This weekend a person who has all the appearance of being a right-wing troll, but may be the concerned member of the Labour Party that they claim to be, took aim at what they obviously think to be my extreme political opinions. These did, she claimed, undermine my academic arguments on modern monetary theory and anything else I had to comment upon because of their extreme nature. The evidence for this was my criticism of Keir Starmer's current policy vacuum, which I am far from alone in noticing.
A lot of trolls did pile onto the blog behind this person, and were deleted, as usual. I do not host a site where right-wing extremists are provided with the opportunity to be abusive. That is why all comments are moderated.
But what really gets me is the idea that I am, apparently, an extremist.
I believe in a mixed economy. I very firmly support the right of people to create and own businesses. But I also expect them to be accountable and to pay their taxes. I also expect regulation to prevent market abuse to be upheld, because only if these things happen can we have fair markets, and who wouldn't want them? I could not be more pro-fair markets in many ways.
I also want us to manage climate change. Who wouldn't when our own futures and those of our children are at risk? Why would anyone want to take that risk?
I want to ensure no one lives in fear of hunger, homelessness, the cold, illness, old age, the perils of unemployment and being denied opportunity. Why would anyone do otherwise?
I believe people are equal as well as different. I have lived this experience since I was very young, having a gay twin brother who I realised, when really quite young, was different to me and as valuable. I cannot abide prejudice as a result. Why does anyone disagree?
I believe that there are some things where the state can deliver more cost effectively than markets. Where there is only room for one supplier if everyone is to have access to a service, whether paid for (such as water, energy and railways) or supplied for free (such as the NHS and education), then I think that it is the state's job to supply such services so that access is universal and either abuse or denial of service does not arise. Who would want anything else?
I believe in the right to be. That is, the right to have time off or to have the time to think, to laugh, to live, to understand, to relax, to idle an afternoon in a way of our choosing. But I know this right has been hard won and is not universal now. Why would anyone want to deny these things to anyone?
I believe work is worthwhile. I know most people would like to work. But I believe in that case in making work the best possible experience for people, and not in it just being an opportunity to exploit their labour for profit. What is wrong with that?
I think the value generated from work is greater in importance than the returns made from speculation, exploitation and extraction. Too many so-called businesses are actually engaged in the latter activities, whether they be most energy companies, banks or even many pension funds. I believe that they should be heavily regulated and/or taxed as a result, because the so-called profits they make are extractions from the well-being of others, and are not value added to society at large. Who would disagree?
I believe in equality of opportunity. Don't you? Doesn't that make you want the best possible education for everyone? Why wouldn't you?
I believe in equality within our democracy. So I am opposed to private control of much of the media and the access the wealthy secure to politicians and the influence they secure as a result. Unless you are a eugenicist why would you disagree?
I do not believe there is a gene that identifies a natural right to govern. Again, unless you are a eugenicist, why would you?
I believe instead we all have the right to govern - and so I believe in the widest representation of people in society within politics - even when I disagree with those saying something. But there have to be limits on the promulgation of hate. Ethics requires it. Why would you disagree?
I believe in the state as the mechanism for delivering much of this, because there is nothing else. So I think those arguing for a small state do not want them. Why else would they argue as they do?
I believe in progressive taxation that is properly enforced because I see tax as a way to deliver social, economic and fiscal policy within a state for the well-being of all. This is not what we have now. Why would you want the tax system to be biased in favour of the rich, as it is at present?
And I believe in justice. Mainly I believe in forms that seek to correct wrongs done: but justice has to be done and be seen to be done, and that is not possible in the society in which we live where most have been excluded from any opportunity to seek remedy for wrongs of any sort. Why would you oppose that?
But most of all I want freedom from fear. I want people to live lives of hope, and not despair and anxiety which is all that is offered to most now. Why wouldn't you want that?
Does any of these things make me an extremist? Why?
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:
Bravo Richard. That is to me the definition of what the Labour Party ought to be. As you say, not extreme, but progressive, fair and for everyone. But I’m really not sure what it stands for at the moment. Starmer seems so focused on not losing, he’s failing to provide the hope we really need
This is the Epitomy of the society I hope the UK will be. But without a lever for change, Starmer, there will only be a descent into right wing ideology. I worry that the next election will be our last chance at a vote,full stop, if Starmer loses. With the perceived imperfect Labour govt in power we can help shape its future direction. It’s the best chance we have and possibly the last. I want my children to live in a society with human rights, with employment rights, with regulation for clean water, affordable housing, affordable food and energy, I want them to have hope for the future. That hope is Starmer and I apologise to all die hard left wing Labour supporters of Corbyn. Much respect for most of what he stands for, but it’s been proved that power is not in reach for that approach. If you are not in power you are powerless to change lives.
Starmer is not that hope because he won’t speak up for those things
Why are you making up something that is not true?
What concerns me most about these right wing trolls and for that matter other right wing fanatics is that they consider the very values that you mention above to be left wing extremism.
It is very sad that when such humanitarian values have been so completely abandoned in favour of a “dog eat dog” ideology that surely we have to ask why it has come to this?
In my opinion we are now at this point because the vast majority of ordinary people in the U.K. have been conditioned into a mind set that rules out political discussion and that any challenge to the status quo is subversive.
In the main the right wing of the political spectrum have taken control of main stream media and in “Pavlovian style” conditioned the public to treat alternative viewpoints as almost heretical. Just look at the savage and vicious manner in which they attacked Jeremy Corbyn.
As far as I can see the only way to counter the effects of MSM is to devise a coherent strategy for using the internet as a vehicle for reconditioning this herd mentality.
Personally, I think your views are more than reasonable. Only a crank, or the like, could think otherwise.
This happens when you make an impact with verifiable, well-considered arguments and people take notice, become equipped with the very same arguments, and are stimulated to test them for themselves. There will be people who do not like that but keep it up at some point they will realise that attacking you will draw some of their followers to read what you say and become convinced of your message.
Hear hear
Who is going to stand up for this ?
Work in itself should be appreciated not driven down to the lowest cost. What happened to the respect, and reward, we had to those who actually help our society eg teachers, doctors, nurses, police, firemen, etc. Whatever happened to our help for heroes ? Only really appreciated when trouble arrives
Working tax should be lower than those incomes from non-work eg dividends, rent, etc. or else what is the point in working ?
You are an extremist because what was the ‘norm’ has been dragged so far to the right that the centre has shifted too. Its they who have lost thier moorings, not us
When you realise that these people who like to strawman you as ‘anti-market’ don’t even understand that their supposed position as the natural successors of Adam Smith’s free market ideal is flimsy at best, then it’s almost pointless arguing with them.
They don’t seem to know or care that the ‘free’ part refers to being rid of the very rentiers they believe “add value” and “create wealth”.
The irony is lost on them.
I have had the same sentiments levelled at myself a number of times and witnessed it happen to many others – and often for the same reason (either criticism of Starmer or of Labour’s so-called ‘centrists’ as well as their refusal to engage in any meaningful policy proposals) as yourself detailed in your OP. Its absurd and its mendacious. Different people engage in this mixture of bad faith and ignorance for different reasons: for some its partisanship and tribalism with the right-wing of the Labour Party steeped in this. From my encounters (so I appreciate that this is entirely anecdotal) many of these people appear to agree with a fair amount of what you have detailed but are unable to accept that anyone but ‘them’ (personally and their factional group) could possibly achieve or sincerely hold such values – deluded gate-keepers. This attitude and behaviour does explain a lot (not all by any means) about the majority of the PLP and party officers actions during the Corbyn years of Labour. Labour’s left wing is usually so damned fractious that I wonder if they’ll ever be able to even remotely match this kind of cohesiveness of action although the excellent crop of current union leaders might yet be able to wrangle them into something genuinely potent and progressively transformative. As for others such as reactionaries and hard-right zealots, typically it’s believing in what they’ve been told whether it be the bigotry of the DM (or similar rag), culturally ingrained disdain for minorities or the impoverished, or plain old ignorance of how systems such as our economy operate believing the nonsense spouted by Kuenssberg and others on the BBC.
Being labelled an “extremist” for these views is the reality for people with some measure of compassion for others and some understanding of how to improve our lot in the midst of this chaotic and irrational society we live in. Regardless of how robust an individual you are Richard I hope that you’re rising above this unpleasantness and doing well.
Thanks
No Richard, if anything you are a paragon of reason.
This is the part of the story when we all get to see what’s behind the curtain, despite the best efforts of a few beknighted lackeys.
Or is that flunkeys?
You also believe anyone who voted Tory to be fascist, anyone who voted for Brexit to be racist and now you slaughter any Labour supporters who back Kier Starmer. I do t know if that makes you extremist but it certainly makes you dogmatic, divisive and intolerant. That said why should that bother you? You will make more waves with the Left by being all those things.
I believe the Tory leadership is heading for fascism, for which there is ample evidence
Brexit was motivated by racism, without a doubt
And Starmer is failing Labour
These are objective observations
Your problem with them is?
The problem at the moment, and it was started by Blair, is that populism rules the roost in British politics today, Focus groups being the drivers of policy. If the public want something it has to be correct despite it being bad for the country as a whole.
Just look at what you outline and myself at 75 years old can see the drift towards fascism occasioned by pandering to public wants instead of the countries needs.
Brexit was the opportunity for all the racist ideals in individuals to be channeled in to one so called glorious showing the door to foreigners.
Starmer is a chancer and is keeping his options open however the trouble is that in so doing he is disregarding the needs of the country and again appealing to public sentiment which as we can see from above only leads towards this right wing fascist drift.
Unfortunately by aping the market ideals of “the customer always being right” we have developed a salesman mentality whereas in politics there are no customers only citizens who deserve a stable and equitable society in which to live.
@Rick
Again. More strawmanning.
You have engaged in fallacy of composition. To say that most racists likely voted for Brexit is not the same as saying all that voted for Brexit were racist.
If you don’t understand the distinction then you have a lot to learn and probably shouldn’t embarrass yourself on here any further.
I don’t know where you live but here in the East of England racism is rife and was the largest motivating factor for Brexit. From discussions with friends this was also rife in the north of England.
I agree, also from the East of England
Your views are very similar those of the then so-called centre and right of the Labour Party in the 1970s (such ‘extremists’ as Healey and Hattersley among others), as far as I can see, i.e. not extreme at all. (Climate change was not a salient political issue in the 1970s, obviously.)
Spot on
It might not have been a political issue, in the public domain, but a consensus over global warming had already emerged in the 70’s:
Memorandum to the President:
Release of Fossil CO2 and the
Possibility of a Catastrophic Climate Change
(within 60 years:) Because of the “greenhouse effect” of atmospheric CO2 the increased concentration will induce a global climatic warming of anywhere from 0.5 to 5 °C.
… The potential effect on the environment of a climatic fluctuation of such rapidity could be catastrophic and calls for an impact assessment of unprecedented importance and difficulty. A rapid climatic change may result in large scale crop failures at a time when an increased world population taxes agriculture to the limits of productivity.
… The urgency of the problem derives from our inability to shift rapidly to non-fossil fuel sources once the climatic effects become evident not long after the year 2000; …
—Frank Press, 7 July 1977
Chief science adviser to U.S. President Carter
Unfortunately the public at the time, due to a few sensationalist articles (particularly one in Newsweek) had been led to believe a new ice age was on the cards.
This came about because very early satellite data, in the early 70’s had shown increased snow and ice cover in the northern hemisphere; there were two severe winters in ’72-’73 & ’73-’74, which were subsequently shown to be against trend. Major articles on climate from the late 60’s through the 70’s, that made predictions (many didn’t) fell 44:7 in favour of predicting global heating, but somehow the minority view got the press.
It really was unfortunate, because it led to terms like “the ice age fallacy” and comments, which you’ll still occasionally see today, like “if the scientists were wrong about the ice age, why should we believe they’re right about global heating”. The irony being that the majority were far from wrong about the ice age, but the public perception they were persists and still, albeit marginally, affects current debate.
I think the concept of the Overton window is useful in dealing with this kind of individual.
I have long since ceased being surprised at how extreme the reaction can be if you step outside of the ideas that have been approved for public consumption by Murdoch and the Mail and are therefore de facto the only topics allowed for discussion in the rest of the British media.
In my experience any idea, particularly one backed up by a sound evidence based argument, from outside the window often leads to anything from a refusal to further discuss the topic to outright anger.
Sadly the answer to your repeated question ‘who would disagree’ and variants on that, appears at the moment to be the leader of the Labour party and much of the PLP. (I discount all Tory members and voters as they have proved over and over that they disagree). What I cannot get my head around is WHY?
I think since Thatcher the mainstream media has focused on trying to push the collective consciousness of the UK farther and farther to the right – with the result that politicians and commentators who want to put forward an agenda that is fairer and more user friendly for the mass of people are now labelled as dangerous left wing extremists by people who have allowed their mindset to be pushed rightwards. Ian Hislop wrote, a few years ago, about the outrage that is provoked now by people whose ideas are “a little bit left wing”. I hope you’ll never let the trolls get you down Richard, KBO
I heard someone backing one of the the ‘extreme views’ you hold this morning on the Today program around 7:30. The subject was the usefulness of corporate tax cuts. ‘We’ve tried them for a decade. They don’t bring investment here. They don’t encourage investment in productivity.’
He also talked about failure over the last ten years. Your fellow ‘extremist’ was Rishi Sunak.
The old labels seem to be increasingly inaccurate.
It is because they know you are right, Richard. If they were not afraid of your vision for a fair society they would ignore and not troll
All power to you. Equality, fairness, brilliant public services, fair taxation and general well being and happiness are the right of everyone in a properly democratic society
Your list is very reasonable (and certainly not an extreme left wing agenda by any measure). However, I would alsi be surprised if Kier Starmer disagrees with any one of these statements! This made the very personalised tirade you launched against him the other week even more surprising. In terms of tactics it is clear that Starmer is trying to grab a more centre ground to get the media, and more of the electorate on board instead of scaring them off. This is no different to how Tony Blair courted the centre ground and kept labour in power for a decade. There is a legitimate debate around how far Starmer should move in this direction to get Labour elected, but this should be an argued debate, which was not the tone of your previous piece.
There is little evidence Starmer believes anything is more important than balancing the books
Putting my list second to that is to not believe in them
Really? As far as I can I see Starmer is either silent on any issue of consequence or else sides with the Tory party. Given his background I might have expected him to speak up for the barristers recently on strike and on the necessity of a properly functioning legal system including legal aid if there is to be any justice for anyone but the rich in this country – just one example of many. Instead of expressing concern for the workers trying to get a reasonable pay offer forced into striking he bans MPs from supporting them. This may well all be strategy that he thinks will get erst while Tory voters to vote for him, but it isn’t a strategy to get Labour party supporters on board. He isn’t in the centre ground, he is well to the right of it.
He supposedly has some experience of being a human rights lawyer but shows zero evidence of it.
Hard to disagree with any of it… nobody deserves a living but everyone deserves the opportunity to build a living for themselves kind of view.
Hear hear! Sign me up
Richard, you are a shining light and I have learned so much from you about MMT and your values align with mine, so I thank you for being so vociferous in your thoughts and beliefs, keep going, this *will* gain momentum.
The reason you are an extremist is, to me, quite straightforward.
The mere fact they are extremists tells us all we need to know. Extremists are at best dangerously misguided and at worst just plain dangerous.
You being an extremist means we do not need to engage with what you say and it lays a groundwork for the future should your words start to gain too much traction, after all it is acceptable to silence voice of extremists
Agreed. With all of it. If that makes me a left-wing extremist, I’m happy to be one, even though I don’t believe such a label makes any sense.
First of all there is no way that you are an ‘extremist’. I would not be here if you were for a start. Nor are you orthodox Left.
Rather, you hold I think Left-ish/socialist objectives for society – and socialism was never about the sharing of poverty as some Chinese communist leader wisely once said. You have centred on a number of heterodox ways of achieving those outcomes that go beyond the weak and exhausted arguments of the traditional Left and thank God you have.
I find a lot of people want change -they know something is wrong – but they have no idea what that change looks like. That is part of the problem.
The other part of the problem though is more ossified: there is a reluctance to accept that some if not all of the Neo-liberal based decisions made in the past were actually bad ones. People look at how these came about – out of a period of social and economic upheaval – and that period has a bogeyman status that seems to be imprinted on our collective memory.
As these heathen Tories takes us into even more dangerous waters, it will be interesting to see what happens next – that the future becomes even more scary than the past. And admitting that we were wrong to embrace Thatcherism – that day is yet to come but I think it will.
Here is another POV in today’s Guardian:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/aug/02/labour-power-keir-starmer
I have to disagree with Polly, but I have been doing that quite a lot over the 40 years I have known her
It is always telling when you are being attacked from both ends of the political spectrum (though I think politics is too complex to be defined in one dimension only). The further Left get upset because you are not anti-capitalist per se, whilst being highly critical of todays financialised neo-liberalism capitalism. The Right are upset by your criticisms of today’s capitalism and your strong support for decent public services and fair taxes. Neither seem to want to understand MMT and its implications.
Your summary is entirely reasonable to me and a checklist to keep to one side as a reference. The attacks from both ends of the spectrum confirm that you are in the right place.
I think that Polly is naïve in many respects. The Tories are not only nasty but also cunning.
They have a stranglehold on British politics and have stymied the opposition. If Labour was truly more progressive, they’d be touted as extremists like you have been. I think it’s about timing now – and even subterfuge.
What I’d like to believe is that Starmer is biding his time, keeping his powder dry and is keeping a raft of progressive polices under wraps. But it’s bloody frustrating. He’s testing my patience most severely and many others too. There is a risk that he could lose people.
And that Truss will get in and make things much worse. I mean how can you say as a party that you care about the CoLC and then want to destroy the median wages provided by the public sector as she is proposing? The overall impact will see wage degradation increase, not improve. Crass.
I think that what the real issue is, is fear as you have rightly pointed out. When you are scared about ‘the now’, thinking about the future is almost impossible.
Labour needs to remove the fears and it can only do that by talking about fear with potential voters in that way – empathising with them and offering something – many things – to stop it.
I agree completely with your manifesto. I am also disappointed that the Labour Party (of which I am a member) is not articulating this vision.
It seems to be a re-run of 1996/97 where Labour choose to mimic Tory policies (including pledges to follow Tory spending for a couple of years) in the belief (correctly as it happens) that when offered two similar offers the voters would reject the old/tired Major government in favour of a New Labour government. We can argue about the merits of the Blair government (could have done more, more quickly; stayed out of Iraq etc.) but the benchmark for comparison is not Utopia but another Tory government…. and in lots of areas (min. wage, health and education) there were clear gains. Politics is the art of the possible.
Does this strategy make sense in 2022/23? I don’t know…. but in the short term (until the end of this year) I suspect Napoleon’s dictum applies “Never interrupt the enemy while they are making a mistake”. So I am more annoyed about Starmer cutting off reasonable possibilities (re-joining the single market, so-called “fiscal orthodoxy” etc.) and internal politicking (sacking Sam Tarry) than I am about a policy vacuum. Perhaps “If you stay silent people might THINK you are stupid… but if you speak they will KNOW you are stupid” applies.
I think that Polly Toynbee has analysed this correctly. I had two dealings with Starmer when he was a human rights lawyer and I was a prosecutor. I found him both honest and very effective in strategic thinking. It seems to me that the best we can do with the catastrophe of Brexit is not to argue about it but too undermine it practically. Similarly, even though we absolutely support the right to strike, it is not the only weapon available and It does guarantee rejection by too many of the people who need to be convinced to abandon Thatcherism on the very straightforward ground that it has been proved not to work.
While writing, may I recommend an essay in the London Review of Books 4/23 December 1989 analysing the different approaches of Thatcher and Lawson – “MargaretThatcher’s magic pudding and Nigel Lawson is bitter pill”. I can’t give a useful reference because it is behind a pay wall. The parallel between Truss and Sunak And Thatcher and Lawson is very striking.
Yes. This encapsulates why I follow this blog. My opinions too, but put more eloquently than I could myself
You are only an ‘extremist’ in that the public narrative has been skewed. Things that should be regarded as reasonable, and reasonably centrist (such as a liveable environment, enough to live on comfortably, decent working conditions and the like) have come to be regarded as dangerously leftist demands. The exploitation of the many by the few has been so normalised that the whole political narrative has shifted rightwards. Labour is just pink Tory. It’s the new form of colonialism, and this time it’s not defined by geography: the public is the indigenous tribe that is being colonised, enslaved by a cruel economic system, and exploited.
Thank you Richard. Please keep going. You are the epitome of rationality and good sense.
Richard
Will you be at any events on the fringe of the Labour Party conference? I would love to hear you debate your very moderate and in my view, centrist views with the broader party members .
I would also be happy to invite you to speak to my CLP , via zoom, if you would like to continue the debate.
Thanks.
I am not expecting to be so