Sometimes my Twitter timeline is me thinking out loud. These posts were me thinking about how Labour's 'big idea' on localism might impact the way in which public services might be held to account:
In that case, as I concluded:
This plan just does not stack without radical reform to structures of the NHS and education in England and a lot more money in other cases. So what is it all about? Or is it another half-baked idea from a neoliberal party that does not want to accept that government can really do anything?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
It is ‘difficult’ to see how we could have growth without more spending.
Most government spending goes to the private sector, even pay for teachers and nurses.
Some of extra spending to create growth has to come from the private sector. We import billions in pharmaceuticals, for example. Could more be manufactured here? Does Starmer have a policy to encourage the private sector to invest more? What we used to call an ‘industrial policy”?
We read that profits are increasingly used to pay dividends and not finance investment. Profits are also used to buy back shares or even end up in places like, to take one at random, the Isle of Man!
I have read that one reason for a lack of real investment in goods and services is that in Anglo-American capitalism , profits have to be kept up to pay dividends or the company is in danger of take over. Our laws, I read, make this easier to do and that is why a lot of old British companies are now owned by foreign investors. Are we really that different to our neighbours in this respect?
There are consequences to maximising profits, like keeping down wages (and , indirectly, their ability to buy the goods and services ) and reducing investment which is future growth. Our productivity is below that of France and Germany.
If Starmer wants to match revenue and spending ( he says borrowing ‘only to invest’ ) he will find the potential day to day spending limited – or he will have to stretch the definition of ‘investing’.
Could restricting take-overs be a way of ‘taking back control?’ Or other ways of getting the private sector invest in real goods and services. The Green new Deal immediately springs to mind. Labour has a a ‘green bond ‘ policy of some sort. Where the state leads, maybe private capital will follow.
Marina Mazzocato is a lady who has ideas about this. More than Rachel Reeves from what i’ve seen.
There are examples of local re-organisation e.g. health care in Croydon, or local services in Manchester but there has to be a national framework of support.
I think there is a serious lack of depth in his proposals.
Ian
Mazzocato is an excellent choice, but may I also recommend a real fire-breathing passionate person of the Left in the shape of Clara E. Mattei (she has written 2022’s ‘The Capital Order: How Economists Invented Austerity and Paved the Way to Fascism’)?
Mattei’s dissection of capitalism is masterly and I’m sure she will have the answers?
The problem is though is that she’d wipe the floor with the current Laboured front bench (or should we say ‘front bottoms’?).
Laboured – the party – wants to do good but has forgotten how to and makes hard work of it.
Keir Stymied – the shadow leader – no personality, no ideas, no beliefs – but it beats working for a living though doesn’t it Keir? The candidate BTW with the Establishment’s seal of approval.
Rachel Veeres – the shadow chancellor (because she is forever veering away from doing the right thing).
And Wes Streeting is ‘Serinettes’ – a small organ (!) designed to teach tunes to canaries apparently. Since his comments about the NHS under Laboured are very revealing, it can be said that he has been singing like a canary in a coal mine about what they’ve got in store for us.
All in all, not impressive, not for the people, not good good for us and the status quo rampant (and I’m not talking about the super annuated rock group either). I ain’t voting for them. They don’t represent me – not one iota do they.
Thanks Pilgrim
I can’t recall where you live but you keep up the tradition of East Anglian Cromwell type dissenters. Long may you do so.
They caused a Revolution and although a king was restored, and there had to be another revolution (bloodless this one in 1688) they changed the course of history-and inspired the American revolution in the next century.
I have to say I hope it doesn’t come to blood on the streets but we already have people dying as a result of those policies- Duncan-Smith’s welfare reforms, the second highest death rate for covid in western Europe and the people dying in ambulances because of criminal neglect of the NHS.
I suspect it might only take a George Floyd type incident for the anger this blog has discussed this week, to boil over.
I live 800m from Cromwell’s House
Richard in a new light,
Some village-Hampden, that with dauntless breast
The little tyrant of his fields withstood;
Some mute inglorious Milton here may rest,
Some Cromwell guiltless of his country’s blood
That took me by surprise. I did not expect Thomas Gray in response. It’s year since I last read that
Sadly, I suspect your conclusion is accurate:
“This plan just does not stack without radical reform to structures of the NHS and education in England and a lot more money in other cases. So what is it all about? Or is it another half-baked idea from a neoliberal party that does not want to accept that government can really do anything?”
Lefties like me have been arguing that Starmer is ‘Schrodinger’s Politician’, everything is possible, all fantasies projected onto him, until reality calls and we find it resolves into a mess of neoliberal cliches instead of policy that is explicit, costed, invested in and universally beneficial.
Welcome to the ranks of ‘Tory enablers’, as the real Tory enablers in the StarmerBot club label us.
I agree with your post and Ian above.
Remember Cameron’s Localism Act 2011? Oh dear………..It was just a declaration of a disposal of local assets and an invitation to provide services at no cost to government – how sustainable! Be a volunteer social worker!!
As bemused as I can be by Stymied and his Shadow Chancellor I have to reserve my ire for the ‘special advisors’ who fill the HM Opposition with shite ideas. If there is one of the political class that needs culling, it’s this one. It’s about time these cling-ons were made accountable.
We ought to set up a website that names and pictures everyone of them, delve into their ideological backgrounds, find out how much they are being paid and make sure that people know what they are up to and then tell them to stick their demographics where the sun doesn’t shine.
God knows who these tossers talk to, to put words in the mouths of empty avatars like Stymied and Reed who believe in NOTHING except it seems which way the wind is blowing at the time.
I’ve read books about the end of The Enlightenment and I think they are right and its even worse if Labour are anything to go by.
Eeeeeeee………………..!! Anyway, where’s the paracetamol? In fact its worse than that – I think I’ll opt for some weed – medicinal of course – to deal with the sheer lack of anything I’m seeing from ‘Laboured’. Get me out of here – please!!
“We ought to set up a website that names and pictures everyone of them, delve into their ideological backgrounds, find out how much they are being paid and make sure that people know what they are up to and then tell them to stick their demographics where the sun doesn’t shine.”
You marshall the troops to do the leg work, I will make the resources (££) available – I also happen to own part of a UK ISP so no probs hosting. Let me know if this is of interest. Would be nice to shed some light on those in the background.
Perhaps it is all about showing that Liebore is a “safe pair of hands” by coming out with stuff that is anodyne (and pointless) which in turn allows all the fluffies in the MSM to say “aw arn’t they cute – let’s give them a chance” etc etc. Pat on the head and a blessing from the Capo-di-tutti-capi/Murdoch.
Pathetic and desparate stuff – but the timing was good with the nation focused on……. some bloke called ‘arry and his fight wiv ‘is bruvver – Windenders or somefing, I musta missed it on the telly, ‘ave to ask the missus (…bursts into hysterical laughter).
Good Morning Mike
I’ve got a full time job already but there is a lot of info already online about Stymied’s advisers. Maybe when I retire, I can ‘re-ire’; and get stuck in more. At the moment I’ve got no staff.
Take for example young Ben Nunn whom Novara Media have written about – Stymied’s communication director at one stage!!:
https://novaramedia.com/2020/01/06/to-understand-keir-starmers-politics-we-must-look-at-who-is-running-his-campaign/
And then this:
https://wikispooks.com/wiki/Ben_Nunn
Seamus Milne was weird but Ben Nunn is just yet another pretty Neo-lib poster boy/deep sleeper agent who is there to pervert social justice and build markets. Nunn left (or was ousted?) and I’m not sure who replaced him until I found this:
https://skwawkbox.org/2021/06/19/new-starmer-replaces-departing-private-health-lobbyist-with-labour-leaks-staffer-who-praised-secret-plan-to-divert-2017-ge-funds/
It has a whiff about it doesn’t it? All I know is that I’m not going to legitimise this charade called the Laboured Party anymore – they’re no more effective than the U.S. Democrats.
In fact I actually end up admiring the Tories – at least they don’t pretend to care about us and obviously enjoy their cruelty – there’s an honesty to it that this bloodless, stymied, craven Laboured party wimps don’t have. Yes that’s right – the Tories are actually authentic!! Would you believe that eh?
There’s nothing authentic about Stymied or Laboured.
Surely devolving decision making fails MMT101? Devolved decision makers will be currency users, not currency issuers. Their only decisions will be which services to cut. Real decisions will be made by the currency issuers, an unelected committee in London.
Even if regions have their own tax-raising powers, it won’t help. Those areas with the greatest need will have the least ability to raise taxes. Labour’s very own policy to promote inequality
True
Agreed and, for proof, just look at how Scotland’s elected government is constrained in its policy decisions by Westminster’s total control of monetary policy and the creation of money,
Good point. I have pointed this out to devolves and got silence in response.
Devolvers.
“The decisions which create wealth in our communities should be taken by local people with skin in the game, and a huge power shift out of Westminster can transform our economy, our politics and our democracy.”
Sounds like a play to get lib dem voters to vote labour. Though lib dems have put out far more advanced policy proposals that completely revolutionise government. Labour are handing over responsibility without providing the means to pay for it.
Would a wesminister labour government still enforce laws written to protect best value of money?