As I have already mentioned, yesterday's poll on whether a new left-of-centre party is needed to replace Labout now that it has relocated itself on the centre-right was a success.
I was disappointed that supporters of both Labour and the Greens were disparaging of the poll.
I suppose I should not have been about Labour supporters: I presume that those commenting are from the centre-right.
My problem with the Greens is that they fail to present the big picture. I wish it were otherwise. I have known the party for a long time, and some who have been leaders in it for coming on for forty years, so I am obviously sympathetic. But it has never managed to break out of the limited appeal that it self-defined for itself. That is its problem, and fundamental as green issues and sustainability are I do not think they are the sole focus of concern right now.
In that case I think I need to be clear about what that key issue is. It is, in my opinion, insecurity. That, I think, trumps both sustainability and inequality. The reason is straightforward: this is the fundamental malaise that threatens so many in the UK right now and will continue to do so unless something is done to address it.
People have insecure jobs because of government policy.
Millions are unsure whether they can afford to live in their homes, and that is the result of deliberate government policy.
Millions more are not sure that they will ever afford a home.
Others are in personal debt that they do not know how to manage, largely because their wages are too low so they have no savings and cannot, therefore, manage crises.
Others are insecure about their right to live in the UK.
And many, many millions are frightened to take a full and active part in their communities because of the hostile environment fostered by a government that has always sought to sow division and has refused to invest in protecting people from its consequences.
There are also those who long for families and are denied them by combinations of the above issues.
Add to that, there is fear now of illness, which creates more insecurity and also ill-health.
And old age is now a cause for insecurity, most especially amongst those who have no choice but to stop working before the official retirement age, where there is a cluster of deepening poverty and massive insecurity now, which government policy on retirement can only make worse.
The common theme here is insecurity, which fuels fear and so ill health.
Insecurity is the political crisis of the 2020s. And nowhere do I see politicians talking about it.
The Tories fuel it. They see insecurity as the breeding ground for their far-right support.
Labour resorts to managerialism.
As has the SNP.
And although other parties do better they have not tackled this core issue, in my opinion.
Until they do then of course there is a need for another politics.
That politics is the one that acknowledges this insecurity.
It is the politics that recognises this insecurity has been manufactured by neoliberal politics and all the parties that have subscribed to it.
And it is the politics that accepts that it is for government to solve this.
How? Some ideas for now:
- By reducing interest rates to keep people in their homes, and pursuing policies that will keep those rates low.
- By giving public sector employees the pay rises that they need so that they can truly help mothers without being riddled by anxiety themselves.
- By building the housing we need and by addressing the insecurities in the existing rental sector: having a place to call home is vital.
- By tackling low pay.
- By changing the climate of fear that is used to attract every 'other' the government can swipe out at.
- By looking at the supply of universal basic services and guaranteeing their supply on a not-for-profit basis.
- By funding the NHS.
- By changing the anti-benefits culture when it is creating gross injustice.
And how is that paid for:
- First, by doing it. Many of these policies have high multiplier effects and so they pay for themselves.
- Second, from the massive productivity boost that will happen in a country free from insecurity.
- Third, by money creation if need be: it cannot be inflationary in a country with the massive underemployment that exists in the UK where productivity caused by anxiety is so low.
I can and will flesh this out. But for those who want to know why the question I asked was appropriate, this is my answer.
If the party you support that has a chance of power actually addresses these issues feel free to say how. I am certain that none do. And that, in my opinion, is the cause of our malaise.
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:
Thank you for spelling this out.
The Greens have yet to move beyond a single issue party for me. So, you Greens out there – you’d better man up and get your heads around these because they are fundamental even to your original aims and objectives.
As for Labour(ed)………………..well……………oh well……………….
Is the green new deal a single issue?
No
But nor is it a Green Party creation
I know the Green New Deal is not just about the green party.
But I wondered what PSR thought was the green party’s single issue. They wouldn’t have so many followers/members if they were a single issue party.
I think you could add the fundamental policy of the pursuit of secure full employment.
Full employment that means people being paid decent wages giving them the ability to live healthy independent lives while making a productive contribution to society.
This was arguably the most important goal of all governments in the period 1945-1979 and key to the unique improvements in prosperity and the quality of life of that period.
An important factor in the success of this policy was the recognition that all forms of casual employment, what today we know as the gig economy, fake self-employment, short term contracts, multi-layer subcontracting and zero-hours employment, was recognised as being as bad or even worse than unemployment for the individual and the economy.
I take your point
At the risk of just repeating something which you constantly carry in the post and comments, part of the problem is that Right is -more or less-unified. Though I did see the Reform party (which I call the billionaires proxy party ) was within a few percent of the LibDems in one poll.
The ‘left’ is divided between the Liberal Democats, Greens and Labour ( who also seem divided into the Corbyn nostalgics and the Starmerites ) . It demands a transferable vote.
IMHO it also demands more dialogue between the parties. They would have to do if in a governing coalition. Probably a good idea to do before they get there.
This links to a question on Independent Sage last week – noting that media, government, and disiniformation networks are all pushing the covid ‘its all over’, ‘no need for any protections’ either explicitly or simply by ignoring the issue.
In this situation, is it worth it or even possible to influence public perception from the ‘bottom’ or the ‘middle’ outwards and upwards.
Stephen Reicher- respected social behavourist seems to think we have no alternative but to keep banging on about the truth – using all means possible, citing the evidence – the truth , the data, as it were. Getting institutions unions employers to sign up ‘pledge’ to specific actions and protections
So can the ‘insecurity’ narrative be promulgated more effectively by making it a political party, rather than just arguing it within and between all available means and across and within the existing parties?
We are in such a mess constitutionally – with FPTP especially – and with no regular mechanism to discuss possible constitutional change,
It is difficult to conceive and track a possible course with a new party . UKIP had billionaire media backing enough to force the Tories to adopt its policy and incorporate it into the party. Not clear that could possibly happen with a radical reforming social democratic party into Labour.
Maybe the best way is to keep banging on with the truthful narrative at Labour, Greens and LD’s etc. – while maintaining a new party as a threat.
Maybe a two page ‘manifesto’ with an analysis of whats wrong and why, and the second page on what should be done. So individuals, – either party members, or branches or ‘ordinary’ people polled on twitter etc could sign up – and thereby exert influence.
Now there is an idea….
Let me muse on it
“..a two page ‘manifesto’ with an analysis of whats wrong and why, and the second page on what should be done. So individuals, – either party members, or branches or ‘ordinary’ people polled on twitter etc could sign up – and thereby exert influence” ………hat tip – nice one.
Variations:
a) input you postal code to show who in your areas supports such a manifesto. (this could be very interesting & un-nerving for the sitting MP/his opponents
b) manifesto circulated to other candidates (and what is left of the local press) asking why theye did not support it
c) etc.
As a Green Party member since 1983 I agree that dealing with insecurity should be a priority as well as essential policies on climate and the environment. True, the Green Party should pay more attention to insecurity and I believe the majority of members are aware of the underlying economic, social and political factors and the party is moving (though maybe too slowly) to tackle these issues. The Green Party Manifesto for a Sustainable Society does cover all policy areas and is constantly amended each year after the conference. I also agree that a strong left of the Labour party is needed and voted yes for this in your poll. I think the Greens are happy to work with leftists and the Group Bright Green is working on these issues for example with trade unions.
“Labour resorts to managerialism. As has the SNP.”
A perceptive and shrewd comment, if I may say. The SNP had to demonstrate “managerialism” when they first came to power almost fifteen years ago in Holyrood (given a [small ‘c’] conservative, cautious Scottish electorate); however they never moved on, and managerialism eventually ran out of road, because they were maintaining and operating a crumbling, defective, neoliberal, over-financialised economic machine that does not work. The SNP are now painfully restructuring.
Labour is resorting to exactly the same managerialism in an attempt to persuade a [capital ‘C’] Conservative, conservative electorate, to vote for them just to prove they can somehow maintain the now finally collapsing, defective, neoliberal, over-financialised economic machine that is quite obviously failing the whole country.
All the Conservative and Labour Party actually can now do with managerialism is maintain the PR machinery to maintain the illusion that failure is really success. It is a great deal harder for Labour than Conservatives to do this, because the Conservative effectively run most of the press, and the press sets the news agenda for the terrestria, ‘national’, broadcasters. It is all as antiquated and daft as that. Meanwhile reality only seeps in through social media, and it more than its share of sociopaths and trolls (no doubt some being funded by vested interests in maintaining the financialised, profitable incompetence).
We have a ruinous fake-domestic-market energy system in which public funding is lavishly being shovelled at energy producers to make windfall profits that will only be taxed when the profits have already disappeared; timing is everything and Sunak-Hunt missed the boat – could it be, deliberately ?). We have London-centric public capital infrastructure spend on such as Crossrail 1&2 (£48Bn+) and HS2 possibly, now costing circa £100Bn; and half the country, inluding Scotland will never, ever see it; that will only ever benefit London, and London property and financial interests (if your real destination from Birmingham is Paris, you will have to change stations in London!); and notably London property interests (the only part of the economy that receives any attention at all). Meanwhile I read an article that suggested a rail journey from Prague that costs circa £9, for a similar length journey from Manchester costs circa £72. Rail transport is another notoriously failed, fake-market UK industry that is lavishly funded by the public purse for no return and is an utter catastrophe.
The British economy has been left far behind, after over 40 years of a failed neoliberal ideology, deliverd by incompetents.
Thanks John
Good comment Mr Warren – talking with a lobbyist ( insulation & energy efficiency) yesterday we wondered about renewables in the Uk – in the case of off-shore wind it is mostly built on the back of government guarantees = gov takes the revenue risk. Which begs the question: if the raison d’etre of the a given project rests on gov’ guarantees for revenues………..why not let private industry develop the farm & once built, the gov takes it over? In Germany, companies such as ABO Wind, make a good living from developing (& building) wind and PV (and hydrogen) systems. These depend on gov’ guarantees, the company then sells them on to a “utility”. I wonder why the utility can’t be gov?
Part of the neoliberal intellectual scam is that private enterprise takes the risks and puts up the capital. Most of the time, it doesn’t. Mazzucato is verg good on this; and famously, the original algorithm on which Google was based, was funded by a Federal Grant (Zuboff). Capital doesn’t like risk, so it prefers to see Government take the biggest risk first; and pile in later, if it looks like a winner (as the public sector is always the lender and dealer of last resort – and quietly, even of first resort!).
At the other end of the risk spectrum there is Hinckley Point; £26Bn and counting. The private sector would never take the risk without the guarantee of public capital in large amounts. Private enterprise is generally a delicate orchid that requires a warm glasshouse with a controlled temperature, to flourish, or all too often, even to survive. It needs the “equilibrium” it pretends is “normal”. The hard truth is – “normality”, the real world in equilibrium, only rarely or not for long, and never, ever securely (Minsky).
Britain desperately needs a modern railway infrastructure but as the construction of the ever reducing HS2 project grinds on into its second decade it is a perfect example of the incompetence, corruption and stupidity of the way this country has been run since 1979
In the 1830s, 20,000 men armed with shovels and wheelbarrows completed the 112 mile Birmingham to Euston line in 5 years.
But it was not high speed as we now know it
The London and Birmingham was staggering in its day, but the comparison isn’t really fair, IMO, and I know a bit about railway history
We could combine Rooseveldt’s four freedoms – Freedom of speech
Freedom of worship, Freedom from want, Freedom from fear – in parallel with Beveridge’s “five giants” to be slayed – Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness – and bring them together under an umbrella of “wellbeing” for all.
On that scorecard, the present political and economic dispensation in the UK and indeed much of the rest of the world does not deliver for many perhaps most people.
Where are the politicians advocating for policies to tackle the “giants”, with optimism that wellbeing can be improved across the board – in a way that does not destroy the only planet we can live on – if we put our minds to it?
This needs to be worked on
It was not meant to be on my agenda this week, but it might be
Spot on Andrew.
Roosevelt’s Four Freedoms and Beveridge’s Five Giants cover the ground that any party that wants to call itself progressive should be standing on. Wellbeing, as promoted by people like Carnegie Trust (https://www.carnegieuktrust.org.uk) provides the framework for measuring progress and is the best that anyone has yet come up with to replace GDP.
At the risk of sounding like a management consultancy, one could argue that a party needs a vision, strategy and plans. Paraphrased and highly simplified I know.
– Vision – what kind of country do we want
– Strategy – how will we get there
– Measures – how will we know whether we are getting there (Wellbeing rather than GDP)
– Plans – details for how to implement that strategy – what do we need to do
Managerialism is just tinkering with the plans. The Vision and Strategy have not fundamentally changed. That about fits with where what we are being offered. We still need good managers to implement the plans but at the moment the vision, strategy and measures have barely changed.
(With apologies to Mariana Mazucatto…)
Thanks Robin
Noted
Richard
Excellent
Somewhere on his website Gerry Hayes (Former Tory MP) had an even shorter version of his beliefs not dissimilar to yours and I might put it in less that a sentence, we need to create jobs that will support a family
I’ve also felt that life security is paramount.
⦾ Interest rates should never rise above a certain base value, e.g. 2% as doing so means people can’t pay mortgages and loans
⦾ A government job guarantee would ensure that no one would have to worry about job security
⦾ A home guarantee would ensure housing needs are met
⦾ A decent pension would cover old age.
All these are achievable with a bit of democratic socialism and MMT, and not cost the public a penny.
Agreed
Although there may be a cost, but it could be well designed to improve the lot of everyone. After all, we pay for good things
If there was a decent pension, maybe the DWP could get rid of the Christmas bonus. It was £10 when Harold Wilson brought it in, and is now £10.
Or how about a universal basic income?
JenW:
The Green party seems to me to be overtly concerned with issues pertaining to the degradation of the planet via the exploitation of its resources.
There is nothing wrong with this and that to me is why it is popular and deservedly so.
But, having interacted with local activists of that party and read many a manifesto I do not think they have the joined up thinking that that they need to run the country and address the degradation issue. They simply have not demonstrated to me the mechanics of how they intend to tackle anything really. As pressure group – yes. But as a government? Hmmm……………
And of course I’ve not heard them talk about MMT either. I actually bought my local Green Councillor Stephanie Kelton’s book ‘The Deficit Myth’ and have been deafened by the silence ever since – the same with my perfectly nice, decent Lib Dem Councillor. As soon as you show them anything to do with MMT, they just go cold on you.
It’s as though they just can’t handle it.
Well I’m sorry – it just won’t do. Even the very capable and brave Caroline Lucas – what does she think about MMT? Does anyone know? I don’t but I’d like to know.
I’m all ears but rest my case for now.
I admit I bend her ear about it….
I would love to be able to afford to buy “influencers” a copy of Stephanie Kelton’s book ‘The Deficit Myth’ https://www.amazon.co.uk/Deficit-Myth-Modern-Monetary-Economy/dp/1529352568/
I’d like to make sure that every trade union is aware of MMT, Parliamentarians, certain journalists, various organisations, even Carol Vorderman who is doing an amazing job on Twitter. I’d like to see articles appear in their publications. Imagine if teachers knew about and understood MMT, how the next generation might respond.
That is ultimately our job…..
Thats rather my experience and Ive seen it in other ‘green’ organisations I’ve known or worked for. Not to mention specialist groups in political parties.
Working on Green Economy some 10 years ago the key aha moment was recognising that one had to see environmental, social and economic challenges together rather than in their separate silos. An early example was some rainforest protection work where the environmentalists just wanted to get rid of all the people (who might have been there forever), fence it off and assume someone would give them money to do it. Rather than recognise the need to look after that society who maybe were very good at living in harmony with their environment whilst working on appropriate, sustainable economic development. It was possible.
Telling people that they are going to lose their jobs and will have to all go veggie is not a desperately effective way of gaining support! Green New Deal is an integrated, holistic approach. Also Doughnut though I’d gentle argue that it’s a bit light on the economic side. It’s disappointing that none of the progressive parties have really taken this kind of thinking on board. Silos rule OK…
Indeed
And right on doughnut economics
Richard, nothing to do with the topic of this post, just something I noticed as I was reading.
In the paragraph “Insecurity is the political crisis of the 2020s. And nowhere do I see politicians talking about it.”, the word “nowhere” is in red because it happens to be a glossary term, though in this instance it is not being used in the same sense. As your glossary expands, I guess this sort of thing is likely to happen more often. Do you have a way of cancelling or refusing the glossary link in cases like this where it’s not relevant?
Not yet, but I will get to it.
With reference to the Green Party, Caroline Lucas, on the latest compassonline.org.uk podcast,
https://www.compassonline.org.uk/podcast/listen/
pleads guilty to being a single issue party if that issue is wanting to achieve “thriving people on a thriving planet” but contends that that encompasses the transformation of the economy and society along the lines being discussed here as it can not be simply “bolted on to business as usual”.
I entirely accept that is Caroline’s opinion, but it is not how the party comes across. If there were to be any alternative party I think it should, however, work with the Greens. Why not? To evidence a belief in coalition would be important.
As a Greenie Leftie I think your observations of the Green Party are correct – and they are are too wishy washy, but if there is no liveable planet then that affects secure and insecure alike. Your analyses of Starmerest Labour always correct. But when Corbyn and co came along so may of us were SO excited to finally see a proper socialist Labour party . But what happened? The right wing press etc savaged the great new revivalists to make it unelectable in the public’s eyes.
So my fears for yet another “party” lies in yet again splitting the non Tory vote. I am currently reading Paul Mason’s “How to Stop Fascism”, a book I highly recommend. And again and again he shows how the different hues of leftism just failed to sing from any communal hymn sheet and allowed Mussolini, Hitler and Franco to win power ‘legitimately’. (As I now live in Spain, I watch with total horror the rise of Vox. And live in a village with the fachon/fascist symbol still on the communal well, the alt right is always with us bubbling beneath)
Perhaps a major transformation of the Green Party into a dynamic truly Green Alternative Socialist party ? Or just lets start by getting the current vermin Out, and with the iniquitous FPTP that means supporting Labour , which I would do but firmly holding my nose .
I am one of 14 Green Councillors on Sheffield City Councillor and an avid reader of this blog. I am a Councillor in a ward with one of the highest levels of deprivation in Europe. As a group we put addressing inequality at the heart of our policy thinking.
eg. Our bus service has all but collapsed. Government has refused to fund bus services in the city because the Council has shown a lack of ambition in providing bus priority measures. Labour and LibDems are frightened silly of any policy designed to discourage car use, yet the Green Party always stress that the poorest cannot afford to run a car.
Similarly we recognise that around 70% of people in Sheffield cannot afford even the cheapest mortgage. Currently we hold the chair of the Housing Policy Committee and ensure that social housing is our priority…hence building more council homes and ensuring they get priority when it comes to upgrading to near passive house standards of insulation and solar heating.
Rejecting the priority of economic growth and trickle down economics leaves us open to ridicule by Labour and LibDems is pretty tough. Making the case that we can choose another economic system that will deliver prosperity through properly funded public services while meeting Sheffields goal of zero carbon by 2030 and reverse the decimation of nature causes much incredulity is what we pursue, yet this is seen as heretical by our political opponents.
Yet we keep on working to Green our city and expand our numbers on the Council.
What we are doing is creating the politics for the next millenium, and tackling inequality.
Thanks
I am aware of your groups work – and that of other Green group’s such as that in Norwich
More needs to be said about it so that the party is viewed differently
Thank you Richard and thank you to those commenting. In a rather currently depressing world your ideas and comments are encouraging. I very much like the manifesto idea.
Labour unfortunately never mention MMT but stick to the taxes pay for everything line.
Starmer is running things in a dictatorial way.
‘The Big Lie’ film shows how Jeremy Corbyn was undermined from within by some MPs and labour staff.
The left are torn between the need to replace the Tories and the bad state Labour is in with being so feeble.
Union action shows hope and the many JC supporters still exist and could rally of a new party emerged but the lefty Labour MPs have been largely inactive, no doubt fearing Keir’s power to throw them out.
I think all the Green environmental policy was in the last two Labour manifestos.
Locally Green town councillors have been poor at recognising the need to pay workers adequately.
Maybe Green policy is developed more democratically?
A two page manifesto demand sounds good.