I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
Some people have asked me why I seem to be complaining as much about Labour as the Tories these days, so I thought I should explain. A thread…..
Let me start by saying that very obviously I think Labour is preferable to the Tories, but this is not exactly hard. When the Tories are threatening to fall off the right-hand end of acceptable politics Labour should be better.
My problem is that Labour is really not good enough. It is failing on so many fronts.
Glaringly obviously Labour is totally failing to discuss Brexit. This is gross negligence on its part when it is so obvious that Brexit has caused so much damage to our economy and to our society. We all know can't go back yet, but Labour has to say how it will get closer.
Labour is also failing on constitutional issues. Gordon Brown's whitewash is a failure on so many fronts, not least because it totally ignores the need for proportional representation. It also ducks the independence movements, embracing quite staggering colonial arrogance.
Labour's economic strategy is also far from what is needed. Even though the economic strategies of the last forty years have failed Labour is still following them. It accepts the need for austerity. It goes along with high interest rates from the Bank of England. Both are wrong.
Labour's tax strategy is not what is needed. There is no hint that it believes in using the tax system for serious redistribution of income or wealth. Instead it tinkers at the edges with a pledge on the domicile rule that Gordon Brown made in 1997 and did not deliver.
Then there is the issue of public services and support for those working in them. Those services are failing but there is no suggestion that Labour will reorganise them. And Labour is refusing to support strikes by public sector workers who need fair pay to afford to work.
There is more. Labour has promised £28bn for energy transformation. But the figure, already too small, has so not been revised for inflation or the growing need as the Tories delay action. There is no urgency to this.
Meanwhile, Labour works within the myth that there is no money for public services when the reality is that any government can create all the money it needs if there are resources to put to gainful use available in the economy, as there are.
I could go on. And I could elaborate at length. I have chosen not to do so. That's because the charge sheet I have laid out is sufficient. It makes three things clear.
The first is that Labour is not questioning the failed economic and political paradigm that we are living in which is so obviously falling apart at the seams now. Instead it is choosing to live within it. As a result Labour is not offering an alternative, let alone a way forward.
Second, even though it is aware that there are alternatives Labour will not go near them. From proportional representation, to innovative government funding, to a proper Green New Deal, Labour will not listen.
Third, as a result the accusation is that Labour now simply wants to fill the centre-right space vacated by the Tory party as it left the wreckage of Cameron's politics behind. The trouble is that Cameron failed. So too will Labour as it takes on his mantle.
So, what do I want? I think it inappropriate to complain without presenting ideas for an alternative. What I stress when offering that alternative is that the old era - the 40-year hegemony of neoliberalism - has failed, as is obvious. What we need is real change.
Those changes would require (and I am only going for high-level stuff here):
- Proportional representation
- Freedom for countries to leave the Union if they wish
- Closer ties with the EU including single market membership
- Breaking with neoliberal thinking on economics meaning austerity is not accepted and the need to keep banks happy via the Bank of England is rejected as the primary economic goal
- This means that Labour has to walk its talk on being the party of the people and begin to tax unearned income at rates at last as high as those charged on income from work
- The message on public services has to be simple: They have to be valued, funded and be accountable to the public and not to quasi-autonomous bodies of the types created by the Tories
- And on pay, Labour must deliver fair pay reflecting the skills demanded of employees, which few enjoy right now and most in the public sector do not have
- That also means Labour must, alongside reinforcing human rights, also uphold the rights of trade unions
- Whilst when it comes to sustainability, Labour must be innovative and seek to align savings with the goal of saving the planet
All of this is possible. I believe it would message well. And because people have now realised that neoliberalism has failed us, would be electorally successful. It would also bring Labour back to its roots.
Labour is far from those roots right now. Instead it is a Tory-lite party devoid of ideas band without a plan of action for when, if by chance, it gets into government. And that is deeply worrying, and why I will keep criticising it until it gets its act together again.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
The current Labour front bench are essentially members of the same neoliberal club as the majority of the political class. A more fundamental political movement is needed such as that suggested by Ken Loach of an independent labour movement initiated by the unions and building a mass membership base such that its voice cannot be ignored.
Another good post – indicative hopefully that you are on the mend.
For me, Labour’s ‘problem’ is that it has given up on people who find contemporary politics wrong and unrepresentative and instead are competing with the Tories for the same basic voter type.
I’m no expert but this voter type seems to be nationalistic, pro-BREXIT, climate warming sceptical /pro Top Gear and more interested in their own problems rather than anybody else’s (narrow-minded, ignorant and anti ‘woke’ etc) and defiantly proud of any hardship they have.
The only thing going for them is that they will still stubbornly vote.
I’m certainly disinclined to vote these days I have to say until I see abetter offer from Labour or anyone for that matter.
Right now I am definitely better
My hope is it lasts
Interesting that you should say this, and make so many pertinent points, Richard.
Yesterday, I saw a You Tube video, in which Prem Sikka related an enlightening anecdote.
In 2008 he and his friend Austin Mitchell MP went to see the First Secretary of the Treasury. He had,been examining the accounts of the major banks, and found glaring, potentially dangerous anomalies that pointed in one direction only. He advised the First Secretary that something needed to be done, or economic disaster would follow. He and Mitchell were promptly dismissed and shown the door. The First Secretary at that time was Yvette Cooper.
Consequent willingness to out-Tory the Tories on various social issues shows, I think, the trajectory of New New Labour over the policy field.
Plus can change
I was also being shown the door on tax issues at that time, many of which have since become law
If Labour were to advocate nationalisation of railways, water and energy for a start, and reverse the creeping privatisation of the NHS that Wes Streeting is promoting, they would have a landslide majority. On climate, I am afraid their timidity (maybe Ed Milliband is slightly better) is still a massive problem. However, Greens are the only party now that have the true alternative policies we desperately need.
“…….any government can create all the money it needs if there are resources to put to gainful use available in the economy, as there are.”
This could be true but it does need some justification and some explanation of where these extra resources are to be found. We do see plenty of evidence that employers are finding it hard to recruit staff and that the labour market is tight. This is one factor, and one to be welcomed, behind the ability of some workers to negotiate better pay and conditions.
Jobs might be easier to come by, but we are still a very unequal society. This being the case it isn’t going to be economically possible to redress the balance simply by “creating all the money” we might need to do that without at the same time creating high levels of inflation. We will need to raise levels of taxation too.
Do you really think that if decent wages were paid by the state sector people would not return?
The pressure would then be on for decent wages in the private sector as well
And how is the shortfall made good? By investment, of course
@ Richard,
Return from where? There are a lot of ex-public sector workers in the private sector and, yes they would likely return to the public sector if wages were high enough. However, these aren’t the extra resources the economy would need if a large scale fiscal stimulus were not to be inflationary. We would need a large number of workers, with the right medical and other qualifications, who for one reason or another were economically inactive to return to the workforce.
Is this what you are saying would happen?
50% of all medical graduates leave after competing training each year
Are you saying they aren’t available?
NHS England posted an article titled “NHS could free up £480m by limiting use of temporary staffing agencies”.
I could go on. You forget that with 12 years of austerity, and stark under-resourcing the system is reduced to gross inefficiency across the board, simply in the teetering effort to keep the doors open. Just make the appropriate investment and give the NHS system sufficient time and resources to structure for the modern world.
One of the key roles of tax is to free up resources for use by the government sector. At present in my professional sphere the NHS is spending hundreds of thousands of pounds every week to private mental health hospitals to take people detained under the Mental Health Act. Pay NHS clinicians properly, tax the private providers properly (both of which will free up resources from inefficient private sector to efficient state sector) and watch the hidden but no less real mental health bed crisis become far less acute
Agreed
I was surprised by the article in the FT on Monday by Martin Wolf: ‘The UK government’s policy on public sector pay is foolish. He argues “…the decision by government not to raise pay in line with wages in the private sector is not because it cannot afford to do so. Taxes could be raised if the will were there. It is in effect a political decision to make public sector employees pay for the government’s unfunded promises.”
Wolf takes the attitude that pay should be at the level that will sustain delivery of services and that the current frayed social fabric implies that public sector pay is too low. And so taxes should be raised to pay for higher public sector pay.
One wonders what Labour would make of Wolf’s argument. Labour want to be a low tax, low national debt party so there is little reason to hope. One wonders if anyone in the shadow cabinet has ever read Lerner’s ‘Functional Finance’ article written in 1943.
I tweeted my surprise at his article
Re the last, I am sure not, and I wish they would
I had seen him referred to in general terms but not read that article.
I have now ( an abridged version admittedly )
Thanks Martin
As a new student of economics although getting on in life age wise, I agree with all you have written today. But or however …
The Labour Party having “its act together” in the way that you describe is attractive to many people, especially those who understand the consequences of doing nothing (including me). But putting faith in the neo-liberal methods is the perceived easy option, the true British option if you will, as promoted by the present government and its supporting press. The problem is that the electorate in general are, or feel, threatened by this new age and are comfortable with the present system despite the uncomfortable reality.
So the Labour Party, I believe, have decided to do what is required to get into power and say what the majority of the electorate want to hear. I hate this approach but cannot identify a better approach to achieving the objective. Such is the UK today, but I fear it will not work and I hope for a hung Parliament and then PR.
In the meantime I am trying to understand the economic future when we cannot rely on taxing fossil fuel use in all its forms. Just the ramblings of someone trying to make sense of the UK so please be understanding. I have much to learn, aged 61 and 3/4.
Just a kid starting out then 🙂
Yep.
Richard, have you already commented on Hunt’s announcements on financial deregulation? I am very concerned about the implications. If he manages to engineer a boom in time for the next General Election, Labour’s current offer of ‘we’re not the Tories’ is unlikely to get them elected.
https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/jeremy-hunt-financial-reforms-edinburgh-win-election-crash-economy-uk-sunak/
I have not commented – but it is back to Osbroine’s position in 2005 – which was utterly irresponsible then as Hunt is being now
Julia, I couldn’t agree more.
The Tories KNOW the “magic money tree” exists, especially Sunak, who, as Richard set out, used it to the tune of, what was it? £450 billion (plus?) to fund the furlough scheme, without either borrowing or raising taxes.
Meanwhile dismal Starmer’s bunch of timid, visionless “flat-earther economists”, as I call them – because they’re stuck in the pre-Great Financial Crash morass of failed neoliberal nostrums and “given realities” that are actually proven (several times over) to be UNrealities – are deploying a “WW1 Generals” ineffective strategy with a vengeance, of fighting the current war with the last war’s weapons and strategy.
Starmer’s timid (and to me totally unacceptable Faux-Labour Party – I’ve resigned in disgust, and will vote Green) is, as Richard points out in this post, apparently stick not even in pre-GFC/2008 mode, but in full pre-1997GE mode, trying to look “ready to govern” like “responsible, trustworthy grown-ups” in the face of a failing Tory Government, as though nothing has changed.
But EVERYTHING has changed, and particularly the impending climate and biodiversity collapse, to which neoliberalism not only has no answer, but is actually THE major contributor.
What I foresee, then, is Labour tagging behind the Tories in its offer – a bit better, often a bit (a lot?) worse, and, come the GE, the Tories will simply fettle up some argument about changed circumstances, open the floodgates of real largesse, by using the Government’s ability to create money (used to great, and necessary effect by President Biden, allowing the Democrats to do very well in the mid-terms), so outbidding Faux-Labour’s timid and insufficient offer with the Coca Cola strategy of “the Real Thing”, and whipping the hide off Starmer, to coast to another landslide.
Vision and courage are not just advisable, but essential. Starmer can either be brave, roll back all his pointless gallop to the Right, and effectively implement his trashed 10 Pledges – and MORE — to win.
Or plough on with his dismal, dishonest and misguided “last War” UNstrategy, and be annihilated.
The country needs him either to be brave, and do the former, or to stand aside and let someone else do the job.
Someone needs to rekindle the hope and optimism and vision of the 2017 Labour Manifesto that so very nearly put Labour in power.
The choice is Faux-Labour or Real Labour.
Your cynicism is well placed
Praise from Nigel Farage for their stance on immigration while picking fights with hard-pressed, under-appreciated medical staff forced into desperate actions aren’t signs of a party that needs to get its act together. These are declarations of intent by the party leadership and a significant heft of the PLP that this is where their banner is planted. Even the label of “Tory-lite” is beginning to look a bit on the generous side for the real nastiness pouring out of the Labour Party. I entirely agree with all points made by Richard in his article (although I would be tempted to be entirely specific about what forms of PR we should consider to replace FPTP and why) but in all honesty, barring some completely unexpected upheaval in the party direction and leadership, there is simply no way that I will vote for this Blue Labour version of the party that is increasingly close to the Tories on policy – and even picking up plaudits from Tory peers. Hopefully that long-hoped for new left-of-centre party will emerge sooner rather than later (I still think it will be after the next GE) so in the meantime I will vote (and campaign) for the Greens who so far have shown considerably more solidarity with those feeling compelled to strike than the supposed party of ‘labour’.
What a bloody mess.
Re the last agreed
Might it be that politicians who have spent years learning the cognitive structures of their organisations and so have got to the top of those organisations find it difficult/are unwilling to change or develop their thinking?
Quite possibly
But they managed it in the past
Some of what you say is explained in a new book: “The Death of the Left: Why We Must Begin from the Beginning Again” by Simon Winlow and Steve Hall. The blub says “Winlow and Hall identify the root causes of its maladies, describe how new cultural obsessions displaced core unifying principles and explore the yawning chasm that now separates the left from the working class. Drawing upon a wealth of historical evidence to structure their story of entryism, corruption, fragmentation and decline, they close the book by outlining how a new reincarnation of the left can win in the 21st century.” https://www.amazon.co.uk/Death-Left-Begin-Beginning-Again/dp/144735415X/
I can recommend it.
I will take a look
Sadly, I must agree with your comments on Labour, Richard. Some are saying that Starmer is being ultra cautious. It goes beyond that. On the question of Brexit, he and his advisers are willing to risk their credibility in the hope of regaining the red wall. This at a time when increasingly Brexit is being shown up as a failed experiment founded on lies. He’s going after a diminishing group of voters and running the risk of losing his genuine base. After all, in the latest opinion polls, a significant majority of all voters and about 90% of labour voters now believe that Brexit was a mistake. Is he fighting yesterday’s battles?
Yes
Hmmm……………….tell me now, what is all this guff about ‘the Centre Left’?
Truth?
You’re seeing the centre left in action right now with Starmer’s Labour party. A party that deselects its own MPs who dare ask the sort of the quite questions some of you are asking here.
Let’s context this ‘centre left’ then in what is actually happening shall we? The context of this mythical centre is avowedly extreme right and even Fascist. Remember how the German Nazis wanted to export all their Jews to Madagascar before the final solution? And you live in country that even now has people in charge of it wanting to send the victims of people trafficking to (wait for it) Rwanda!? And there are voters who approve of that in your country.
So tell me then, in such extreme circumstances what happens to the notion of the ‘centre left’ or even centre right when you are dealing with the reality of what we are today as a country?
Centrism can only exist where there is a balance to be made between opposites.
The truth of the matter is that balance does not exist in this country for Starmer’s Labour party. They have clearly abandoned the progressive voter and want the vote of the Tory and/or floating voter. They are playing what think is a really clever game when in fact they are taking a tiger for a walk in the park. Very dangerous.
The ‘centre’ as some of you call it is fundamentally weak – as much as I have labelled liberalism as fundamentally weak. They are both weak because both propositions think that if they can only appeal to the rational side of extreme politics and economics then they can contain the Right.
All I can say is stop deceiving yourselves. You/we are dealing with extremists. You and Starmer will think that you have accommodated the Right’s agenda – just a little bit – and by cosying up to it you’ll be able to take the edge off. But the truth is that because these people are fanatics, they will always come back for more, even though they already have everything. Read Hannah Arendt and her heir, Tim Snyder. There is no element of rationalism in fanaticism. When are you going to learn?
And get rid of this idea of centrism. Centrism is the political equivalent of floating intertest rates system or tracker system; it is like a turd or other detritus floating on the tide at the whim of its power. It’s there but going nowhere it wants to.
We don’t need anything that floats. We need things that will set down in the earth, take a position and say ‘That’s enough’.
‘Centrism’ is for the fairies I’m afraid. Centrism is already dead because it thinks it can adapt when in fact it is being incorporated and becoming part of the Right’s infrastructure. This happens in human history time and time again.
Please – when will some of you learn?
Some will say ‘OK PSR, what then?’.
All I can say is that politics needs to go back to its original role as true compromise. And that compromise was about setting limits on the freedoms of individuals. Human societies everywhere have trouble with certain individuals who want more than anyone else. It’s these people and their wealth and power that need to be dealt with and curbed – for their own good as well as ours.
But that compromise is not centrism and never has been. ‘Centrism’ is nothing more than a flag of convenience for the progress of Neo-liberalism.
Signposts and weathercocks.
PSR, beautifully put, if I may say so.
You may SoTD, but don’t encourage me too much.
And thank you.
I abhor fanaticism of any kind BTW of the Left or Right.
But good, strong politics takes into consideration human weakness and mitigates it.
Such a weakness is greed.
And yet our politics now enables, codifies and celebrates it.
I would add that the outrageous manipulation of their own candidate selection procedures by the Labour leadership is not because of their power over the party. It is because they know even the remaining party members are far more aligned with the views of the general public than they are with the parliamentary Labour Party. They fear a landslide election victory bringing even soft left MPs into Parliament who might question strict adherence to the solutions of 1997 to the problems of 2024.