly. But, you never know.
Point taken Peter.
But I still maintain it’s about wages.
People will seek out work if it is well paid. And our social security system seems so badly designed to deal with seasonal workers (universal credit will be even worse).
Peter
I think Richard has tweeted about the drop in affordable homes building. Again, I worked in London for 6 years and I saw a lot enmity between communities because of a lack of resources such as housing, space, cash – petty jealousies and resentments starting up like wild fires.
I think that the hard right can only ever be the result of right wing (Neo-liberal) policies such as reducing state involvement in markets and simply not looking after The People who – after all – create the GDP, man the armies, police society etc.
Tories are complicit with the creation of the hard right as far as I am concerned whom they use as a bulwark against the Left, claiming that they (the hard right) are reacting to the Left.
When you mix in the way in which state retrenchment has ben taken up by so-called Left political parties, things get really complicated (thing of Callaghan’s government).
The truth of the matter is though that the hard right occur or react as a result of right wing policies like austerity and the cutting of what I would call social investment by any Government.
It is not just the (hard) Left who react to these phenomenon.