I made clear my position with regard to those from the left seeking to support those who harassed and intimidated Keir Starmer earlier this week. I did so as part of my general policy of not tolerating extremism on this blog from wherever it comes. I was not making a case for Starmer. I was making a case against intimidation, lying and deliberate distortion within politics. I would have done that whoever the victim might have been.
In this context it is, however, worth noting that fascism is a real threat, and its methods are as commonplace on the far left as in the right. There is the denial of the truth; the spreading of lies; the binary world views; the creating of enemies to be hated as ‘the other'; the denial of the importance, let alone the reality of the democratic process and the intense focus upon the control of material resources by an elite for the supposed, unevidenced, benefit of others as if nothing else is of consequence in life. All these are characteristics of the extremes of left and right, and I have no time for either.
I have received some vitriolic mail from those on the left who hate Starmer as a result, using language akin to that of the standard output from the right wing troll factories. In addition comments like this one were offered on the blog. It has not been published under the contributors name, but it is typical of the sentiment offered, if less abusive than some:
Richard, you have finally convinced myself and many others that you are a midget. I did wonder why you had blocked me for criticising Starmer last year until a friend asked why I had never replied to you. I explained you had blocked me and were in fact the only person ever to have done so on an internet forum or comment section ever.
“Ah right…” he replied: “…So Murphy is after the Starmer gig…”
You do of course deserve each other but it will never happen because Starmer is a genuine tool of the establishment and you are beyond the pale for even saying as much as you do, so in effect you are merely fucking your support off for no gain whatsoever, because “the gig” will never be yours.
You are a clever guy but you have made a seriously stupid miscalculation: get back to the punters because the Starmers of the world will never give you or your ideas houseroom.
The naïveté of comments of this sort are staggering. First, it is apparent that the author (who had previously commented on this blog quite a number of times) thinks that I might have subscribed to their world view. I never have, but they can see nothing else.
Second, they think I was apparently defending Starmer's views by defending his right to proffer them. I was not. I was defending the right for anyone to engage in politics without fear of intimidation or abuse from those peddling falsehoods and lies, which Johnson has promoted about Starmer.
Third, they resort to ad hominem abuse, thinking that will assist their cause. No wonder they side with those who hurled abuse at Starmer.
Fourth, they presume my thinking can only be defined within their framing. That is quite extraordinarily naive, and shows that although this person had read this blog over an extended period he clearly never once comprehended what I was saying.
Fifth, within the frame that he creates he presumes that if I am not for him in supporting the abuse of Starmer then I must instead be for Starmer. The extraordinary limitation in imagination that presumes there is such a simple polarity is, I have to say, amusing because it is (and I can't think of another way of saying this) so stupid. I, for one, can deal with multi-dimensional thinking, and so can many others.
Sixth, the idea that I want a job with Starmer is as laughable as the idea that I wanted one with Corbyn - the offer of which I was more than happy to decline. That anyone thinks I am seeking any such job is deeply deluded. I have always made clear I am not seeking party political or public appointments. And to imagine Labour might want me is decidedly hard to imagine given that I am clearly not a supporter of its current economic policy (which is pretty close to that of Corbyn in overall tone, which was also pretty unacceptable to me) and my position on Scottish independence and other issues clearly puts me at odds with the current Labour Party.
Seventh, the idea that the support for this blog is drawn from those who would have sided with those attacking Starmer is laughable.
Eighth, the suggestion that I actually write this blog to win support rather than to promote ideas is also so wide of the mark that it represents a staggering misunderstanding of what I do. And for the record, there has been no apparent decline in readership this week, whilst my Twitter following appears to increase by the day.
So, in that case will I be going back to ‘the punters' that this person thinks I serve? No, I will not be. If these punters support intimidation of Starmer they are not a part of any politics I could support. But that does not mean I support Starmer.
So, let me be clear about some things then in case anyone else is suffering from the type of misunderstanding this commentator clearly had.
First, I do not promote any party. I used to say I would only not work for racist ones. Now I add those that I think to be neo or proto-fascist, which is where the Tories are. But let's be clear that when in 2012 I was asked by the Tories to sit on a Treasury committee I did. My opinion of the party has changed since then. I would not do so now because the party has adopted extremist positions.
Second, I have little time now for the notion of left and right based around the artificial constructs of supposed capitalism or socialism. Both are simply mythologies promoted by those whose politics bear little relationship to reality. There are no markets of the type that the supposed supporters of capitalism and their friends in academia describe. The same is true of the society that the supposed supporters of socialism describe. So what is the point or orientating thinking around these falsehoods?
Third, I reject both capitalism and socialism in any case because both are based on materialism and that is now proven to be an unsustainable world view.
Fourth, I believe in a mixed economy because that is what we have, need, and will continue to enjoy. Those pretending otherwise deny the only thing that we know works. But that does not mean I believe in unlimited growth, profit maximisation or any of the other nonsense that proponents of capitalism (most of whom, unlike me, have never run a real business) say goes with having a private sector. As a matter of fact, for example, no business knows how to maximise profit and anyway accounting and economic profit are not the same thing, but few seem to understand that.
Fifth, this mixed economy needs two things. A strong, profoundly representative democracy that is, to the greatest degree possible, beyond corruption is the first such thing. We clearly have not got that. It also requires well regulated, transparent and accountable businesses that accept the obligations that limited liability impose upon them, and which operate within the parameters of enforced law. We do not have that either. I argue for both.
Sixth, we need compassion, morality, empathy and a focus upon mutual respect that the duality of modern politics does not foster. Care for others has to be the basis for our politics or it is worthless. Indeed, what is its point unless that is its focus? Can anyone seriously believe that promotion of the interests of the already selfish is politics when, surely, it is simple corruption?
Seventh, we need a new understanding of economics as the world actually is. Modern monetary theory is an example of that. The approaches I suggest to tax and accounting are also designed for the world I actually see, rather than the fictions I note too many in politics and academia promoting
Eighth, many of these ideas are multi-dimensional. I support privately owned business and strong government, simultaneously. That's because I think they (and we) need each other. I also support the right to private property, and the right of the state to redistribute the ownership of that property. I think we have to tackle climate change. I do not think that means pleasure disappears. And so on. That does not imply conflicted thinking. It recognises that such reconciliations are what any reasonably balanced life involves.
So what do I really wish for from politics? I cannot be alone in wanting politics that moves way beyond the fantasies of the extremes of left and right, and frankly beyond the daft narratives played out closer to the centre ground of politics where milder forms of these caricatures of ideas long out of date ideas still exist and corrupt our current first past the post political narratives.
What I want is a politics rooted in reality. That is, one that addresses the issues that we face, not the convenient and too often simplistic myths that too many engaged in politics wish to create.
I want to tackle corruption, fraud, abuse, poverty, inequality of opportunity, climate change, poor housing, inadequate access to housing, under-resourced health and social care, a pension system that exists to serve the City and not pensioners, tax evasion and avoidance, and so much more. But I do not want dogmatic solutions to these issues. I want appreciation that they are real. I want open mindedness on solutions to them and other issues. I want a politics that can see the other side of the argument and makes choices on the basis of what is best for those who need most.
I want fact, not myth.
I want debate not insult.
I want a politics in other words that recognises the sheer, messy and also essentially important diversity of the world where to gain acceptance credibility rather than tribalism is the basis for success.
This is a politics for the real world.
It is a politics defined by care.
It is a politics of diversity.
And of negotiation, not imposition.
This is a politics for today.
It's a very long way from what we have got.
And it's nothing like the positions the far left and right adopt.
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:
Well said, Richard. What you say is sensible, practical and principled. To me they seem self evident as the words of Declaration of Independence was to its writers.
But they are not to many who criticise you. They prefer the emotional comfort of tribalism, whether of left, right or centre. Being an independent thinker can leave one exposed at times and having to question oneself is not always comfortable as it means we might be wrong or have to change our minds. But it is how we get nearer to the truth. The truth, we are told, makes us free. It is what we have to strive for.
You have insight
Of course I question myself when others challenge me
Any wise person would
This was the result of that musing
A few decades ago some used to call it ‘late capitalism’ – wishful thinking?…or ‘monopoly capitalism’ . ‘Mixed economy’ is not really adequate as a description – there are so many different kinds of mixed economy.
Maybe we could get some more specific labels to distinguish a mixed economy where all businesses ‘are well regulated, transparent and accountable and accept the obligations that limited liability impose upon them, and which operate within the parameters of enforced law’ and the one we have now – dominated by often foreign based globally dominant rent-extracting quasi monopolies .
Current despair is not around whether Labour will give Richard a job – but that they just don’t seem open to ideas. Far too timid – almost defeated before they start by being happy to fight on the Conservatives’ chosen ‘tax and spend’ ground.
Interesting idea in there….
Rather than ‘mixed economy’, how about ‘ethically regulated capitalism’? Perhaps too much of a mouthful.
There may be a ‘right’ phrase
Thank you for elucidating that so clearly. You missed one however, the poverty of expectation. The soul destroying view that no matter what you do, or what you vote for, nothing can improve your lot in life. I speak of what I know and whilst I have no desire to relive a very dark part of my own past I also know that it can be successfully addressed.
You are right
“…the poverty of expectation. The soul destroying view that no matter what you do, or what you vote for, nothing can improve your lot in life.” This, I see, is increasingly how so many feel. And, I can’t disagree with them.
“Politics rooted in reality” – absolutely, YES.
That reality means two (maybe three) things to me.
First, it is not a merely intellectual exercise, it has to be practical… and that means persuading the vast numbers of people who are not “political” that your programme will make their lives better. Given the innate (small ‘c’) conservatism of most people this will inevitably mean that the programme that I want will be “watered down. I accept this as the price to avoid authoritarianism (from either left or right).
Second, our FPTP system is becoming increasingly dangerous for our political health. 20 years ago it did not register as a major problem (for me) but it does now. Elementary Game Theory means that FPTP guarantees a two party system. “Party member democracy” and entry-ism have at various times pushed Labour and Conservatives to extremes and will continue to do so….. and this has been very damaging. It has allowed Tory extremists to claim a mandate from what was an anti-Corbyn vote; It allowed Corbyn supporters to claim that “coming close” in 2017 was support for their man. In reality, only a PR system and party fragmentation will allow us to really see what people want.
Third (or a corollary to the second) is that, for now, progressives must line up behind Keir Starmer and those that are Labour Party members must get Electoral Reform in the next manifesto.
So, in conclusion, those on the left that are directing their ire at Starmer need to think what they really expect to happen if they succeed in discrediting him?
You only need to look at Unite to see the problems….
Did you notice that the BBC headline, Steve Barclay, the PMs new Chief of Staff pledges ” smaller state”?
In other words less investment for the rest of us but pleasing, no doubt to the hedge funds and members of the Leaders Group.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/dark-money-investigations/revealed-the-elite-dining-club-behind-130m-donations-to-the-tories/
The Labour Party membership is overwhelmingly in favour of electoral reform – hundreds of branch delegates supported it at the last party conference. Starmer has declined to support it. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/sep/30/keir-starmer-proportional-representation-progressive-alliance
Oddly, in January 2020, during the Labour leadership campaign, he was all in favour of it.
https://www.electoral-reform.org.uk/keir-starmer-weve-got-to-address-the-fact-that-millions-of-people-vote-in-safe-seats-and-they-feel-their-voice-doesnt-count/
As someone without much nuance, I tend to think that when people do not want reform, they favour the current arrangements – and their consequences.
Whilst I agree with Clive that the anti Starmer position of many on the left is pointless and ultimately only aids the dreadful tories, and Richard is absolutely correct to condemn the Johnson inspired abuse of Starmer, it is a sad fact Julia that so far Starmer has not supported electoral reform.
This to me is absolutely vital if democracy is to continue in the UK, or the UK itself continue to exist. If Labour won’t support it, and just as importantly, co-operate with other parties to get over the innate advantage the current system gives to the tories in the next election, then Starmer will have failed progressives dreadfully.
I refrain from attacking him the way the left do, but whether he’ll be any good….I don’t know.
The question I have is…
Is the Labour Leadership’s aversion to PR
(a) a genuine belief that FTTP is best
(b) only self interested – ie. yes to PR… except when we are in power
(c) fear that an attempt to re-run the 2010 AV referendum will damage their chances at the next election
I don’t think it is (a), I would understand (c)…. I really hope we are grown up enough for it not to be (b).
Hear hear,
I knew I was drawn to this blog site for a reason.
Sadly, most people want simple answers to complex questions, and this means that those who continually identify the necessary dimensions of a functioning democracy, which is, and always will be messy, get it in the neck every time.
A thriving business, like a thriving society requires trade offs. It is vital that the “little people” make a major contribution in both cases to asset allocation.
“If you want to fast, to alone, if you want to go far, go together”.
Bravo Richard, well said!
One of the best things you have written in my opinion.
You are definitely not alone in your hopes that politics can move beyond Left and Right-wing dogma.
Julian
Thanks
Thank you Richard – very well said and why this still one of the (few) blogs I always subscribe to. The simplistic politics of left vs right, socialism vs capitalism are way past their sell by date and just add to the divisiveness. They drag us back rather than take us forward.
Though I know you may seem a little abrupt at times I can fully understand why and in a way you shield the rest of us from the unpleasantness. Im grateful for that but the occasional glimpse that you’ve given us is a salutary reminder of what is out there – from both Left and Right.
Thanks Robin
I admit that blogging has made me more abrupt
It’s not a trait I like
But I presume that I will be attacked every day, and usually am
That has a consequence
The phrase is I think ‘the patience of a saint’. In the circumstances I’d be a lot less patient.
Very glad to see lots of strong messages of support – reassuring to those of us trying to pursue that much derided ‘middle ground’. Though its not a middle ground really – I think we are striving for something more radical really, something that is not a repackaging of failed and discredited ideologies.
It is radical, but not defined by any existing space
Ideas that reflect the need to balance social, environmental and economic development are on the right track. Doughnut Economics and Wellbeing are in that area. Combined with a rethink of macroeconomics along the lines that you promote.
Yup, you so sometimes come over as abrupt Richard in your answer to some people, but I’m sure you’ve got good reason to be so. Your time is limited, and there are so many fools out there…….
Richard,
Heartfelt thanks for taking the time to write such a clear, cogent account of where you stand and what motivates you. It will likely be misread and misinterpreted by a few more of your readers, but I hope that it will draw many more. You have expressed my views with a clarity that I could never hope to muster, and – I’m sure – those of the vast majority of those who follow your blogs.
As for those – left and right – who insist on attacking you, and anyone who stands for real democracy, openness and decency, in politics as in everyday life, I’ll quote Dante: “Non ragioniam di lor, ma guarda e passa”: let us not talk of them, but look and move on.
Thanks
Bravo, I do so agree.
This line was interesting
“I also support the right to private property, and the right of the state to redistribute the ownership of that property.”
Does that mean that the likes of Richard Drax MP, might have his estate “redristributed”?
Some might think that would be just.
😉
In part, yes, why not? His estate is a very obvious indication of unjustifiable inequality
It is a shame when people use manic posts as an alternative to reasonable and logical criticism. The stupid surrounding of Starmer will, I suspect, be now used as a reason for getting through the Police bill with it’s fascist like attack on all peaceful political protest (currently people in Bristol are in court threatened with 10 year prison sentences for demonstrating).
But in a logical manner it would perhaps be worth asking for some discussion on your phrase “current economic policy (which is pretty close to that of Corbyn in overall tone, which was also pretty unacceptable to me)”
While whatever Labour’s ‘ current economic policy’ is not exactly easy to ascertain, you have to hazard a guess that (as Lindsay German points out in her Guardian article) going on Stop the War demonstrations in 2003 and being willing to support arms sales to Ukraine, Nato expansion, and possibly pressing the nuclear button does seem to be a rather large change in likely possible policies. And perhaps economic ones.
Whatever quite valid criticisms of the economic policies in Labour’s 2019 manifesto, it’s one step forward is better than two steps back
But maybe all the steps were in need of better direction?
I hope that protesters with legitimate grievance, who are faced with possible ten year sentences have the benefit of sensible juries willing to look through the fascism inherent in such legislation, and thus making it unworkable.
I am a strong supporter of the principle of the Rule of Law as enunciated in his book of the same title by the late, great, Lord Bingham, which I recommend to all here.
As does saying he supported renationalisation of utilites to get elected leader, then reneging on it now he is leader. It’s no wonder lots of members are disillusioned with Starmer.
Yes.
@ Andrew Broadbent
If you understand where money comes from, and that its issuance is a government function in a modern democracy, then you can call out fairness and justice.
Because it is much more difficult to argue against fairness and justice, than the ideology of socialism.
Conservatism is also an ideology.
Yet modern Conservatism has no place for fairness.
It justifies its stance by the language of ‘difficult choices’ and by suggesting that there is no money, that we tax and spend, there isn’t a Magic Money Tree and that the government is a household.
Once all this is shown to be a misunderstanding or even a deception, then Conservatism has to declare simply that ideologically, it is not in favour of fairness or justice.
Conservatives have to stop using economic arguments about money as a means of keeping the rest of us in check.
They are exposed as the naked and corrupt self-servers that they now are.
They are shown up as simply an elite wanting to keep resources for themselves with no concept of fairness.
That is why progressives have to understand money.
Even better is that all the – frankly outdated – baggage about Labour being too middle class and not supporting the workers can be avoided. And of course there would be no need either to have prolonged debates on what socialism is – or isn’t…
The requirement would simply to be in favour – or not – of fairness and justice.
Thanks Peter
This may be on the blog tomorrow
“Politics rooted in reality”.
When did we last possess that? ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are merely the not-very-modern, crude representations of a very old and old-fashioned, easily corrupted factionalism. Ideology is for nature’s most simple-minded followers, but who think it is cleverness to turn the impenetrable complexity of reality into banal ideology, reducible to arcane, fake-intellectual formulae (typically the ‘Left’) and simple, populist sound-bites (typically the ‘Right’). Modern populism works best for the ‘Right’, and the ‘Left’ is too ideological even to understand the problem (because it is part of the problem). I define the point at which ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ become discernable in life, as being the precise moment judgement and wisdom flees the scene that ideology insists it commands.
Ideologies seek ‘Party’, because only within Party can political entryists seize power and bend ideology to their will. The only difference is, Entryists from the Right immediately attract more money, to shich of course, Right Entryists cede power.
The fatal decision of any Political Party is always the people chosen to lead it. It does not matter whether it is ‘Left’ or ‘Right’. Party and Ideology are naturally programmed to choose the wrong people to lead. Their very nature means they attract all the wrong peopl, for all the wrong reasons. Allow me to provide a simple example. If judgement, wisdom and an understanding of reality were paramount for Party; who would seriously choose Johnson; or Sunak, or Patel, ot Truss, or Raab, or Mogg, or …… Rinse and repeat.
Judgement and wisdom are not paramount. Ideology, Party and the vested interests of Party Entryists are always paramount. Why is Johnson still PM? Not because anyone, even in the Conservative Party still believes he is fit for office; but the Conseevative Party is committed to its own interests, and to power and survival, above all: the prime purposes of all ideologists. The Conservatives are currently looking hard at all the possible replacements of Johnson, and see nothing good for them, anywhere. The Party is now trapped in a catatonic trance of fear – for itself.
Sunak is the leading aspirant for PM, but nobody has sufficient confidence to back him; that is obvious. The harder Conservatives look, the less plausible the case. If you want to see why, watch the recent Sky News interview of Sunak about Partygate. It took me back. It was like a recalcitrant schoolboy being sent to report to, in my day, the Rector. Leadership? It was like a rabbit ‘caught in the headlights’. It was embarassing. He is clearly out of his depth. The question that requires to be asked is this: where do the Conservative Party and Goldman Sachs find these people? What do you think that tells you about how both the Country and Economy is being run? Nothing good.
Very much agree re Sunak
On top form today John S – thank you
As to Goldmans, they are to me at the extreme end of what characterises most of the City. People who whilst they may be intellectually bright, have extraordinarily narrow levels of life experience. That old joke about knowing more and more about less and less, often said about academics. They know little about people outside their social and business networks, or of industries outside their narrow field. They rely on ideology to guide their decisions. They get to where they are through the power of the networks they are brought (and bought) into, of people whose extreme wealth is used to gain access to unjustified power. Power that is applied exclusively to selfish ends.
In Russia and in some parts of Eastern Europe, it was the old party bosses and their KGB allies who grabbed the power and access the wealth that went with it. Morphing overnight from ‘socialists’ to ‘capitalists’.
I believe Sunak’s unsuitability as prime minister is a factor in why his own side have not yet decisively shifted Johnson out of Number Ten.
I’m glad you reproduced what was written about you by this person – he/she is being extremely harsh – I actually think that they are taunting you which is not nice. There’s nothing there is there other than anger and frustration – those are the nicest reasons why I think such harsh words have been used. But you not deserve that. Also however, it is a sign of the times we live in I feel.
And you’ve written clearly about where you stand.
Starmer is not an evil person – he is misguided and in my eyes a bit weak on ideas (like too many in Labour at the moment) but he does not deserve the treatment he got nor the lie that Johnson told about him in Parliament – which was in my opinion quite an evil thing to do really. Mendacious in the extreme.
Anyone who lived through the early 2000s up to 2010 remembers a different world (I’m not talking about Covid or BREXIT I’m talking PA – pre-austerity Britain).
And this is where I end up understanding where this sort of stuff comes from in some way. That is not say that I condone it but I understand it. And worse. I recognise it in myself and the only difference between me and your tormentor(s) is that I reserve a particular hatred for any contemporary Tory party member or politician exclusively. Negotiate? With them? Hmmmm……….I’d choose another ‘N’ word: They’ve already Negated me. So I’ll Negate them.
We are a people addled by austerity and some have had enough to the point where they may well have become more extreme in their views. What’s good about your persecutor is that rather than pointing his or her finger at immigrants or those without jobs is that the blame is aimed at a politician – and rightly so. I’m sorry but that is the truth – in this case an opposition politician who does not seem to offer much and is part of a movement that has failed to rescue us really. They just did not turn up and chose to fight amongst themselves instead whilst the economy was trashed and people died as services were cut. Some in HM Opposition supported the wage rise MPs got and pension increase whilst the country got less. It must be really hard work voting in such policies. A near enough £20K p.a. pay rise I’m sure salved a conscience here and there and helped.
Our politicians continue to make a complete Horlicks of national life. If we persecute an animal and treat it cruelly over a period of time it will fear us but also become more defensive to the point where it could attack before being provoked.
When the Tories kicked me the first time I took it and smiled wanly and hoped they would not be here too long.
When they kicked me the second time, I was left angry, resentful and hurt as I found that they were still here and I did not want to be kicked again. I glared at them and vowed to remember that it was not my neighbour who had hurt me but something that knew and cared little about my life. I feared that they’d be back for more.
When they come for me again – well, we’ll see who does the hurting next time shall we? Things are getting salty.
How’s that for a mind set? What is it? Pre-revolutionary? It’s actually self defensive but a bit too strong for the usual genteel middle class sensibilities – a bit too vulgar? I am from a working class background – please forgive me – the son of manual labour union activists who were cast out of work by the financial sector. I don’t know – what is one supposed to do? Tell me? Am I supposed to talk about these things at coffee mornings and dinner parties with food and drink from M&S or Waitrose – in the culture of what Richard Curtis calls ‘Oh Dearism’? ‘Take to blaming immigrants, teachers, the police maybe? Or maintain a fixed on eye on the machinery of hate at Tory Central Office?
Human beings are animals too and politics can be used to direct this fear bound aggression in creative and amusing ways for the Establishment. And it is. Just go down to Dover and see the crowds of ignorant and abused anti-immigration demonstrators outside the reception centres being allowed to accost immigrants in the name of creating a ‘hostile environment’. It’s depraved and disgusting. I have to turn my head away because I’d just love to go down there quite honestly and have it out with those who think it OK to behave like that and change their thinking. But what would it take to change their POV? Facts and figures? Or something a little harder?
I think that frustration will continue to grow and worst is yet to come. I’m prolific here only because as well as you letting me be so it is the only online forum of any type I go on and the most intellectually stimulating. It brings out the best in me shall we say. But not always eh? And you know it Richard. I really dare not go on Twitter or others because I’m not sure I’d trust myself to do so – I self regulate. And sometimes I go too far and you don’t publish what I say – and I’m grateful for that.
But the thing is this: sooner or later the theory, the talking, the debate has to stop and something else has to take over. I see many of the ideas discussed here as post-revolutionary, post change or even post-cataclysmic. Am I making sense? We’ll need them one day when somehow – anyhow – we can discuss them properly and have a go at trying them out. But only after the fact.
Who is deluded here? The far Left and dreams of revolution? Or those who advocate negotiating with Right wing criminals in belief that the criminals would do so in good faith? What good faith? I don’t see any. Do you? Remember BREXIT? We have policies created by people like Priti Patel and Dominic Raab – beneficiaries of their parent’s hard work and luck accusing those without such a start in life (and the people they will be ruling over) as lazy and feckless. God help us.
One thing you can credit the Right for – they are not squeamish (unlike progressives perhaps) when it comes to asserting their beliefs. We kid our selves with words like ‘proto-fascist’ to reassure ourselves that things are not that bad yet. They’re getting bad, but not that bad eh? But for whom? Who says so?
I think that if you are an immigrant (even a naturalised one like the Windrush generation), disabled, unable to work, a council tenant, a person needing mental health services or somewhere safe and caring to see you out as your brain is dying, or a cancer patient – Fascism and its intolerance of any imperfect body politic or perceived weakness or need is already here – in full regalia no less.
There will have to come a time when perhaps we’ll have to go our separate ways. I would not want you to associate your self with me because what I am capable of outside of rational thought would sully your obvious humanity and decency and I respect that too much. I wouldn’t blame you if you turned and walked way from me and kept walking in that scenario. You’d be right to do so. You keep walking towards the light Richard; I’m going to dabble in the darkness for a bit because I feel like it. But even in the darkness be assured I know your worth. And to me, to see real change realised along the lines you and others suggest would be worth me maybe sacrificing my humanity? Who knows?
But everything at times like this has its place but they surely are extraordinary times. The history of human conflict is littered with conflict transforming into peace, when listening in the first place was in short supply or just not considered as an option by those too hot to make their mark on the world.
And what drives all this, is Tory cruelty. By ‘taking away’, they have created fear.
Fear of losing work. Fear of becoming ill. Fear of being poor. Fear of being different. Fear of being left behind. Fear of no security. Fear that this Government and it’s ideology is here to stay; that it will endure and that the alternatives are not alternatives at all – just a slightly nicer version of uncaring cruel politics – the sort that delivers interest rate hikes and cost of living squeezes as nature’s inevitabilities (thank you Tim Snyder) , with exhortations not to ask for wage increases from people whose monthly income could feed a whole family for a year.
I don’t know about anyone else but I feel that I and your persecutors have that in common – Fear. And I’m sick of it. I’m sick of living in fear and I’m sick of its perpetrators and I’m sick of waiting for some epiphany to occur. And I’m sure they want relief too.
All I’m doing here is being honest and acknowledging something dark in all of this within myself as a warning. Your posts are some of the most keenly thought through and intelligent on the web, But that does not make them neutral; in fact, so credible that they are – it does not stop them making people angry. And remember that what is going on in peoples lives – even those who read your blog and on Twitter – is amplified by your posts. It’s just the way things are at the moment.
Fear and anger rules; it will ebb and flow; it will grow hot and then cool. But’s that’s the rub of this particular green. You must know that Richard – otherwise why would you bother at all? There is always the risk that people will internalise your input and use it to justify their idealisation of change. It comes with the territory. Once it’s out there what control do you have over its use?
You wanted to talk about political reality. Reality is a huge subject of which MMT, tax etc., is a part (but it has yet to come to reality – it is always it seem to be being strangled at birth). But the other concurrent reality is a society dominated by the politics of fear provided for us gratis by Fascism. It will turn people inside out, prevent them from recognising friend from foe; it will stretch friendships and loyalties and obfuscate priorities. It will lead us into some very dark places as Tim Snyder tells us in ‘Black Earth’.
One thing we must not lose sight of is who and what is driving this fear. And it’s not some angry and frustrated poster who has chewed your over about an ineffective opposition politician.
Do I really need to point out to you and others here where this is all coming from? And why we need to stick together despite our differences? Maybe I do? Maybe we all have to keep reminding ourselves?
My advisory is simple: Keep Looking Up. To London. To Parliament. To the Tory Party. And even those in Labour drawn to populism themselves.
Phew….
You too needed to clear the air!
I too was going to comment on your blog. Like many people who worked in local government through the 1980s and 90s (and beyond), I saw many opportunities and ideas for excellent projects that would have benefited local people trashed or come to nothing because ideological ‘purity’ – triumphed over reality and compromise. But having read all of the contributions above – and particularly PSR’s powerful and deeply moving contribution – I’ll limit myself to this: ‘Well said Richard, and everyone whose subsequently added their support.
Thanks Ivan
I’m so sorry you have to put up with mindless abuse. I have learnt such a lot from following your blog, not least how to understand the flaws in some economic arguments. Thank you for continuing to publish, to educate and to stimulate debate – which should always be civil and respectful!
Thanks
Thank you Richard.
I am coming to the conclusion that each party is an uneasy coalition between head-bangers and sail-trimmers.
Neither has any use for ideas.
Head-bangers know it all already, and anyone who disagrees with them is evil. Sail-trimmers are aware that ideas exist, but are certain that they will not help win elections.
The Conservatives are firmly in the control of head-bangers, Labour in the control of sail-trimmers, but Labour head-bangers will fight to the death to keep the sail-trimmers from power.
You contribute ideas, but in UK politics, these are about as welcome as the proverbial flatulence in a space suit.
Maybe you are moving things slowly, but do we have time?
I don’t always think you are right, but do keep up the good work
Good questions
Thanks
There is no need for excuse for excluding from your personal blog an individual who, instead of engaging in reasoned discussion about ideas you have written about, descends into personal abuse.
And while anyone who has even superficial acquaintance with your writings will have no doubt that while you are not an enthusiast for our current Prime Minister, you have no obligation therefore to offer unqualified support to Keir Starmer. It seems to me that when your writing tends to the political (as opposed to your interesting observations on tax, company law, audit standards and so forth) you are trying to get all thinking politicians to break from orthodoxy and look at economic politics in a different way. I don’t intend it as an insult to Starmer to say that his primary aim is not to introduce similarly controversial ideas, but create a focus for a credible and electable alternative to our current government in the eyes of the voting public.
But kudos for defending yourself in a way which takes you to an interesting discussion on the outdated concepts of right versus left, capitalism versus socialism, and what politics with integrity would look like. And stimulating some equally interesting comments from correspondents. It is that stimulation which keeps me reading your blog, I may not agree with everything but it always makes me think.
Thank you
Hi Richard. Its so good to hear people like yourself express themselves so eloquently and with honest regard for others. I don’t have that capacity to put my thoughts into words. It’s for that reason that I’m glad I’ve found your blog. You’re a good man but I fear there are not enough of your kind around. Regards, Dave.
Thanks
Thank you, Richard. I, as so many who’ve left comments here wholeheartedly agree with your perspective upon politics and economics. You give me hope that the world could be a more fair, compassionate and ecologically sound one… If only some in power would see the logic in your ideas!
Thanks
Firstly, I have regularly attacked Starmer here for his inept, insipid concept of Opposition. As a lifelong member of the Labour left, I expressed the view that Starmer is a fully paid up member of the political class and British elite. I described him as “MI5 approved “, an observation Richard called silly. Nonetheless, Richard publishes my posts and proves himself a worthy, open minded democrat. Any suggestions that he holds a brief for one Party or one individual are without foundation.
However, there aren’t left wing and right wing trolls, only trolls. Democrats and socialists share an unshakeable belief in pluralism and insults under any guise are anathema. Socialists are against racism, xenophobia, misogyny and demonisation or any minority. They are for debate of principle. Are there socialists who do not practise these principles? Are there alleged humanitarians who appear to hate welfare scroungers more than tax evasion by the elite? Are there Christians who seem more full of hate than appears biblically justified? Do bears defecate in the forest! Humans are frail, passionate, rather selfish a lot of the time and therefore horribly inconsistent. We have to live with that and not hurl condemnatory labels at everyone who annoys or mystifies us. Judge the individual behaviour, especially on this site. If someone calls themselves left or right, it is irrelevant. Their language, tone and literary demeanour decide whether they are trolls ,judged by the standards of this site and the standard of debate we try to adhere to. NOTHING ELSE MATTERS, PLEASE.
I would like to finish by explaining in outlne why Starmer has created the passions that he has within the Labour Party. This is not a justification for those offended doing what they have, but you always need to understand the context. Starmer instituted an immediate campaign to cleanse the Party from supporters of Corbyn who, fairly obviously, are left of centre. We do not have precise figures, but know over two hundred thousand members have resigned and that the Party has a deep financial crisis as a consequence of both loss of subscriptions and voluntary gifts, which were very high during the Corbyn era. This catastrophic collapse in members has been achieved by firstly abandonning every one of the policy pledges made during his election campaign and by simultaneously mounting an anti democratic purge in the constituency parties. A number of these have been suspended as bodies, effectively winding up the Party in those areas. All have been instructed, on express pain of suspension, that resolutions about Starmer’s leadership, including calls for his resignation and any expressions of support for the Palestinians are not competent business. Unsurprisingly, gagging democracy in such a blatant way has generated massive anger. Additionally, many Jewish members of the left have been expelled for anti Semitism because they characterise Israeli policies as racist (as does Amnesty International). Jewish Voice for Labour, an avowedly left wing group is being threatened with expulsion. The last annual conference was marked by blatant gerrymandering, notably over the confirmation of Evans as Party General Secretary.
This internal detail is monumentally boring for anyone outside the Labour Party, but it speaks volumes about the leader and the cabal around him. So, opposing a leadership that is no more wedded to democracy than Johnson is a huge issue, not to be dismissed as petty doctrinal wrangling, but a matter for serious debate (although not on this site, perhaps).
So, there is not a modicum of excuse for abuse, but there IS a context.
Again, there are no right or left wing (or reasonable centrist, for that matter!) trolls, JUST TROLLS.
“Materialism is just the epistemological view that the methods of physics can provide us with a complete account of how things are”.
If that is what you mean by materialism I agree with you.
But straying too far from materialism and science undermines the case for action against climate change , and of the nature of forces that dominate our lives.
They in turn are not too difficult to understand. The trick is moving on from that to changing the world.
And for that we all have to move from the realm of ideas to that of action.
As someone who works in healthcare imploring us all to care is not enough.
Its a good place to start , that’s all.
Otherwise I’m with you and applaud your efforts and endurance.
I just wish Rachel Reeves listened more to you.
I am referring to materialism as the idea that more consumption is always better
Thank you, Richard, for all your thoughts. I wonder, though, whether by concentrating on the economics and politics of our life as a nation, we overlook something else that needs attention. People are emotionally immature, astonishingly so. Childish ideas, actions and reactions, are not effectively challenged and redirected by our educational system. Political parties prefer it that way: they feed off people’s immaturity and appeal to their distorted ideas of reality, unchecked and unmoderated by experience of life and compassion for others. At 75 I can’t claim to be fully ‘grown up’, but at least an excellent state education made me aware of my deficiencies and gave me some idea how to address them. I don’t know how schools manage these days, but some are still producing the likes of Cameron and Johnson. Many voters support such characters because they are, like themselves, emotionally immature (though of course they can’t admit this). How can we change this?
Interesting question, requiring time to muse upon which I have not got right now
Sorry!
Dana
There is a movement created by a modern philosopher called ‘Alain de botton’ he founded the ‘school of life’ which aims to improve peoples Emotional Intelligence and has assembled a team of very good progressive thinkers. Although it’s not perfect, ‘nothing is’. But it’s a move in the right direction.
For me, a beacon of hope for humankind lies in the North. Scandinavian politics and economy have got their system pretty much spot on. Private Enterprise with a high tax system paying into society at large giving every single person a good quality of life. ‘Look at the happiness index’ The happiest people on earth year after year are from Scandinavia. Looking at the tanks lined up and soldiers on the Ukrainian border fills me with deep sadness. Does the ordinary Russian really want a pointless war.
One of your best ever posts, Richard. Worth several re-reads!
It is very heartening to see how you manage to use the nastiness directed at you as a thoughtful springboard to explain not just why such attacks fail, but to articulate so clearly how our politics could (must?) improve and serve the vast majority of us so much better, were it to simply engage honestly with the world as it is. Especially re tax/money.
Being trapped by language, thinking and traditions that are no longer fit-for-purpose is – and I realise this is a slight understatement – not leading to good outcomes.
Your wish to stay independent of any particular party is also entirely sensible, for obvious reasons. And I think it should be added that those of us who believe PR should replace FPTP understand that under a fairer voting system, collaboration and compromise between parties would become a constant feature. So… Independently sourced ideas might just provide some useful bridges between wary tribal camps in that strange new world, AKA ‘a functioning democracy’.
Best wishes,
Mark
Thanks Mark
Much comment on Starmer perhaps requires looking at his promises on election.
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
Not unrooted in reality but quite doable for a progressive party.
Sorry to link to the Express, but it has a decent summary of the ways in which Starmer has broken the pledges he made to get elected as leader.
https://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/1498591/keir-starmer-labour-party-conference-boris-johnson-10-pledges-jeremy-corbyn-spt
This is very tedious and nit what this site is about