I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
The Conservative Party is collapsing in front of our eyes. The suggestion that there was no one who could lead them after the destructive premiership of Boris Johnson is proving to be true. But this is creating a dangerous vacuum in English politics. A thread…
To anyone who wants to be rid of the Conservatives and their far-right policy agenda the news that Tufton Street's policies are already being massively rejected by the electorate seems like good news.
Labour poll leads exceeding 30% are now becoming commonplace. They may not last, but equally the idea that the Tories might form the next government now seems very remote, although events (by which I mean nuclear war) could still change that, maybe.
Assuming Putin does not go down that route, the current prospect is that Labour will have a massive majority - maybe bigger than that enjoyed by Tony Blair when he was first elected - in the next parliament. But, and this is the key question, is that a good thing?
I have many reasons for thinking otherwise. Some are down to what Labour keep saying it will do. It will stay out of EU. It believes in balancing the government's current budget and so will deliver austerity. And it is opposed to PR.
Labour also opposes the right of countries in the Union to decide their own future. And it has a very small commitment to the green transformation agenda compared to the needs we face.
I am not, as a result, convinced that a Labour government that is dedicated to the perpetuation of neoliberalism is going to provide the answers that this country wants. And that, I suggest, is dangerous.
The reason why is that people who are flocking to Labour now because of their quite reasonable disenchantment with Tory dogmatism will find no solution to their political desires in neoliberal Labour managerialism, which is the alternative.
If Labour wins the next election with a big majority ( and I think it will) the enormous risk is that soon after it does so people realise that it provides few better real solutions to the issues that we face than the Tories.
Managing a failing economy and society better than someone else might but not seeking to change it will still mean it that economy is failing, albeit maybe more slowly. And that is not what we need.
But ignore the economic issues for a moment: I did a long Twitter thread on them yesterday. Instead think about what the reaction to this will be. I very much doubt it will be a swing back to the Tories. I think they are in terminal decline. The search will on for new ideas.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland the alternatives to failing Westminster politics are obvious. To suggest that the Union now has no future is to state the obvious. I think its demise is inevitable. Only timing is in question.
But what will happen in England? The likelihood that the Tories will be replaced by a fascist party, which could easily attract 30% of the vote, is high. I strongly suspect that this will happen.
So, can Labour either morph into the mainstream innovative, whilst competent, party that is required, or can the Lib Dems or Greens fill the void, or will there have to be something else?
The platform for this ‘something else' party that is required is not hard to imagine. It will be pro-Europe. It will be green. It will reject neoliberal balanced budget mantras, and manage the economy with the aim of full employment.
It will support redistribution. It will be intensely pro-investment in a sustainable future. It will be accountable. It will deliver electoral reform.
Labour, Lib Dems and Greens all have elements of these policies in their platforms now, but miss too much of the economic understanding. And what they ignore is that their supporters have more in common, overall, than the parties do. That is why they support tactical voting.
But, is there a way that either a) Labour can adapt, which is the safest route to keeping fascists out, or b) a new party can emerge from maybe all three to fight fascism with ideas fit for this century, which are in overall short supply in politics right now?
I do not, of course, know the answers to these questions. No one can, but I suspect many think the scenario in which I place them is realistic.
I am, let's be clear, delighted we might be rid of Tory fascism whenever the next election happens. But what I am worried about is holding fascism at bay for good.
I wish I could be confident that Labour might be wise enough to take the steps to ensure that might happen, but I am not. That's why we need to think now about what does happen in the not too distant future. A lot depends on doing so.
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:
Labour will fill the centre ground and Starmer will be Blair mk two. I am absolutely fine with that as will the majority of Labour voters. The left of the Party will almost immediately on entering power be vocal in how Starmer has “toryfied” the Party. You, Richard i have no doubt be included in that. To which i would say the far left needs to break away and form it’s own party as Labour will never be the platform they want it to be.
So, why are you reading this blog?
Miguel
The’ far left’ s crisis is one of presentation and theory. It needs a complete re-set.
The WWII post war period which is still one of the most progressive eras I think in recent times in this country was not a ‘far left’ project. It was the product of old-style liberalism and politicians who had had real jobs – in other words, working people helping to form that era. It’s major proponent and source of focus – Clem Attlee – eschewed revolution for statecraft. He only lost the follow-on election because of boundary changes having had most of the popular vote (see ‘Citizen Clem’ by John Bew (2016) ).
I’ve yet to hear the Left – far or otherwise – talk about PR. Labour too (they may have to under duress as their members see a problem that their ‘leadership’ does not).
And yet Labour has spent time instead squandering Attlee’s ‘can do’ bequeathment and sullying its own brand just because they’ve ignored the obvious answer which has been to deal with the gerrymandering in the electoral system by the establishment by bringing in proportional representation.
Compared to Thatcher, Attlee was a god in my estimation, worthy of bank holiday in his name and lots more statues given what he managed to accomplish for the people of this country.
All Thatcher – starting with milk – has done for us, is take things away – and her party is still at it, damn them to hell.
I believe this argument is basically that Starmer is simply playing the political cards he’s been dealt to the best of his ability. That, after Corbyn’s relentless attack by the press and his “rejection by the voters”, it would be sheer incompetence for him to pander to the left of his party.
I really find it hard to take this argument in good faith. Starmer was elected leader on a platform of various campaign promises, practically every one of which he’s directly broken. And he hasn’t even been pushed into breaking them, he’s just done it because he wanted to. It’s quite clear he simply lied. He’s doubled down on ever baseless attack of “antisemitism” against Corbyn, while also expelling more Jews from the party than anyone in history.
He’s gone against the unions at basically every opportunity, when supporting them is supposed to be Labour’s MO, and rejected the hugely popular rail strikes.
And then, separately, Rachel Reeves went out of her way to reject Corbyn’s economics and put Labour on a path towards austerity, when it couldn’t be more clear that the country wants and needs the exact opposite.
To me it seems like he actually relishes rejecting principle and democracy in favour of pursuing power. I don’t give him any credit at all for where he’s positioned Labour. Labour desperately needs new leadership.
Whilst tending to agree with the general thrust of your argument and as a former Labour Party member, one has considerable sympathy with the party’s leadership. There have been a number of false dawns over the years, whenever the party may have been inclined towards anything that may be considered merely different, never mind radical, it gets slaughtered in the press. Given that the apparent collapse of the Torty Party into shambolic incoherence has been so abrupt, it is surely no surprise that the Labour leadership have yet to catch up.
My problem with the Labour party, of which I am a member (displaying almost perverse loyalty), is that they exist within a bubble formed by a narrow set of opinions and the resulting policies. It seems to me that unless you happen to be a senior member of the party or part of a focus group you have no influence over anything that Labour does. Anyone who is not ‘on message’ is simply discounted. Some of these traits have developed as the party have tried desperately tried to make itself electable. The problem, it seems to me, is that this has led to a machine that only listens to headline views when surely giving us what we need rather than what we want at least some of the time would be good.
John Harris wrote this in the Grauniad;
‘A few yards away, I met Peter. Now retired, he had worked for the telecoms giant Motorola, a once-sizeable local employer that closed its Basingstoke operation in 2017. Rocketing bills, he told me, meant he was now limiting himself to two hours of TV a night, rationing lighting, keeping his heating off, and wearing sweaters and fleeces whenever he was indoors. Among the items in his shopping bag was a baguette he had got from the church.
Advertisement
In 2016, he had supported leaving the EU – hoping, he said, that the billions the Brexiteers said we gave to the EU would now be spent at home. Three years later, he enthusiastically voted Conservative, thanks to Boris Johnson.: “He seemed young to me – like he had ideas, and he was going to do something.” Now, the few words he uttered about politics were full of a weary cynicism. When I mentioned Truss and the chancellor, Kwasi Kwarteng, his face crumpled into a grimace. At the next election, he told me, he wouldn’t vote.’
When faced with these kind of attitudes no manner of swings towards populism or right wing policies will help the Labour party. In my opinion they need to stand up for the majority.
‘In my opinion they need to stand up for the majority.’
I’d be interested to know what you think that means ?
The over riding message from the Labour conference was the phrase ‘Labour are the party of working people’ – reeled out time and again in various speeches and news interviews.
So that’s approx. 1/2 the UK population. The message is clear, if you’re unemployed, disabled, an OAP, a student or a child then Labour are not the party for you.
By majority I meant ordinary people as opposed to the top 1%. I deliberately say the majority rather than working people as everyone matters. I do see the contradiction here as even the 1% are human beings.
‘ if you’re unemployed, disabled, an OAP, a student or a child then Labour are not the party for you’
I’m not sure you can draw that conclusion from Labour saying they are the party for working people.
Many working people, especially those on lower income, need to be sure that there is a safety net if they are unemployed, old, disable, sick, etc. and Labour will have polices that provide that.
It is the Tories who are trying to drive a wedge between those working for low pay, and those who are not or can’t. They neatly ignore those at the upper end of society who don’t ‘work’, relying on inherited wealth, rents, investments and clever financial tricks. They are the people the Tories definitely support.
I agree with you
Just to clarify my remark about the 1%. I’m not talking exclusively of the top 1% in terms of wealth. It’s really a comment about privilege and influence. Of course that and wealth do go hand in hand.
I concur with you on all points, Richard. My next vote will be for totally negative reasons and I possibly resent Labour more than the Tories for that. I don’t just want to exchange one set of sterile, failed policies for a slightly watered down version of the same. What was it Einstein once said? ‘You don’t solve a problem with the same thinking you used to create it.’
I thought the tune she waddled on stage to was very apt this morning. She certainly got my breakfast moving on up.
Her breakfast, I suspect, was coming out in particulate form.
I do not see how or why they can fill anything at the moment.
I mean the Tories have had to outdo themselves in nastiness to get to get Labour to this point. We arrived at TINA via extremism.
It’s all the Tories hard work – not Labour’s who have had to be dragged further to the Right anyway.
All we are going to get is Tory-lite which I suppose is some form or progress and might be better than nothing.
But nowhere near what is actually needed in my view.
I concur with almost all of your points Richard. I will only vote Labour next time round as a spoiler. Can’t see the point in trading one set of sterile, failed policies for a slightly watered down version of the same.
What was it Einstein once said? ‘You don’t solve a problem with the same thinking you used to create it.’
Incidentally I thought the choice of song Liz waddled onto stage with this morning very apt. She certainly got my breakfast moving on up.
Absent electoral reform it is almost inevitable that Labour will disappoint. A radical agenda risks losing the election (although this risk seems small now).
Besides, it is unclear what the public really want. I am a Labour Party member that will probably vote LibDem at the next election… but have usually voted Green in Non-FPTP elections; each will claim that I support all their policies. Until we get PR and a splintering of existing parties we will not know how fascist/green/socialist we really are as a nation. I expect that we will find ourselves much greener than we think we are…. and possibly, I fear, more fascist, too.
I think you hit a nail on the head
A radical agenda risks losing the election (although this risk seems small now).
Exactly, so lets get them in power and then try to change their thinking, unless you believe that Starmer campaiging for PR is a sure fire winner all we are doing is splitting the vote ever more, as has been happening for the last fourty years? The Tories love all this infighting, divde and rule .
The population are way to the elft of Labour
I really struggle with this perspective – that there just won’t be broad support for left-wing parties.
I think if you strip back all the unnecessarily divisive namecalling, the whipped up culture wars, the tribalism, then in fact much of the electorate want the same things: a decent living; to live in a friendly society; the security that comes with knowing big problems like climate change are being tackled.
There should be a bunch of no-brainer policies which will be broadly incredibly popular:
– spend spend spend (MMT)
– make the NHS world class
– tackle climate change
– involve people in democracy
Democratic socialism, if you just didn’t use that word, would be incredibly popular with most people.
To my read, the differentiator between parties in power and those not in power is not how “politically extreme” they are, it is purely in “marketing” and proximity to the establishment. What we need is someone as adept as Tony Blair at cosying up to the modern equivalents of Rupert Murdoch, but who actually understands the policies that people really want.
There wouldn’t need to be an agglomeration of three parties if Labour, after the next election, gave us proportional representation. But such an agglomeration would be difficult – the Greens reject economic growth as a desirable objective, whereas growth is fundamental to the programmes of the other two parties.
If the Tories became extinct and were replaced by a Faragist fascist party, dedicated to racist and authoritarian policies, those of us in favour of electoral reform would have to face up to the fact that this party would become a fixture in parliament.
It would be ironic indeed if the Tories had at last been put to death, Brexit having run its inevitable course, only for something worse than the Tories to be born.
The interesting question to my mind is whether Brexit will be a help or hindrance to this new fascist party. Perhaps the really big development this autumn will be the extinction of Brexit as an attractive or centripetal political offering.
There are calls from many quarters for PR. I would include myself in this. However, PR can take many, many forms – we had a referendum a few years ago on one of the more anaemic versions which sank like a stone with so little trace that most people have forgotten we had it. The devil is very much in the detail. Most versions incur the loss of the small constituency and the “my MP” representation factor. This would generate some major changes that haven’t been thought through, or even mentioned in any of the forums I frequent. They would also, in most scenarios, lead to the breakup of the current party system as the two big parties lost their internal coalitions and their raison d’etre – not a bad idea but it might be an uncomfortable process. It might also suggest some ways of reforming/replacing the current house of lords as a complement to a new way of populating the commons. I think all of this would be a good idea and I have my own thoughts about what I’d like to see, but I don’t see any discussion of this – mostly just see a plea for “PR” which could mean pretty much anything – so I wonder what the thoughts here are?
In theory, you could have AV+ almost immediately, in that you could keep the existing constituencies but you would rank each candidate in order of preference. On another ballot paper you would vote for a party or independent candidate using party list PR. You could have regional or nationwide list areas. In terms of numbers, to get decent proportionality you’d need a lot of list MPs. Maybe they could replace the House of Lords.
Alternatively you could have decent sized regions that elected, say 5-10 MPs via party list PR or STV. With the latter, you’d rank candidates from top to bottom in order of your preference
I prefer regional lists and cannot see how this undermines the constituency idea when so many constituencies make no sense anyway
Party list PR with regional lists is simple in that voters choose the party they want, and then you get proportionality if the list size is decent. It is simple and it works well in London IMO, although the LA uses an AMS, as it also has FPTP constituencies.
For now, although the polling may suggest a Labour majority, some analysts suggest it’s not a foregone conclusion because of how votes are distributed, plus having to overturn an 80 seat Tory majority. A progressive alliance after the election would for me be good for getting PR done and blending the best ideas from left/Greens/social liberals.
IMO a non aggression pact, where parties would aim to stand candidates in all seats but only campaign hard in ones with their best chances, would work well in that ‘hardcore’ Lab, Green or Lib voters could choose their party’s candidate come what may, but softer or unsure voters would be persuaded to back the best place progressive candidate. Although I am a member of the Green Party, I don’t feel I am excessively tribal
As Richard says – Lbour showing few signs of thinking outside their neo liberal box. They seem scared to address big ideas, and really big ideas are needed if they are going to marshall the funds to protect incomes, rebuild NHS, invest in Green New Deal, address ‘market’ failure in energy, railways, water etc etc
Milliband seems to be edging them to look at some of these – but as Nicolas says – they are not encouraging rank and file to discuss – no ‘let 1000 flowers bloom’
I would estimate a fascist rump of about 25% of voters, but dwindling slightly as some die off. Under FPTP possibly enough to gain 50 seats in Parliament. A Green/socialist party following popular policies (not the focus group ones but nationalising water, power, etc and going for green generation and insulation) might command a similar figure. NuNewLabor under Starmer will falter once visible activists are needed, and would probably share with the Libdems about 150+ seats (unless the LibDems ally with the Green parties). The SNP and others would hold theirs, and the Tories be reduced to virtually nothing.
However, this assumes that somebody as thick and malign as Truss does not manage to survive by emergency powers etc and consolidate the plutocracy, e.g. if Russia uses tactical nuclear weapons.
Might the major political parties be in some sort of cartel?
On ideas, yes
One of the more troubling characteristics of the Conservative conference was the universal use (at least as far as I could see), in ministerial speeches of the heavy repetition of simple, almost banal slogans; “I get it” (Kawrteng and Truss); “Delivery” (Coffey and Kwarteng), “Growth” (all of them); and Truss’s closing “Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.”; to describe anyone who disagrees with her. These are not policies, they are not promises; they are not even activities; they are speech-acts. They are performative; to yield a response, to leave a trace; to establish the language of the popular, public framing of an issue; offering easy slogans as representative of something important – which is never actually addressed.
More sinister was another form of trope, the monopolisation of a word. I do not mean an idea, but a word; this is less a matter of ideology than the brazen seizure of a term in order to possess it; a political claim to its intellectual property. The word is “Growth”, and Truss ran up the conservative flag of ownership by seizure; identifying every single political threat to the Conservative Party as: “the anti-growth coalition”. She made it up; in order to create – an enemy. The anti-growth coalition (who need not be anti-growth, and are rarely inclined to claim they own the language) are now identified as the enemies of wholesome Conservatism. Do not stand in our way.
The use of repetition, and the creation of enemies in politics are old solutions from the political playbook, for leaders in a crisis. But whose playbook?
“The specific political distinction to which political actions and motives can be reduced is that between friend and enemy. ….. …..
The distinction of friend and enemy denotes the utmost degree of intensity of a union or separation; of an association or disassociation. It can exist theoretically and practically, without having simultaneously to draw upon all these moral, aesthetic, economic or other distinctions. The political enemy need not be morally evil or aesthetically ugly; he need not appear as an economic competitor and it may even be advantageous to engage with him in business transactions. But he is, nevertheless the other, the stranger; and it is sufficient for his nature that he is, in a specially intense way, existentially something different and alien, so that in the extreme case conflicts with him are possible.”
Carl Schmitt, ‘The Concept of the Political’ (1927/1932: Trans. G Schwab, University of Chicago Press, 2007; pp.26-27)
Spot on
In other words what we are seeing at the Tory conference in Birmingham is a textbook execution of fascist methodology.
It would be nice to say that only fascists practice fascism but unfortunately the methodologies are so ingrained in politics these days it’s sometimes hard to say.
But setting one group of people onto another should be made a criminal act.
And if we have to do it all, then only at times of war.
Yes, but the language also usually comes with demagogic rhetorical skills – which she hasn’t got – so she may just as likely turn people off.
But they are also stupid. Their ‘supply side reforms’ – not only won’t promote growth but also can’t be implemented.
Is there anything more stupid than Rees-Mogg’s accusation that Putin is funding anti fossil fuel groups, given the Russian money that has flooded into the Conservatives and Vote Leave.
Maybe it is Truss saying that ‘think tanks’ are part of the ‘anti growth coalition’. You would have thought she would not want to draw attention to the fact that the ILEA /Tufton Street ‘think tanks’ are now running the government.
People displaying any degree of optimism will always get derided as naive, but here goes ….
I think there are things that Labour are ultimately quite committed to, but can’t publicly campaign about because of obvious ways they could be used / manipulated against them:
1. Electoral reform – Labour is well aware of the importance of this, I think, but won’t talk (at a leadership / manifesto level) about it until it is in government.
2. Brexit / EU – it’s obviously politically problematic to commit to going straight back into the EU. So, in the medium-term, it’s about finding the least damaging option consistent with Brexit. Longer-term, it’s different.
3. Tactical voting: always ruled-out at a leadership level, but quite obviously happens at a local level. Obvs not needed under better voting systems.
4. MMT: there are a lot of people in Labour that are persuaded by this, and – as you know – the connections between Labour policy development and academics in the relevant fields are quite wide and deep. The things that are said in a public-facing way tend to be quite simple, and focus on competence and high-level priorities. But it seems pretty clear to me that MMT is getting through within the Labour party.
5. Climate change / environmental policy: again, I think this is quite deeply entrenched in the core commitments of Labour members, and something on which I’d expect to see a Labour govt being quite bold.
Sorry if that’s too much optimism, in these grim times.
I don’t think it’s right, btw, to read the use of the shorthand “working people” as meaning that the person / organisation using that shorthand is inattentive to the needs of pensioners, those with disabilities, carers, children, etc.. It’s just a shorthand. You have to look at their policies to determined that.
I admire your optimism
Keep it going
Me too. That is the optimism that we, on the same side as you, have to give each other and promote. Especially we need PR voting. Labour conference voted for it, I know that the leadership with resist it, but it has traction. How can Lib-Dems pick up more votes from the collapse of the Tory vote? I think Truss will be replaced before the next election so the Tory vote will be better than now. My hope in the Corbyn era was that the Lib-Dems would work to get the Tories in a minority to do a deal with Labour to form a government committed to PR. Jo Swinson seemed to be determined to wreak the possibility (I keep pondering – an establishment plant).
People like a positive message of hope – let’s form that community to give it, call it the Mile End Road Optimists.
🙂
I broadly agree with you, taking a long view. If I were Starmer I wouldn’t go straight for PR. The building blocks that would making PR work in the UK are not yet in place.
More than ever now, debate at all levels in the UK hinges around identity, not issues and problem solving. THIS to my mind is the radical change that must take place in order for PR to work. PR in the current competitive debating environment risks chaos, entrenchment, factionalisation, and subsequent paralysis. Collaboration works when it has been experienced ‘small’ as successful, then learned, then enshrined in trusted processes that adapt to purpose – and backed by strong, popular sanctions. These things don’t develop overnight.
If I were Starmer I would stick with FTPT for a strong mandate, with cross Party co-operation at constituency level – then go all out with a Big Stick to build collaborative process upon which PR rests from the bottom to the top. Maybe the new ideas we need are those of process and engagement, not a shiny visionary outcome just at the moment. And I think these processes are beginning to happen as sensible people across the spectrum are banding together, unglamorously, in response to the current cluster.
I hope you are right
I do not see any chance that you are though given the position of the Labour leadership and the ability of party leaders to be deeply isolated from their parties
I think this blog is in many ways a reprise of your recent one about proportional representation.
While in previous times the Conservative and Labour parties may have coalesced around their centres of gravity, nowadays they both have seriously aberrant factions that make them awkward coalitions. And almost by definition coalitions don’t have coherent policies.
In a perfect PR alternative reality, there would be a separate party for Labour left wingers harking back to seventies idealism, as there would be for Conservatives who actually thought their party had a responsibility to the entirety of the country. They would get representation roughly in proportion to their support, while they are now invisible. But achieving government would involve a positive decision to collaborate in a coalition.
However… a party leader who delivers a FPTP general election will suddenly have at least temporary authority over those on the wings of their party who know they owe their seats in parliament to them. They might be able to achieve more, though without the benefit of a manifesto mandate. If Starmer finds himself in that situation he might promote positive ideas, as Jamie optimistically hopes, or might just carry on being solid and unexciting.
To stay sane we have to have hope in Starmer being “not-Conservative”, if only as the just rewards for Johnson winning an election on the basis of being “not-Corbyn”. It is unlikely to be worse, but there is no vision to give us hope that it would be better.
Sometimes ideas need reworking and I never deny that I do that, albeit usually from a different angle
Your conclusion is one I agree with
I imagine there’s something pretty spectacular going on behind closed doors at the think tanks. (Specifically the dark money funded right wing think tanks associated with 55 Tufton Street).
The ultimate power behind these lies with billionaire donors. It’s speculated that the Koch brothers may be examples. These guys will be watching their money being used to drive this utter fiasco with rage.
From them the money goes to the various policy wonks at the institutes and this is where things may have started to go wrong. These minions don’t actually know what they’re supposed to do, they’re in the business of interpreting the wishes of their patrons. It’s similar to the “What would Rupert say” effect that we’re told haunts the editors of Murdoch papers.
Now I’m assuming that Truss and Kwarteng are obedient puppets of these think tank staff members. (Which btw explains why Truss appears to be “buffering” when asked a difficult question – she’s the mouthpiece of an oracle of the person who is assumed to want the policy she is defending).
However one thing we can generalise about billionaires is that they’re not tolerant of cock-ups.
I expect the think tank model of influence may see a sea change, a move to a different model that isn’t so blatant. Think tanks were great when no one questioned who these “experts” on TV were but now they’re emblematic of corruption of the political process. To the extent that Truss has now (foolishly) adopted the tactic of slagging off “think tanks with vested interests”. Presumably on the principle that if you smear poo everywhere it won’t look like you’re covered in poo.
And many in the Tory party (and perhaps other parties too) will be angry that Truss and Kwarteng have killed the golden goose by so clumsily and obviously driving forward its presumed agenda.
I think where I’m going with this is that while it’s obvious that the Tories will lose next election the Right will learn, patch the software and come back with a subtle and effective new tactic that will serve the place that think tanks currently do now for them.
And I worry about Labour’s lack of sophistication. I don’t think they’re in the game at all for this level of modern machiavellianism.
I have a much more simplistic view.
I agree that the presence of the shadowy cabals and “smoking man” characters exist behind the scenes, donating heavily to the new Conservative direction, but I’m not so sure what Truss and Kwarteng are doing is necessarily a mistake.
My theory is that they realise that any political party only has so long in No. 10 before the game is up. The Conservatives are in the death throes of their premiership – that’s obvious as they are now lashing out to extremes. Their backers (be they Kochs, Barclays or whomever) represent (in my view) broken capitalism. Those backers have seen the writing on the wall and are simply trying to wring this one dry before the next general election, because they know at that point the party is over.
So the PM and Chancellor are being given free reign to implement their wackiest wish-list of political changes. As far as their backers are concerned, the more chaos that’s created the better… that’s how disaster capitalism works. Swoop in and benefit from the confusion following a major shock. If there isn’t a natural shock, create one.
Brexit did it. A privileged few must have taken Britain PLC to the bloody cleaners following that particular car crash. Amazingly we can look upon Brexit as a subtle project in comparison to this clumsy ram-raid on the exchequer. Political decisions were taken which as Any fule Kno caused Sterling to plummet, and ‘their’ brokers swung into action. Disaster capitalists short sold the pound and voila. Millions made overnight.
“Pop the Bolly, lads! There are cigars in the billiards room. Next stop – Fracking! Screw the environment, we can make more easy cash on that one. But get it done quick before we’re rumbled! and F**k the planet. I’m 65 years old with high blood pressure… who gives a crap what happens in 30 years? Now, be a good chap and pass me a concubine”
What… cynical? Me? Surely not…
While the Tories lead us further towards their fascist paradise, labelling demands for change as class war, your relentless and determined hard work, Richard, suggests a realistic way forward and is much appreciated by a growing number of us.
MMT is quietly becoming accepted by many groups around the country but it is going to have to be proved to be accepted by the majority. You can’t do that if you’re not in power.
Starmer would be foolish to offer too many changes at once. Of course he won’t commit to re-joining Europe (yet); he has to reassure those ‘red wall’ constituencies who believed there had to be something better than what we had. Many of those voters were not anti-Europe, but had been led to believe Europe was the problem.
PR? If Blair had seized the opportunity when he won his first huge majority we’d have had PR for more than twenty years now. Instead he foolishly believed we didn’t need it after all.
Let’s get Labour in, while the majority understand the need for change, then see what other forward-thinking ideas can be developed. The Great British Energy plan, for a start, has gone down well with the public.
Martin Kettle’s assessment of Starmer after the Labour Party Conference is interesting:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2022/sep/29/keir-starmer-approach-working-labour-leader-thought-judgment
“Let’s get Labour in, while the majority understand the need for change, then see what other forward-thinking ideas can be developed.”
It gives me no pleasure to say this, but on what compelling grounds do you believe the Brexit voting British public, which is quite clearly easily moved or directed by banal slogans and sound-bites (the proof of that is the heavy use political parties make of them, and reliance on them over many years), is going to embrace “forward-thinking” ideas?
Well, you’ve certainly answered my next question. My opening sentence, which I removed before posting, was: Let’ stop all this nit-picking while the Tories make hay. It’s about time we learned to recognise common ground when we see it and co-operate with each other.
In answer to your question: I had only one friend who voted Brexit, because she was fed up with ‘red tape’ interfering with her small business. By the October she was saying: It won’t happen really, will it?
I’ve met many (will 20+ do yer?) who have bemoaned voting Brexit since.
Have hope – and goodwill. That’s what people are wanting
🙂
Ah, the ‘Red Tape’ syndrome; beloved of the tabloids; what would they do with out it?
Let me surmise what the tabloids would be writing about, if the ‘red tape’ disappeared and regulations were gone; like EU membership: because we already know. I have the real problem in a single word. One word; think building regulations.
The single word is – Grenfell.
It isn’t merely the building regulations alone. Think of the thousands upon thousands of mortgage holders, currently living in fire hazard buildings; with mortgages, unsaleable homes, from which they cannot afford to leave. And nobody, nobody: not Government, builders, construction sector, the industry that designed the cladding; nobody, seems to be responsible for anything, or is required to pay the consequences of the failure.
Meanwhile, an enquiry goes on, and on; to end where, or how nobody knows. Who is responsible? Neoliberal Government that works relentlessly to achieve the end of ‘Red Tape’ forever, and succeeds not merely be cutting regulations ; because that is difficult; but far more subtly , by undermining the regulations that are there to protect the safety and interests of householders or consumers; but ensures the destruction of ‘Red Tape’ indirectly;, by claiming ‘austerity’ so that they may simply, silently, and innoticed, starve the regulators they do have from the money or manpower resources to do their job.
There is your “Red Tape”. Nobody should EVER forget it.
Just as a little reply to those who questioned my interpretation of Labour’s current slogan ‘we are the party of working people’.
Here’s a little warning, because this slogan has history, it’s been used before with drastic consequences by non other than the Labour Party.
https://www.disabilitynewsservice.com/anger-as-starmer-says-labour-is-the-party-of-working-people/
Some key phrases from the article are:
‘Keir Starmer has caused anger among disabled activists – including within his own party – after declaring publicly that Labour is “the party of working people”.
‘It risks causing a similar rift with disabled activists to the one created by the party’s current shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, when she said seven years ago that Labour did not want to be seen as “the party to represent those who are out of work”.
Starmer told the conference on Saturday: “We are the party of working people; our founding and defining mission.”
Later in his speech he added: “So we have a new opportunity now to have a Labour government that will be in partnership with business, to create work.
“Because Labour is the party of work, we always have been.”
There was no mention of disabled people in his speech.
Bob Ellard, a member of the national steering group of Disabled People Against Cuts (DPAC), resigned his Labour membership in 2015 over the Reeves comments.
This week he told Disability News Service (DNS): “Labour, by styling itself as ‘the party of working people’, will always fail to get elected by excluding millions of voters, disabled people who cannot work, or are excluded from the jobs market, family carers, unemployed people, stay-at-home parents, students, pensioners, just to mention a few.
Linda Burnip, a DPAC co-founder, added: “As a disabled person and a pensioner I find this utterly offensive.
“Labour lost over 50 seats in Scotland to the SNP because of the attitude of Rachel Reeves and others, and frankly if they still haven’t learnt anything from that they don’t deserve to get any votes from disabled or older people.”
Adding on optimism:
– I still hope for the UK to come back to the European Union (with all flaws on both sides)
– Fascist and extreme right governments can be defeated (see Slovenia), but best is not to get there.
-The sheer mass of people across Europe that think along the lines expressed by Mr. Murphy and many of its readers should also give you all the courage to keep your efforts high. You are not alone.
With my best wishes in solidarity,
Javier
Thanks
Just read this in the FT. I am sure a lot of Tory MPs will have read it too. I am sure Truss will be ousted soon.
Conservatives have chosen the path to political putrefaction
Under Truss and Johnson the Tories have sunk into factionalism and let the bad drive out the good
https://www.ft.com/content/b2e97943-f899-483e-bf49-d9c2e23f4f33
I am sorry but I cannot accept as valid a FT aticle that treats the Jeremy Corbyn fiasco so inappropriately.
Given the rotten system we have i.e FPTP, we are unlikely to get a government of all the talents but just flunkeys of whoever is PM. We have had two PM ( non Post Mortem) who appoint cronies of low ability. See what happens to a football team’s chances when only mates are selected.
The constant references by politicians to “working people” and “hard working families”, expressions which imply employed or self-employed labour, make me want to scream.
They are talking about human beings not factors of production. People with dreams, hobbies, talents, energy and enthusiasms to contribute to making the world a better place. If you lump people together and treat them like widgets you are not going to maximise productivity let alone well being. My mother, born in 1916, “worked” for only a few of her “working age” years but she cooked, cleaned, child-minded, educated, managed a family and more as well as caring for my two elderly grandmas. I refuse to believe her life was not as valuable as any hedge-fund manager. As for creative artists or writers how on earth do you classify how hard they are working and yet their output may well bring more delight to people’s lives than the hard work of (sorry Richard) an accountant. Why can we not value every human being and encourage and support them to make whatever contribution they can?
I wholeheartedly agree
Questions not being asked by Liebore iinclude the general one “why do we need markets in some areas of the economy”?
Followed by specifics:
Why do we need an electricity market? (what does it do – exactly?)
How are vital public services that are monopolies improved by being owned & operated by private companies?
Why do lower taxes encourage investment when investment is tax deductible?
The list is long, & Liebore are not even attempting to pose the questions.
On current showing, if/When Liebore win, it will look like the Warmongers government.
A very good question
“What does a market add here?”
“What does a market add here?”
Precisely.
As Michael Moore says, ‘Capitalism is system of giving and taking………..mostly taking’ (Capitalism: A Love Affair – 2010).
Too many people have failed to realise that when you bring in external investment you are a creating an extra mouth to feed – a mouth that is shoved to the front of the queue by the law and whose demands come first – before customers, workers and the planet.
very worried about Starmer’s opposition to PR. I dont think it is dithering. Trying to think what levers we have to change his mind.
John Warren is right to keep reminding as about Grenfell.
It ties in appropriately with Mike Parr’s comments about the death dealing the Tories have been doing since 2010 on another page.
I know it might seem like a slippery slope but this idea that society has to organise and defend itself against these Tory pogroms launched at ‘ordinary people’ (remember Neil Kinnocks’ speech?) needs to be out there more and should be being said openly. And it should be part of any future constitution that we have.
This is where the media has come up short for me. It’s as if they cannot believe that this has actually happened. This has not just been a case of cutting budgets: the last 12 years has been about killing people with ‘economic violence’.
It’s scandalous and unacceptable and explains why my local benefits office has had yet another bin shoved through its window.