Keir Starmer has a piece in The Observer this morning on the virtues of Labour offering a right-wing manifesto to the people of the UK.
My summary of the piece is that it is truly frightening in the scale of its political and economic incompetence. He actually says in it:
Frankly, the left has to start caring a lot more about growth, about creating wealth, attracting inward investment and kickstarting a spirit of enterprise. It is the only show in town for those who dream of a brighter future.
This is profoundly worrying. Decode that and what we have is a Labour leader saying the future is about anything but sustainability and is instead about fostering inequality, promoting the failed logic of international competition for inward investment that inevitably leads to tax havens, and about individualism. And there is, apparently, no alternative. This is full-blown Thatcherism, almost down to the TINA ('there is no alternative') catchphrase.
Let me dig a little deeper, though.
Starmer starts with his now obligatory references to the Tory mortgage bombshell. But there is no reference made to cutting interest rates, or to an alternative macroeconomic policy. Nor is anything said about constraining the Bank of England. So, what is obvious is that Labour would have delivered exactly the same policy as the Tories, precisely because Rachel Reeves is certain of the Bank's omnipotence.
Then there is a direct attack on additional government spending. This, it is said, cannot be delivered because there must be ‘iron-clad fiscal rules'. Such rules are, it must be admitted, a Labour invention. Gordon Brown was the first to refer to them, but he, like every other Chancellor who has lasted more than a few weeks ever since then, revised his own ‘iron-clad' rule so often that they, and the term, became meaningless. Tory Chancellors did exactly the same thing. Such rules are only iron-clad until inconvenient, when they are rewritten. So, very politely, all Starmer is actually referring to is the imposition of austerity when he uses the term.
And we know that. He says he wants growth. But he will not deliver state funding to kick start the process.
He also says he wants a green economy, but the already inadequate £28 billion per annum to supply it has, we now know, been abandoned, so he clearly does not want it very much.
Instead he falls back on the age-old plan of the Tufton Street brigade and offers supply-side reforms to relax planning controls to supposedly deliver more housing. This won't happen. No one will be able to afford to buy them. Falling prices will take the profit out of the market. Buy-to-let landlords are already departing the scene if they can and Starmer is promising us he won't pay for these houses. That's why I know this won't happen.
Nor will NHS reform work. Unless that NHS reform firstly cuts out the bureaucracy and secondly has its primary focus not on prevention by the individual but on prevention of the abuse of the individual by a market intent on selling them cheap calories in the form of sugar and fructose that are together the real cause of our obesity and diabetes driven health crises nothing Starmer says will work. And he did not say that. He talked about the utterly implausible idea of tailor-made, personally profiled drugs instead. I was left wondering what he was on.
As for the idea that we are going to get reinvigorated public services when this will require that they be reformed by people who will simultaneously meet existing demand, innovate change and roll out new systems whilst being denied the pay rises that they need and which are essential to retain and recruit new staff, is just pie in the sky.
I really don't enjoy attacking Labour. They are the only likely opposition to the terrible politics of the Tories that we have. But whoever wrote this article is completely economically and politically clueless, and Starmer was daft enough to put his name to it.
There is nothing radical here.
Nor is it reassuring, as Starmer claims.
What it most certainly does not do is offer change. This is a recipe for more of the same old neoliberal policies that have so glaringly obviously failed us.
But most of all, it shows Starmer is out of ideas before he even reaches office.
And saying that I am not asking for a full-on, state-driven alternative. As I wrote late last week, my vision is for a genuine public-private partnership. But that has to involve politicians who believe in the state and in what it can do. The real problem is that Starmer neither believes in the state or that it can do anything without begging favours from the private sector. And that is just not true.
We are heading for a worried five years under Labour if Starmer is intent on delivering this plan.
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:
I feel despair is setting in…
Labour must ‘give people something to vote for’, says Unite head
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2023/jul/15/labour-must-give-people-something-to-vote-for-says-unite-head?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Oth
As Labour did under Jeremy Corbyn (now only mentioned to be ritually spat upon as a sign of right-thinking). In trying to be the not-Jeremy-Corbyn-candidate, Starmer has become the not-Labour candidate, acceptable to respectable, property-owning centrist voters but, for all his flag waving, offering nothing to wage-dependent workers (and those dependent on state supplied services).
Watching Starmer on Laura Kunnesburg, it’s so depressing.
There is no hope for change in the UK.
The British predilection for Neoliberal ideology is (I have long suspected) now beyond the ‘tipping point’. does anyone really think there is a realistic way back? Prove it.
As far as I can see TINA applies in this special sense, at least for Scots: there is no alternative to independence, if Scotland is not going to be destroyed by applied wholesale (with a natural birthrate of 1.3 per fertile woman in Scotland, when the base population replacement rate is 2.1 per fertile woman, we are now far along the road to perdition).
For Scotland Neoliberalism, Unionism, Brexit;and anti-immigration law are the four modern horsemen of the apocalypse: approriately relevant in the fast arriving digital, virtual, AI age. The economic prospects for Scotland, with a fast falling population are untenable, and simply unthinkable; and obviously so. There is no future tied to the dead weight of modern, post-Brexit Britain.
“applied, wholesale British Neoliberalism”. Blooper number ……
Mr Warren, could it be that the vile-tories, knowing the low birth-rate see this as the cherry-on-top of their immigration policy?
On a related note: “iron-clad-rules”, the moron-Brown used Enron-style off-balance sheet PFI as a wiggle around his “iron-clad-rules”.
The imbeciles in vile-Liebore will do the same – doubtless meetings are going on & in due course Sir Keith/Reeves will annouce lots of re-furbished hospitals, schools etc – all via PFI-II.
Suggestion to Scots, grow a pair and get out while you can. UDI and tell the English to get lost.
You are so right
The PFI fiasco was all the expensive consequence of absurd fiscal rules
Apart from the apparently rapidly falling “settled majority for Indy”, the key problem with Indy in Scotland is that the main Indy party – the SNP – is riddled with neoliberal thinking from top to bottom and the main alternative, the Scottish Labour Party, is also terminally infected.
Post Keynesians and MMT advocates are about as scarce in Scotland as anywhere else.
Our Greens are hung up on identity politics and seem to be bodging every brief they have as junior ministers.
From where is new macroeconomic thinking going to arise ?
Scotonomics, the Scottish Currency Group and the National newspaper
Totally depressing watching his interview on Kuenssberg. Bereft of any radical ideas, wedded to economic orthodoxy. No reason for working people to vote Labour, very sad times.
I went for a walk
Oli Dugmore from the Politics Joe YouTube channel was on the panel for the Kuenssberg show and she asked him if he thought Starmer would deliver for young people if he got into government(slightly paraphrasing here). This was after Kuenssberg had interviewed Starmer. Dugmore seemed to almost hide his face as he replied “no”. More and more people are beginning to see what Starmer is and it’s not good.
Totally disheartening – and indeed frightening.
I remember being impressed by some of his speeches in Parliament pre-Brexit and was pleased when he became leader. What a let-down.
Agreed
I voted for him… sorry. I’ve since left the Party and despite living in a marginal I think I’ve decided to vote Green.
Starmer is a dumb Thatcherite through and through. Whilst he doesn’t exactly say it the whole tone of his speech is that state produced goods and services have no value only market created ones.
This is big mistake in three respects the market requires an educated and healthy workforce which only the state can equitably provide. Now we have to add to this the state will have to create and spend the bulk of the money needed to tackle climate change. A simple example of why this should be is the UK has a vast stock of energy inefficient housing coupled with many people whose incomes are too low to spend on making them more energy efficient or in many cases their homes cannot be easily converted and need to be replaced.
The UK is cursed with all its main political parties having swallowed the intellectually febrile market fundamentalism ideology. It’s hardly surprising it’s been rammed down our throats for fifty odd years. Even a so-called progressive paper like the Guardian can’t put forward an alternative social-democrat ideology anymore based on clear-sighted economic and monetary system understanding. A new Equitable Party is needed that has this clear-sightedness!
Richard it seems we have a problem with economists everywhere.
The likelihood of Modern Monetary Theory (MMT) becoming mainstream economic policy is a matter of debate among economists. Some believe that it is a sound theory that could help to improve economic outcomes, while others believe that it is too risky and could lead to inflation and other problems.
There are a number of factors that could influence the future of MMT. First, the global financial crisis of 2008 has led to a loss of faith in traditional economic models. MMT offers a new way of thinking about money and government spending, which could appeal to some people.
Second, the rise of China as a global economic power has challenged the dominance of the United States. MMT could provide a way for the United States to maintain its economic dominance, even as China’s economy grows.
Finally, the increasing popularity of progressive politics could lead to a greater acceptance of MMT. Progressives are often critical of traditional economic policies, and MMT could offer them a way to achieve their goals.
However, there are also a number of factors that could hinder the adoption of MMT. First, it is a complex theory that is not easy to understand. This could make it difficult for policymakers to adopt MMT, even if they believe in it.
Second, MMT is controversial. Some economists believe that it is too risky and could lead to inflation and other problems. This could make it difficult for MMT to gain widespread acceptance.
Ultimately, the future of MMT is uncertain. However, it is a theory that is worth considering, as it could offer a new way of thinking about money and government spending.
Here are some of the arguments for and against MMT, in a more professional tone:
**Arguments for MMT:**
* It could help to reduce unemployment and inequality.
* It could make the economy more stable.
* It could give governments more flexibility to respond to economic shocks.
**Arguments against MMT:**
* It could lead to inflation.
* It could encourage governments to spend too much money.
* It is not a well-tested theory.
That’s the most blatant AI written post on here to date.
Please do not do it again.
As for those who say Starmer is right the state can’t go spending willy-nilly it will trigger high inflation the nuanced answer is it depends!
Clearly the Monetarist or Quantity Theory of money does apply you only have to look at China which currency rigs by enforcing that all foreign currency coming into China has to be exchanged through state owned banks. The state owned banks then extract some of that money to buy the treasury bonds of the country’s main exports purchasers notably the United States and Europe including the UK. This enables China to hold down the value of its currency and achieve price point in global markets.
Another factor that has to be taken into account is productivity which deflates prices so any inflationary tendencies are fighting against this deflationary pressure. Productivity can be high in the United States it’s been estimated to be 60% over 30 years:-
https://www.levyinstitute.org/publications/the-unbearable-weight-of-aging
Finally, the state can chase to limit private sector lending in order to free up real resources for state spending particularly labour and of course this is something it will have to do to tackle climate change.
“[Starmer] talked about the utterly implausible idea of tailor-made, personally profiled drugs instead. I was left wondering what he was on.”
Personalized medicine has been the subject of intensive lobbying from the pharma industry for some years now. It’s not implausible. It should be frightening though. This is the same unaccountable multinational pharma industry that exploit publicly-funded research and privatize the profits, that appallingly fought to prevent global distribution of covid vaccines.
Personalized medicine requires a large testing infrastructure of ‘omics technologies, big data and analysis. Such infrastructure has the potential to be extremely lucrative if these things are proprietary. If they are, then like the vaccines, they’ll only be available in the West.
Legislation to fund and build a public infrastructure could make a huge difference to how the future looks. However, one might speculate that Starmer isn’t talking about this. He’s been gifted a policy by private concerns that already have a plan for what they want to do.
The implausibility I suggested is based on cost
I agree with your comment on pharma
I read your threads regularly and mostly agree with the content and explanations. What I struggle with is, given what you say about Starmer and Labour – who in the current political landscape has the policies that you eschew and deserves the support of people like me who have lived through 3 day weeks, miners strikes, Thatchers destruction of normal persons stability, the boring years of Major and the Blair/Brown experiment and now the Ride of the Valkeries that has been 13 years of Tory destruction of most normal peoples resolve to soldier on. I’m truly confused and in need of some direction. Please!
Starner is now evealing himself as not just right wing, bit a true Fudtin Street Thatcherite
Voting for him is to vote Tory in all but name
How can I put it more plainly?
All that is true but with FPTP voting if we don’t vote Labour in the next general election we’ll get full on Tory again. With Labour there is at least the possibility that the sheer numbers of party members, unions, and other very motivated activists could push the party into bringing in proportional representation for future elections. The first step is to get rid of the Tories, and the second step is to introduce PR. This would get new voices into parliament to bring about the reversal of all the anti democratic laws the Tories have brought in and be the foundation stone on which to begin build necessary changes for the move towards a fairer society.
Otherwise we are doomed to be forever a single party (LabaTory) state masquerading as a democracy.
I know it’s only a small hope but as far as I can see TINY! If it doesn’t work there’s only despair and I’m not ready for that yet.
Labour is 30% ahead
It needs to get less or we are doomed
I would happily have a coalition
I agree with everything you have just said written, and wonder why you went off a potentially led Jeremy Corbyn government? Which would you have preferred now, given that Starmer has come into the open?
John McDonnell was as bad on fiscal rules and Jeremy had no idea how to govern
Are you ‘YES’ yet?
What does that mean?
I think the best outcome would be for Labour to fall short of an absolute majority, and this be dependent on support from LibDems and others who might have better ideas.
I’m entirely in agreement with you. I’ve been saying this for months.
Unfortunately, Starmer doesn’t appear to have the slightest understanding about money or the economy and seems happy to get all his information and policies from Reeves who is, well, how should I put it? Another absolutely ferkin useless Oxford PPE-er (apologies to ferkins which do have some use). The LSE must be just as bad, given that she graduated from there without developing any apparent understanding of the real economy.
If fact, you couldn’t find much worse a route than Oxford PPE, LSE, BoE, HBoS to make the perfect neolib economist. Only a stint at a merchant bank in the City missing from that resume.
I will be voting Green. Starmer will win the next election. If he wins with a huge majority, we will never break the duopoly. Or perhaps now, a mono-party offering austerity, neoliberalism, and dire public services from both main parties. We need PR.
You commented elsewhere that Starmer has used Thatcher’s phrase “there is no alternative”. I can’t find it in the Observer article. If you were out for a walk during the interview this morning – and I can’t blame you, I couldn’t watch it either – can you provide a source for that claim?
He said “It (by which he means Thatcherism, IMO) is the only show in town”
It was a perfectly simple question, Richard, but apparently it didn’t pass “moderation”. Please provide a source for the Starmer/Thatcher comment.
I was out
And you are very obviously a troll who thinks it my job to service your every whim
You’re banned
Starmer’s covert reference to TINA – ‘the only show in town’ – was perfectly obvious to me and I’ve no doubt to everyone else
Thanks
This intellectually incoherent anti-Starmer guff could have been written by someone in Conservative Central Office. And possibly was.
Starmer is not perfect, far from it. But the notion that this evil spiteful dishonest vindictive Tory government is one side of a coin on which the other side sits Starmer’s Labour party is offensive obnoxious hogwash.
With respect, it’s completely true
And unlike you, I have offered my reasons
With respect, it isn’t. We could spend the time between now and the General Election playing ping-pong, but it just isn’t. Labour, unless I am very much mistaken does not have half-wits like Jonathan Gullis, clowns like Michael Fabricant, and quasi-racists like, well you will know who I mean, on their benches.
The Tories want the voters to think the two parties are alike, better the devil you know, etc.
As for the other replies to my comments, I am not new to the thoughts of Richard Murphy; but this is my first foray into his blog.
Like Rachel Reeves or not, she might be lots of things but stupid she clearly isn’t.
And how can anyone hope to have a rational sensible debate with someone who refers to Labour as Lie-bore, and presumably thinks it is clever?
With respect, I suggest you go and play with your Thatcherite Labour friends
I bet you’ll get in really well with Wes Streeting
Michael, are you a member of the labour party? Or are you, like me, an ex-member who left before she was kicked out because of supporting a two-state solution to Israel? I notice you haven’t mentioned that in your latest post.
You also haven’t mentioned Starmer saying today, although he wouldn’t agree to any other policy, that he would stick to the two-child policy, no matter how many children that leaves in poverty.
I live in the north east, NWDurham, to be precise, with a redwall tory idiot who is supposed to be in charge of buses and roads but never mentions the north east.
What he does with any constituent who disagrees with him is ban them from his facebook pages, then say all his constituents agree with him. How grown up is that?
As far as transport policy is concerned, Jamie Driscoll has got it right, and even tory councillors in Northumberland agree with him. However, Starmer says he can’t stand for the labour mayor next year as he sat on a platform and talked with Ken Loach about his latest film about poverty, The Old Oak, which was shown at the Cannes Film Festival. It’s about compassion and solidarity.
How grown up is Starmer there?
So you think Starmer is okay doing another u-turn today, do you?
https://northeastbylines.co.uk/regional-campaigners-call-for-end-to-two-child-limit-affecting-almost-60000-north-east-kids/
Starmer said today that he will stick to that tory policy. Is that acceptable to you?
Do you have any idea how many members have left the party or been suspended from the party because of Starmer and his acolytes?
Do you agree that Palestinians should have nowhere to live, which is what Starmer thinks, being a Zionist?
Do you think that people who want a two-state solution should be ejected from the party?
This is mostly from someone who is in Starmer’s constituency. She has tried to stand by him since he was elected, in fact even before that.
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2023/07/15/doubts-grow-over-labours-suitability-for-power-under-keir-starmers-leadership/
Can you now see why people think as Richard does?
So which part of Richards article was “intellectually incoherent”. & which bit was “guff”. Go on, give us a clue.
As for the “could have been written be Conservative Central Office” I will work on the basis that you are new here.
You might want to believe that, which in itself is erm… revealing, but if you look at a random selection of other posts, it would be impossible to sustain such a claim.
As for “Starmer is not perfect” – who is? That siad, I did not break every promise I made to get elected as vile-liebore party leader. (I call Labour Lie-bore reflecting that it both lies and is boring ).
Where we can agree is that the vile-tories are “evil spiteful dishonest vindictive”. Problem is, objectively, nothing Starmer proposes will change the situation in the Uk. One thus arrives at two conclusions:
a) vile-liebore, Starmer et al remain frightened of the truly-vile tories………and the ability of UK serfs & peasants to tell the diff liebore vs tories.
b) liebore and its current crop of shadow ministers are not able to articulate and defend policies that make a difference to UK serfs.
My own view is that Reeves is both stupid and has been groomed (during her time in the BoE). She has not one original thought in her head. Starmer is a lawyer – he can read breifs and understand them. What passes in front of him is the usual neo-con claptrap – & he plus many in Liebore have (& like B.Liar the warmonger and the cretin Brown) convinced themselves they can only get errected by mimicking the vile-tories. Your comments suggest that you come from the right whinge of Liebore & doubtless you will regard us lot here as trots (whatever that means). Scotland has not departed under the tories – but I’m pretty sure it will under a liebore gov – given current trajectories.
Oh and a counter blast against the blather from Starmer:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/labour-changes-little-power-social-forces-councillors-climate
good to see somebody (a journo!!) knows what they are talking about!!
This might explain Labours move to the the right.
https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2023/07/the-origins-of-the-investment-theory-of-party-competition.html
Agee 100% Richard with your analysis.
First past the post ensures that only one of the UK Neo Liberal party factions can be elected; Tory or Labour. Rupert Murdoch et al decides which of these two is in government.
And this is called democracy!
Thanks for your blog.
Regards
Read the Starmer supporters’ comments on John Harris’s article on Starmer today in the Guardian and a great many veer between Starmer will have no money to do anything much if he wins office so he’s telling the truth and being realistic to he’s not promising anything in order to get elected to office then he’ll turn the spending taps on. This contradiction is what counts as informed discourse in modern Britain! No analysis whatsoever about how the country’s monetary system works and therefore to what degree he can finance policies the nation badly needs. May as well hand the country over to a sane nation to run too many pathetic voters here!
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/16/labour-changes-little-power-social-forces-councillors-climate#comments
While I shared many of Richard’s doubts about the (sadly untested) Corbyn and McDonald team, in retrospect I think it would have been far better to have their inexperienced but (as far as I can judge) relatively honest government than the Tory regimes that we ended up with in 2017 and 2019, which have combined unfairness, incompetence, cronyism and corruption to a degree that seems a first in my more than seven decades of experience.
It has become more and more apparent that there was a concerted effort by the loose coalition of interests that some now call the ‘deep state’ (and others the MICIMATT) to use all means short of physical violence to prevent Labour coming to power in 2017 and 2019. Much of this effort came from within the Labour party itself and was based not so much on doubts about the competence of Corbyn, McDonald and their team, but on their social-democratic policies, which certain interests rightly saw as a threat, and in particular their stance towards Israel/Palestine, the USA and NATO.
Rightly or wrongly, Corbyn brought hope to many of real change in favour of “the many”. Starmer and Reeves seem determined to crush all such aspirations. This is dangerous for our democratic system. If enough people lose faith in the ability of democracy to improve their lives they are likely to seek other means.
John McDonnell is a mystery to me.
When he was the GLC chair of finance, he apparently did a good job of bringing in the council’s budget in good order every year. He therefore had more experience than virtually every occupant of Number 11 for several decades.
However, as a Frontline politician he has not played his hand very well, lacking the nerve to face down his opponents in both parliament and party at crucial moments, instead counselling fatal compromise when it meant giving up strong positions. He clearly craves unity,, but the result has been the unity of the graveyard as far as effective social democratic politics is concerned – the politics we desperately need.
I read in a Bloomberg newsletter earlier, that Ms Reeves has been inviting Tory donors for individual meetings. God help us.
An earlier comment on voting for other parties to limit Starmer-Labour’s capacity to do harm, and try to break up the duopoly, was fine, but please bear in mind FPTP, and vote tactically if possible.
Schofield: “May as well hand the country over to a sane nation to run”- perhaps become a province of Norway, as the Orkneys are reportedly considering? Giving free trade with the EU, but with no scope for fools or knaves to try to bounce us into the eurozone? The DUP would be crying bitter tears, as their raison d’etre evaporates. Or maybe Iceland!
Just noticed that the Labour candidate for the Mid Bedfordshire by-election, Alistair Strathern, is a Bank of England official, and read PPE at Oxford University. No new thinking from him then I suspect!
That’s what Labour wants …..
Mr Lincoln, you have made a category error in this statement : “Alistair Strathern, BoE official, ..PPE at Oxford University. No new thinking from him”
The error is ascribing the capacity to “think” to Strathern. The PPE and his BoE job shows that, functionally, he is incapable of such an activity.
Like a fois gras goose – he has been force fed nonesense and thus is incapable of “thinking” in anything resembling an original fashion.
Do you fancy a campaign against him? We could start with his support for the interest rise – doubtless supported by him – and thus affecting large numbers of people in your constitutency. I would be delighted to part fund such a campaign with slogans such as: “Alistain Strathern wants to make you poorer” or some such.
How can you tell Labour supporters consist of two bunches of child-like crazies?
One bunch says the government has run out of money and Starmer is being wise and practical to announce this.
The other bunch says he’s only pretending this and will turn on the government spending taps once he gets elected to office.
So two bunches diametrically opposed and not the slightest scrap of reality in sight!
Of course PFI Mark II will as Richard suggests be the excessively expensive in-between compromise which of course favours the already rich wouldn’t you know it!
I agree with nearly every comment here about the Observer article today. I got half way down it and just couldn’t take it anymore. All I could think of was ‘I’m not voting for this’.
I’m sure it’s been written by one of his advisors who has advised him to skip around everything it seems.
Today I had a lecture from my better half today telling me that Starmer is up against huge power and must ‘play the game’. This might be true, but I don’t see why he couldn’t go to Rupert’s garden party and throw his champagne in the antipodean interferer’s face instead.
Already then, the next election is a stitch up.
The Tories might lose but they still get to win with a rampant OBR, BREXIT addled economy , high interest rates and a failing public sector all presenting together as an overwhelming , insurmountable tide that cannot be turned back. What sort of democracy is that?
UK plc is not even going to get to go into resuscitation mode under Labour. Instead all Starmer is going to do is improve the signage to the resuscitation room but you’re on your own when you get there. Big deal.
What I find about Starmer’s defenders is that they are more interested in what they see as ‘entryism’ after the Blair years – they look down their noses at Ed Miliband and Corbyn and Momentum and grass roots issues and memberships as unacceptable and illegitimate – that they are the problem and not Labour’s Blairite adherence to neo-liberalism which is the actual problem and has people confused and mistrusting of them.
Blair’s government has some notable achievements, but really all it did was carry on and set things up for the Tories when they (of course) got back into power in 2010 – the NHS and the post office being two examples – and kept to Tory spending commitments for far too many years. Doing that fatally undermined them because what does it say about your own ability as a government?
What we’ll get in 2024 from Labour I feel will much less than 1997.
You have to hand to the Tories though. They have not fucked around. No lilly-livered liberal hand-wringing or anything like that from them – they’ve done a FINE demolition job of our society. They got in and got on with it.
The Tories have been everything Labour is not: bold, decisive, focussed, knowing what they want to achieve and cunning about it too, not scared to implement change at all.
Damn them.
And voters like that sort of stuff too. That’s why the Tories will be back.
I did not even bother reading Starmers article – why waste time on trash, written by trash.
As for the tories, I will leave the last word to Calgacus, quoted by Tacitus (my substitution in parentheses)
“These plunderers of the (the UK) [the tories], after exhausting the land by
their devastations, are rifling the ocean: stimulated by avarice, if their
enemy be rich; by ambition, if poor; unsatiated by the East and by the West:
the only people who behold wealth and indigence with equal avidity. To ravage,
to slaughter, to usurp under false titles, they call empire; and where they make
a desert, they call it peace.
Richard, what do you think of this:
https://actuaries.org.uk/media/qeydewmk/the-emperor-s-new-climate-scenarios.pdf
Seems to me that Starmer had better take note and ask where Ms Reeves and co are getting their models from. Financial services have evidently been basing their forecasts on models incorporating Neoclassical economic assumptions, which largely ignore feedback and tipping points, and don’t align with models used by climate scientists.
“There is a discrepancy between climate scientists, those building the models, those working with the models, and decision makers in financial services….”
“Actuaries … wield enormous influence in the global financial system. In addition to their role in the insurance markets, their work in pensions means they can impact capital allocation in long-term savings in a way few other professions can…”
” Insurance leaders have unequivocally stated that if climate change raises average temperatures to 4 ̊C above pre-industrial levels most assets will be uninsurable. Without insurance, investment, finance, business slow to a halt – we will no longer have an economy. Governments will no longer have a tax base from which to deliver vital services or repay coupons on gilts.”
Steve Keen and others have been making better models (presumably using Minsky)….
I spent this morning reading this
Many thanks
I will be blogging it when there is time…
Appreciated
That it comes from actuaries in the insurance sector is telling and should add weight to it. They are not generally seen as a bunch of radicals.
The prospect of a majority Starmer government is depressing, though it would be emotionally seeing this government being kicked out. And there is good reason to think even a Starmer government will mean some things are better- I doubt if it would go in for painting child friendly murals and stuff like that.
Better by far a hung Parliament which could give hope for electoral reform opening the way to major political realignment.
The most likely outcome seems to be a majority Starmer one term government
And no electoral reform, leading to a continuing series of Tory governments as the country dwindles away.
The infuriating thing is that if Starmer’s rhetoric about Growth was underlaid by a rational understanding of economics and how money actually works it would imply very sizeable government spending which actually could bring that growth.
So the best hope might be that the stuff about holding spending down rigidly is actually just a ploy to get him elected PM to be junked when it’s done it’s job, just as easily as the socialist line he used to get elected Labour Leader was junked.
If that turns out to be the case it would mean that, when it comes to genuine political dishonesty Keir Starmer makes Boris Johnson look like an amateur. Let’s hope so…
I think Starmer is being honest about his intentions
He really is deeply right wing
Correction – rather significant correction to two typos in last line of my post!!! And another clarifying word inserted into second line.
“The prospect of a majority Starmer government is depressing, though it would be emotionally satisfying seeing this government being kicked out. And there is good reason to think even a Starmer government will mean some things are better- I doubt if it would not go in for overpainting child friendly murals and stuff like that.”
And therein lies the problem you isolate Gerontius. Voting is used as a ‘getting even’ act by voters – punishment even for governments who are perceived to have messed things things up.
Sod policy, sod record, sod what is coming next, lets all just stick the boot in and damn the consequences. It goes like this:
‘Ooooh – that feels good, party are x are out. Revenge! Oh, hang on, the new lot have just cut me benefits! Huh – you just can’t trust politicians! Boo hoo’.
I get the feeling that the average voter and our current crop of politicians deserve each other. It’s a never ending cycle of ignorance enabling ignorance these days. FUBAR politics. With the rich cheering us on.
Let’s face it, this is how the rotten Tories got in in 2010. If you think about how bad the Tories had been before that and they were voted in!
Or was it Labour deciding not have a Lib/Lab pact because of their inability to deal with pluralism even then?
It’s all redolent of a failure of democracy and internal party politics but also of social solidarity all brought about I think by our bright new idealised hyper-individualised market economy courtesy of one Margaret Hilda Thatcher.
We’ve gone from being in it together, to having things done to for ‘me’ or to ‘me’. I think that nexus of that problem is to be found in taxation policy too.
By turning tax payers into the funders of the country, we all now feel entitled to things that we actually can’t have because we refuse apparently to pay for them or resent paying for others because it’s ‘taxpayers’ money! ‘Tax payers’ money, meaning ‘my money’. Or too many of us want the same thing (e.g. social care). How often do you hear people saying ‘I’m not paying my taxes for such and such’? So now, the great uninformed public are in charge and politicians can only manage those expectations now.
By claiming that the government has no money, the inference is that the tax payer has to pay to sort it ALL out. With inflation and low wages and high interest rates we have the perfect recipe for stasis and nothing being done. The status quo is retained and bolstered.
I mean its pathetic isn’t it? This taxpayers’ money trope is a twisted, malfunctioning, self defeating form of popular politics at work.
And those who believe in it slit their own throats every hour that they do so.
Who wants to be part of something like that? I don’t for sure.
Two thoughts …
First, Keir Starmer appears to have no regrets about his party’s embrace of neoliberalism in the Blair-Brown years. On this side of the Pond, even Joe Biden appears to have some regrets about the Democrats’ adoption of neoliberalism in the Clinton and Obama years.
Second, Starmer employs a rhetorical trope also recently employed by the Washington Post editorial board when discussing the U.S. national debt. Both the Post and Starmer pat themselves on the back for the sheer unsexiness of their policy proposals.
The Post (https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2023/03/09/us-debt-biden-budget-failure/): “Stabilizing the debt might not be a catchy campaign slogan, but the concept is simple to understand.”
Starmer (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/jul/15/labour-approach-britain-failed-tory-rebuild): “Taking seriously the foundations of economic responsibility may not set people’s pulses racing, but the new country we can build on top of them will do.”
The planet’s going to fry because of lazy people who won’t make the effort to understand how money works!
Utter splutter (47 comments!)
How could such a tumult of intemperance have been preceded by your innocent observation of a butterfly’s wing?
There are alternatives to TINA, such as proffered by https://positivemoney.org/
Politely, Positive Money are a menace not a solution
Our best hope is that Labour will not win a majority but will have to form alliances with others (SNP, LD, PC etc) in order to govern – the price of which must be PR.
PR is no panacea but it offers some hope of a pluralist future where radical ideas on economics, health etc will get properly heard – and supported.
On top of this, even with a majority Labour govt – the other key player is the Trade Union movement. I am assuming Unite chose to stay affiliated to the LP in the hope of substantive influence.
Meanwhile with an unprecedented heat wave to the south of the UK undoubtedly caused by climate change Keir and Rachel say with them in charge government spending on Britain doing its bit to tackle it must be put on ice!
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/jul/16/thousands-forced-out-of-homes-la-palma-canary-islands-as-heatwave-grips-europe
Of course the fact that the UK imports roundabout 46% of its food has no bearing on the matter for make-it-up as you go along Keir and Rachel!
https://www.trade.gov/country-commercial-guides/united-kingdom-agricultural-sectors
“Sir Keir Starmer has said he is happy to be branded a “fiscal conservative” as he repeatedly refused to commit to greater spending on the NHS and other public services.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-government-spending-b2376121.html
“Don’t you just love this Fiscal Conservative brand of blinkers Rachel?” said Keir “All the problems magically go away, governing should be a piece of cake.”
I liked this comment on the Independent article:-
“There you have it, the final admission that Labour will be no different to the Tories, so voting for them is no different to voting for the Tories.
Remember when Starmer promised a commitment to socialism during the leadership contest? A lie so extreme that it’s practically a joke.
In politics, winning by copying your opponents is the same as losing, just with different personnel and less self-respect.”
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/keir-starmer-labour-government-spending-b2376121.html#comments-area
Well everyone gets it, but for what it’s worth this is my take, I wrote this after his series of five speeches, setting out his “vision”
On Labour’s approach.
So after a series of speeches this is what we are left with, five pledges as vague and woolly as Sunak’s
1. Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7
2. Make Britain a clean energy superpower
3. Build an NHS fit for the future
4. Make Britain’s streets safe
5. Break down barriers to opportunity
Compare to this what he said to be elected
1. Economic justice
2. Social justice
3. Climate justice
4. Promote peace and human rights
5. Common Ownership
6. Defend migrants rights
7. Strengthen workers rights and trade unions
8. Radical devolution of power wealth and opportunity
9. Equality
10. Effective opposition to the tories
They are still there I just checked this morning
https://keirstarmer.com/plans/10-pledges/
I cannot even say there is nothing wrong with the new bland statements and that they are better than nothing. Let’s go through them.
Number 1 Secure the highest sustained growth in the G7.
This should worry anyone concerned with the climate crisis and the way endless growth is using up resources in unsustainable ways. Looking for alternatives to GDP is a major theme in economics. Lots of economists and think tanks have been doing the hard yards on this since the crash of 2008. You’d expect a future leader to be able to acknowledge this, talking up growth says to me he just doesn’t get it or if he does he’s to timid to try and lead on it and make/shape the political weather
Number 2 Make Britain a clean energy superpower.
This is a fantasy, it comes over like a UK version of MAGA, like Make Britain Great Again. Ignoring all the Empire resonances we have a single battery plant, we are agonising over rejoining the Horizon programme, we have voluntarily exited the organisation that was a force multiplier for us (the EU). The green new deal isn’t mentioned. A lot of work that is needed is small, modest even then it adds up to a lot money; items like insulation and public transport which would hardly play out on the world stage. Eastern European cities are more advanced than British ones on things like cycling, car sharing and public transport.
Number 3 Build an NHS fit for the future.
This is the standard knee jerk of all politicians that the Kings Fund recently criticised – the knee jerk gets in the way of the fix and the fix needs to be cross party, employee and citizen driven – we are all potential patients. The NHS even when most people loved it, before the pandemic, failed on the one thing that matters – outcomes. The NHS is broken, even Savid Javid was willing to talk about a Public Commission to get cross party consensus without saying what the solution is. All Tony Blair could do was call for more privatisation.
Number 4 – Make Britain’s streets safe.
Yes, knife crime is a big problem in some areas and very serious for those involved, there are interventions that have been proven to work – these are complex and relate to a raft if issues including peer pressure, gangs, identity and inclusion. There are other issues about women’s safety and also about police attitudes. But as a headline and without detail is this number 4 for the 2024 general election?
Number 5 Break down barriers to opportunity.
It’s that social mobility thing again. I have a big problem with this because it implies people need somewhere to leave from, that the poor will always be with us. Worse it implies the people at the top deserve to be there and the ones who don’t make it are somehow not working hard enough and just can’t cut it. A hierarchy, by definition, has few places at the top. I want everyone to have the chance to achieve their potential. So for me a test of social mobility would be that all people feel comfortable in all areas of the country and with whomever they meet. If Kier Starmer has any sophistication in his thinking you would expect him to be able to articulate this, it isn’t rocket science.
The charitable view is that the original 10 pledges don’t fly in the target marginal seats, and the five new pledges do because they have been tested with “consumer” panels and triangulated. Modern politics isn’t about persuasion anymore. Modern politics is merely about getting in and whatever those few thousand marginalise floaters think, thats what he’s going for. The problem here is first past the post closing down the room for debate. Unlike the rightwing tories there is no sign that he would be majoritarian and having got in unleash a radical programme (and in any case) if he did it would fail because the case hasn’t been made. He is just stubbornly tribal “only Labour can do it”. It should be clear in a complicated world no one person or groups has the answers.
He is steadfastly ignoring the fact that a PR is now a majority view in the Labour Party and has been adopted by Conference.
The uncharitable view is that he never believed it. He has been hard on MPs going on picket lines, he’s been purging anyone who doesn’t align, the party has a history of imposing candidate on constituencies, centre left MPs are worries about being sanctioned or deselected, a sitting mayor doesn’t get onto a shortlist because “we have very high standards about who can be shortlisted” (begging the question how he got there in the first place and why some tories say he’s good to work with), an ex SPAD for Gordon Brown is now in the process for possible expulsion. The uncharitable view is hard to articulate because it make me sick in the gut.
Thanks
When there is so little obvious difference between the offerings from the main parties, what is the risk that people will just stay at home and not vote? Labour are relying on ‘anyone but Tories’. Given the general disillusionment with politics, a low turnout is quite likely so Labour should not take an easy win for granted.
As others have said, we desperately need some ‘hope and change’. There’s none of that on offer at the moment.
I don’t go for the theory that the hydra-headed Starmer/Reeves duo is playing an elaborate, sophisticated “game” to get power, & once established will undergo a Damascene conversion. If the dynamic duo outlined acceleration of the economy via substantial spending, braked by taxation NOT Austerity, they would win just about every seat in Parliament. Most people, even if not au-fait with basic economics, know instinctively that there is something drastically wrong with the current modus operandii.
You & your readers are of course dead right about the inevitable resurgence of PFI (just how much is Blair string-pulling here?). PFI example: I read somehere that circa 55% of the NHS budget in the West Midlands (I don’t live there) went into servicing PFI debt. Quite a lot of that PFI money was for the rebuild & refurb of Birmingham’s Queen Elizabeth Hospital (the QE Hospital – definitely a sick pun!). On completion, it was judged to be not-for-purpose & then part of it re-converted into a massive surgical centre.
Can we hope for some kind of Green-Libdem coalition that might result in a hung parliament, thus forced into cooperation? I honestly cannot see what else to vote for, even given the economic imperfections you have highlighted – the rest of the political establishment is every bit as imperfect.
High up in the Green Party is David Malone. I do not know him personally (his father incidentally was involved with Bronowski’s groundbreaking “Ascent of Man” all those years ago) but what I have read from him would suggest that he may well be receptive to your ideas. Perhaps you can do for the GP what you did for Corbyn & Mac?
Just trying to find you a bit of work, Richard, to fill in your spare time. Auf Wiedersehn for now & just before I get my ears clipped!!!
I’ve got nothing on…. (I have, both prhsically and in work terms)
Send me contact details but I am told changing anything in the GP takes years….which is ironic…
..will do asap….
…me & my big gob – it seems that Malone may have left the Green Party or taken a back seat – he contested but did not win the last leadership contest….I have emailed the GP for clarification & asked for detail of their economics team (PM? – calm down, that’s just a bit of humour!). It did occur to me however that one of your collaborators on the Green New Deal, Colin Hines, is described as “an occasional adviser to Caroline Lucas”….info that may be of use to you?….I will write again once I’ve had a reply from the GP.
I also know Caroline, quite well, but her MP caseload is so high I do not want to burden her
…more potential bad news: a “snap” general election in Spain next weekend. There is more than a possibilty that a neoliberal coalition could win. One Spanish commentator has said that this would usher in a much-more-extreme-than-Franco regime, which will not, for instance “tolerate” continuance of autonomy for the Basque region & will “suppress” the Catalunyan independence campaign. Trouble at’ mill indeed. And they are playing the immigration card. I lived & worked there for three years when Franco was still in charge, so I can appreciate that this not exactly good news. Needless to say I hope it does not happen.
It amazes me that these Neolibs do not need coups d’etat, revolutions, or insurrections – they can, with apparent “solutions” that are nothing more than empty populist slogans get themselves ELECTED. The parallel with UK is Starmer/Reeves will probably prevail on the grounds of “get these Tories out” & then “carry on regardless” with the same policies.
I hope I am wrong or simply being pessimistic.
We indeed “live in interesting times”…Mao Tse Tung – no doubt in cheek.
You are not alone in being worried about this
Richard
You are right on Starmer and Reeves.
Your NHS perscriptions need some further work though.
The NHS is not bureaucratic , it is crude. It manages its inadequate budget by establishing cash limited budgets that managers are expected not to breach. It puts limits on numbers of doctors and nurses being trained and it controls centrally the capital budget. As the pressure increases so its dysfunctionality grows exponentially.
All this could be resolved quickly by removal of cash limited budgets and a turn to activity based budgets (in common with most of Europe), rewarding productivity. By increasing the numbers of doctors and nurses being trained and by putting capital expenditure decisions into the planning directorate and not the controlling directorate of government.
As for those peddling prevention as a substitute for adequate healthcare the obvious retort is : where is that working… ? All the evidence is that it acts as a complementary health strategy not a substitute for direct healthcare. Its promoted by those people who wish to cut healthcare for the masses, to create shortages and thus create the demand for market solutions. As you say while the ultra processed food and sugary drinks industries are poisoning people we shouldn’t expect the need for healthcare to diminish any time soon.
All the experts agree the case for additional health and social care spending is compelling, desirable and affordable.
All that is lacking are politicians prepared to say so.
Thanks
With some temerity I’d like to suggest that it’s unlikely that after laying out his popular left-wing manifesto for leadership Starmer was not advised, or perhaps he knew already, that if he were to continue down that road he would be crucified like Corbyn by the ruthless right-wing Establishment whom the Tory party exists to serve, using the Tory media, including the BBC (and other strategies) to deny him any chance of election to government. That Establishment, painstakingly nurtured over the years by the ‘politically neutral’ Crown and enjoying the tacit support of all the powerful institutions that swear allegiance to the Crown, represents the political structure into which any would-be governing party has to fit. The concept of an independent government answerable only to Parliament and the people is therefore simply another carefully nurtured myth. Starmer. like Blair before him, must toe the Establishment line to be elected, and stay on that line to continue in office. Unlike Blair, Starmer may well find that unpalatable but he’ll have little choice.
A hackneyed Old Labour conspiracy theory – or another inconvenient truth?
Starmer and the Labour right participated in the political assassination of Corbyn and deliberately undermined Labour in 2017 and 2019.
They are not controlled by the establishment, they are the establishment
In my desperation to see some shred of hope in the current situation I have let my heart rule my head. The notion that Starmer is an Establishment mole, along with Blair and Clegg, is much more credible than that he is a prisoner of the Establishment. Blair’s pernicious role is well known, but of course it was Clegg who facilitated the referendum vote for FPTP – essential for the continued power of Tory/Establishment and now (New) Labour. I do apologise to Richard, George and others for my naiivity.
https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2023/07/17/jamie-driscoll-has-given-up-on-the-labour-party-and-gone-independent-help-him-get-re-elected-as-north-east-mayor/
Above: a development reported by VOX P – it’s about Jamie Driscoll the incumbent Mayor on North Tyneside & Starmer’s treatment of him in barring him from representing Labour at the NEXT mayoral election. I live in the North-East & I can tell you at first hand that even Driscoll’s opponents concede that he has done a a first-rate job.
He has decided to run as an independent – I think he will skate it!
This auto-da-fe excommication is apparently because Driscoll was at an event featuring Ken Loach’s (KL obviously was there) latest film, based IN the North-East. Loach is “accused” & found guilty by the Labour Inquisition of being Anti-Semitic but he is most definitely not: he has indeed been highly critical of Israel’s persecution of the Palestinians however – & rightly so in my view.
Personally, I would be proud to share a platform with Loach. He has been an inspiration in highlighting the plight of desparate (for all sorts of reasons) people & NB the Pope agrees with me – he recently & volubly lauded KL’s efforts. So, folks, filled with zeal & righteousness, that’s my ticket booked on the bus to the Pearly Gates!
Seriously, however, how many more of the Labour movement will have the guts & integrity to challenge the leadership…..is it just about power?
that should have read “excommunication” – I could create a whole new language with these typos
An interesting comment tonight from the SHA. Apparently right-wing labour MPs are joining the group in order to muzzle them!
The SHA want a wealth tax to pay for the NHS, and to abolish the internal market to free up funds. The SHA is also opposed to Integrated Care Systems. Right wing labour MPs are not.
Kate Osborne is definitely not a Starmerite, or, as his new nickname is, a follower of Sir Kid Starver.
…sorry to sound ignorant but what does the acronym “SHA” mean?
Sorry. SHA is the Socialist Health Association.
https://www.sochealth.co.uk/the-socialist-health-association/
I think Sir Kid Starver has just handed the North East mayoralty to Driscoll on a plate.
Their choice to take over from Driscoll, Kim McGuinness, has been basing her campaign on a promise to end child poverty! What timing.
The reorganisation of the NHS we need at this point is that the decisions about what resources were needed to enable it to provide the services we need would be taken, free of political control. The criterion would be based on a commitment to keeping service standards at least level with other comparable countries such as Germany and Sweden.
The role of the political system would be essentially that of ensuring that the funding which was determined by the NHS as needed was made available. It would not be the role of politicians to make the decisions about how much or how little could be afforded. If it’s needed, it’s affordable, even if taxes need to rocket to prevent the money creation needed involved causing excessive inflation.
There is no such thing as a decision free of political control in the NHS
Nor should there be
Political judgement on the use of resources is always required, if only in the background
https://thegreatcritique.wordpress.com/2023/07/16/starmerites-could-you-please-explain-what-youre-so-angry-about/
Decisions about priorities in medicine do indeed involve politics – but it would be better if politicians who are primarily concerned about non-medical matters, such as getting re-elected, were kept out of the picture. Their job is to provide the money and other resources needed to provide the level of services which is required to match that available in comparable countries.
His Shadow Chancellor seems to be a close minded old school economics patriot.