I posted this thread on Twitter this morning:
I am aware that some people here are quite upset by my comments about Labour. They presume as a result of them that I am trying to upset Labour's chances of being elected, or that I am somehow a traitor to the left-of-centre cause. I am not. A thread…
I have always made clear my distaste for the Tory-led governments that we have suffered since 2010. Their policies have been divisive, increased inequality and prejudice and reduced the well-being of many. They have all been economically incompetent. Can I be clearer than that?
I have also over a long period laid out my objection to the neoliberal, pro-market, pro-austerity, pro-low tax policies that have underpinned those governments, and contributed to the failures that we are now used to.
Those failures include the collapse in public sector pay and our public services. In turn this has led to the widespread belief that nothing works in the UK any more. That's not surprising with our dire economic performance. Again, could I have been clearer? I doubt it.
Please do not doubt in that case that I really do wish that we could be rid of this government for good. Equality, sustainability, fairness, and even the future of life on Earth, depend upon us doing so. In summary, the stakes could not be higher.
In that case, and given the hopelessly inadequate form of democracy which this country suffers, I would conventionally look to the official opposition party that is most likely to be in power next to provide a real alternative to this government.
The reason why I am so disillusioned with Labour is that far from offering that alternative to Tory failure they appear to me (and to a great many other people, it seems) to be endorsing almost everything that the Tories have done whilst offering more of the same in the future.
There are a number of good reasons for saying this. The most obvious is that Labour has committed to changing almost nothing about what the Tories have done. Even the most egregious of their policies, like the two-child benefit cap and the bedroom tax are to remain in place.
There is no hint of a change to trade union laws. Nor will Labour change draconian laws on protest. There is nothing about rolling back the antidemocratic Henry VIII powers the government gave itself during the Covid crisis. Commitments on nationalisation have been abandoned.
Labour also refuses to say what it will do on quite critical issues, like the NHS, migration, climate change and more. Even when commitments were made, for example, on climate change, there has now been backtracking. If Labour has a policy now it is to blow in the wind.
In addition, Labour is already making excuses for continuing austerity. They don't say that. Instead, they say they will have an ‘ironclad' fiscal rule. It just so happens that this means there can be no borrowing for almost everything that is needed, so we get austerity as a result.
But, there is no such thing as a fiscal rule. They are made up. Chancellors create and discard them on whims. No Chancellor has ever delivered upon a rule that they have created. Usually, they have revised them many times so that they can pretend that they work, but they don't.
But now Labour has created another of these fiscal rules with what seems to be the sole intention of preventing public expenditure. I can find no other justification.
At the same time, Labour has committed to creating no new taxes on wealth in the UK, despite the fact that the effective tax rate on those with high income and wealth in this country is dramatically lower than that on most people on average or below average income.
And we all know that there is massive income inequality in this country. In fact, that's a major reason why nothing does work anymore. But Labour says it will do nothing about this.
To me, that appears to be contrary to everything that Labour should stand for.
My question to those who criticise me is, in that case, when was it that you decided to support a party dedicated to increasing inequality because that is what you are doing?
Worse, Labour is also joining with the Tories on many issues. For example, it would seem that, like the Tories, Labour is trying to suppress the role of devolved government in this country.
When, as anyone who knows them will confirm, Scotland and Wales (and Northern Ireland) are very different places to England, this appears to be deeply insensitive and even offensive.
And it seems to, at best, only want to tinker with migration policy.
Elsewhere, it seems to be ‘waiting and seeing'. As definitions of an absence of political vision, let alone belief, go that seems pretty good to me.
Added together, this appears to be a Labour package for maintaining the status quo within UK society as it is at present.
It offers no chance for electoral reform.
It ignores the reality of this being a United Kingdom.
And it accepts inequality, prejudice, lack of opportunity and low pay as if they are to be tolerated.
In fact, what it reveals is that Labour has the same profoundly neoliberal mindset that the Tories possess. There is deeply implicit in Labour's policy approach a belief that government is unable to do anything to affect change.
At the same time, if the existence of a problem is recognised then Labour, like the Tories, now assumes that the market must provide a solution, as is obvious from Labour‘s commentary on the NHS now.
When it comes to the environment, there is nothing in what Labour has to say that offers any form of hope. Ed Miliband has tried to be progressive. He has been slapped down with the suggestion that he is a tree hugger.
Despite all this evidence, which Labour must have carefully produced, those who would criticise me are asking me to believe three things.
The first is that Labour is left of centre. I can find no evidence to support that claim.
The second is that Labour will deliver the sorts of reform that people like me want when it is in office, even if it is not indicating that fact now. I can see no reason to believe that when every person who is vaguely left of centre in the party is being expelled.
Third, I am told not to rock the boat because there is no alternative to the Tories except a neoliberal Labour Party whose only claim to office would seem to be that it would run a feeble government slightly less corruptly than the Tories.
If there are those of left-wing persuasion who wish to believe these things, please go ahead and do so. Your regret will be something that you have to live with. I have just come to terms with my disenchantment with Labour earlier than you have. That is the difference between us.
What I am not happy to be told is, however, that my actions are pro-Tory. Supporting Starmer‘s Labour Party, which I would rate as being comfortably to the right of Cameron and Osborne, is to be that.
What I also resent being told is that I've a duty to compromise to get Labour into office when it is Labour‘s wholly unnecessary tribalism (that is decidedly imperial in tone) that has created this absurd situation where neoliberalism is now the only option on the national agenda.
Finally, please do not tell me there are no alternatives. I can find a variety of conviction-based politicians who really do provide an alternative to Labour.
And if the worst came to the worst, I could vote LibDem, knowing that they are at least committed to Europe and electoral reform, both of which are very high on Labour‘s list of failures.
Trust me, I wish that I did not have to say any of this. I wish, instead, Labour was willing to provide a genuine social-democratic range of policies that reflected the preferences of the people of this country.
I also wish for a party with a chance of office that truly understood the reality of the mixed economy and what this country really needs to deliver prosperity instead of being faced with one that appears clueless on this issue.
In essence, I want a party that can deliver firm government to underpin the well-being of the country with conviction-based policy that is intended to deliver real growth in well-being. Labour has, however, now very firmly vacated that space.
And finally, for those who are thinking that I am calling for the restoration of Corbyn and McDonnell, that is not true.
Whatever qualities he might have, Jeremy Corbyn was not suited to lead the country whilst John McDonnell signed up for a fiscal rule little better than that now subscribed to by Rachel Reeves, and it would have been disastrous. They were not a dream team either.
This country requires a government that is principles-based, rooted in sound economics, dedicated to sustainability, and that by conviction is determined to deliver greater equality.
As it stands, Labour is not going to do that. Don't ask me to support them if they are choosing to fail, because I won't.
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:
One of the Guardian headlines today: “UK heads towards five years of lost economic growth – business live”, which is a direct consequence of what passes for vile-tory economic policy……which as this blog observes will be continued almost action for action by vile-liebore. What is missing is, what the vile-liebore bunch think/express privately?. Do they really believe in all the guff they come out with? Really? if they do, they are wholly unfit to be in government, due to a level of delusion that is clinical. Given his background, one would not expect Kid Starver to have a good graps of gov’ economics. In the case of Reeves, given what she says, she seems to be a BoE “safe pair of hands”, groomed to say/do the right things, in the interests of …….the rich.
The key acronym for the next election should be ABL… anybody but liebore.
On a related note, I can recommend the sort of documentary on the Uk which the BBC et al is no longer able to make. Instead the German public broadcaster (Deutsche Welle) steps in: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BK68yyrKUOA
The interview with working people (2 minutes in) is interesting – both have jobs – can’t afford child care. 19 minutes in there is Cam-moron blaming Labour for the rise in food banks (yes he does!).
Very well said Richard.
Thank you, I fully agree. Electoral reform is the key to getting rid of this ridiculous situation where the only way Labour believe they can gain power is by offering to be a slightly less nasty version of the Tory party.
I guess the best we can hope for is a minority Labour government where the Lib Dems and others have enough leverage to force a switch to PR.
How can anyone trust the Lib-Dems to go for real PR? They had their chance in the hung pariament of 2010 but Nick Clegg refused to dig in his heels over it, preferring to get into bed with Cameron and half-heartedly push for the Alternative Vote crap.
I’m sure Charles Kennedy would have insisted on sticking to the traditional Liberal Party stance of real reform had he still been party leader.
You are right and I have had anger from people who thought starmer was the saviour. The only good things will be less egregious behaviour and probably better systematic government but by continuing with Clarke/Blair/Osborne policies will not achieve real change and for example worsen the NHS so that ultimately a more right wing populist government follows.
Any hope I had the Labour was just trying to avoid giving anything to the right wing press ( inc BBC) has gone now full evidence of the grip on ensuring right wing candidates are being selected.
I left the Labour Party similarly disillusioned. After undertaking a policy review I joined the Green Party who offer progressive reform in many areas. I do not agree with all Green policies and some need developing and refining. The best outcome at the next election would be a narrow Labour win which leads to them needing support from other parties to form a Government. The price for support should include the introduction of PR in order that we change the game. On the theme of prejudice I listened to Sarah Dines on Mondays Today program. It was woefully incompetent. She failed to answer any of the questions posed. Yvette Cooper did better this morning.
The best outcome would be a hung parliament. I agree. However, I worry that if the price of working with the LibDems and Greens was PR (Starmer has ruled out any deals with the SNP), that Starmer would choose to form a government with the Tories.
Further sobering thought for the day:
Median age in UK: 40.6 years (https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/median-age).
Therefore, more than half the UK population have spent all their lives under a neo-liberal government.
True
It is of course true that Starmer has form when it comes to saying one thing to get elected then doing quite another after – that’s precisely what he did in the Labour leadership election.
Trouble is, that ‘ends justify the means’ ideology – endlessly repeated by Labour right-wingers in its various guises of ‘you have to get elected before you can do anything’, etc, is – as Albert Camus’ ‘The Rebel’ accurately explained – a key justification for every extreme political abuse.
Maybe you and Steve Keen should team up and start a new political movement. Call it “on the money” or some-such!
I left Labour as soon as it was clear that the wrecking faction (exemplified by such as Ian Austin, Mike Gapes, Luke Akehurst, David Evans) , who hold a lot of power as regional office and above, had triumphed. They have created a right of centre party on old Stalinist lines where all policy is decided at the centre by diktat. The killer blows to me are the abandoning of democratically determined policies such as nationalisation and PR.
The abuse as a Tory enabler, aside from the contrived antisemitism some get, is pervasive.
There is also a sneaky ‘hands off’ environment to separate centre and branches by focusing branches on local issues, while severing the upward flow of policy and action, and acting against the slightest criticism with lethal force.
This is a deeply authoritarian, neoliberal party.
The trouble is that left wing Labour members are reluctant to accept that the word Labour has been hijacked by the right wing and so they need to call themselves something else. There should be a credible threat to defeat Starmer in his constituency if he wont go for PR, even if the seat would go to the Tories. (remember Bermondsey 1983)
As always the Americans have a knack of distilling things down to a pithy quote and the climate crisis they are now waking up to is seen as meaning “Big Green means Big Fiscal”.
In a British way of thinking this translates as the last thing the country needs is tubs of lard like Sunak and Starmer who continue to believe (despite the GFC and Covid bail-outs) the ignorant Thatcher lie that “the government has no money of its own”!
Speaking of green and fiscal, Germany has just passed the budget for its climate and transformation fund (KTF), providing €212 billion to various projects in building renovation, decarbonisation and the industry between 2024 and 2027 (4 years circa Euro50billion per year). The dedicated fund, is excluded from the usually-strict German spending rules (oh ho – so even the fiscally conservatiev Germans will make an exception for climate), For 2024 the government has earmarked €57.6 billion for various projects.
And in the UK?………more oil n gas from vile-tory and from vile-liebore………el-zero, the economy needs to get back on its feet first. Kid Starver & Reeves, the UK’s very own Dumb & Dumber (plus the liebore supporting cast).
Richard, I could understand if you said that Starmer’s Labour was similar economically to Cameron and Osborne but what makes you say they are “comfortably to the right of Cameron and Osborne”?
Cameron and Osborne implemented an extreme form of austerity that was punishingly severe to the poor and disabled and they were extremely right wing and extremely neoliberal, much more so than Thatcher, so how is it that you see Starmer as being even more right wing than that?
Because that is very clearly what Reeves wants to do.
If you insist on no borrowing for current spending you deliver very deep austerity in the current environment.
Exactly! For example, build forty new hospitals under “capital spend” but then don’t have the money to staff them because the latter is “current spending”. How much more like a tub of lard do Starmer and Rachel Reeves want to be?
My own thoughts were that Starmer / Reeves are somewhat to the right of John Major / Ken Clarke and slightly to the left of Cameron and Osborne.
However on reflection I find myself agreeing with Richard: Cameron was far more socially liberal than Starmer, as for Osborne (and his Svengali Rupert Harrison) it was never about the deficit per se, rather austerity was the means to justify the uber Thatcherite ideal of destroying the public sector. Reeves on the other hand is a True Believer in the balanced budget bollocks and the independence of the now feral Bank of England to dictate macro economic policy as it sees fit. With the odious Wes Streeting pushing private sector involvement in the NHS to a degree Lansley could only dream of then yes, – New New Labour is definitely to the right of Cameron and Osborne
Thanks
“What I also resent being told is that I’ve a duty to compromise to get Labour into office when it is Labour‘s wholly unnecessary tribalism (that is decidedly imperial in tone) that has created this absurd situation where neoliberalism is now the only option on the national agenda.
Finally, please do not tell me there are no alternatives. I can find a variety of conviction-based politicians who really do provide an alternative to Labour.”
Precisely Richard. We’re told by those who espouse this that FPTP means that everyone who isn’t a tory has to vote labour no matter what their qualms about it. But who left FPTP in place when they had 13 years to put PR in? And which party refuses point blank to lead a progressive anti-tory alliance or even just tacitly endorse tactical voting, to the extent of threatening to expel any of its membership which want this? Labour. So it’s all self-inflicted.
I have a hunch that both main parties are not going to do well at the next GE. The tories’ attempts to win by endorsing ever more vicious and stupid ‘policies’ will cause many moderate tory voters to switch to the LDs. And labour will lose loads of voters to the greens.
In each case, it’s thoroughly well deserved.
This tweet from @getprdone so speaks the truth…
“if you say you’re not voting Labour they call you a Tory enabler. This is like an abuser saying “you forced me to hit you” isn’t it?”
…https://twitter.com/getprdone/status/1688233198046662656
Stephen, thanks. Neal Lawson’s comment there is absolutely correct about labour machine politicians.
Labour tribalism is a disaster.
I completely agree with your post, Richard.
I used to vote for Labour when the party fought for a better deal for all people. I could not support Labour now because they have sold out. Labour MPs and MSPs now vote for themselves not the people they represent.
I now vote for the Greens or SNP because that is my only hope – to escape the ‘United Kingdom’. I want justice for everyone now and in the future.
When Scotland achieves freedom I will then be able to choose people who sincerely wants to serve all of the people.
Pretty much my thinking, if I was in Scotland
Interestingly in the Guardian readers are now turning against the Starmer and Reeves “tub of Tory lard” (no progressive policies) approach to politics:-
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/aug/09/labour-win-power-party-strategy-ideas#comment-163907479
It may well be the case the next general election will result in a splintered vote. I do wish though the Greens would get their understanding of how the country’s monetary system actually works right. Even though they’d be wise not to broadcast it with so many tubs of lard voters at least you could vote for them with confidence.
Self evidently markets and casino capitalism has failed the vast majority of the population whilst enriching the minority, the situation has been made worse by the tsunami of corrupt practices and practioners and the failure to punish anyone for the 2007/08 meltdown.
Alaister Darling reacted by introducing austerity mark 1, Osborne came along with austerity mark 2. At that point, the government was simply reacting to events -“whats the point of a risk management plan if you cant pay for it” Osborne said to the Covid Inquiry,
The economic consequences of the Ukraine / Russia conflict never discussed, apparently we did not know that we were dependent on Russian energy and Ukrainian wheat. The conflict resolution agreements signed by Francois Hollande and Angela Merkel torn up without any debate.
I cant see what Labour would have done differently or will do differently in the future.
They should be engaging in a widespread discussion of alternative ways forward and challenging financial orthdoxy but is evident that Reeves will never question the BoE. We shuld at least be talking about bringing back the Bank underpolitical control.
What to do when the only choice on offer is one that requires you to select a different shade of neoliberalism?
Indeed a country where the only thing on offer is choosing a different shade of crap!
Labour seems to be just one more of ‘our’ institutions not functioning as we assumed they did. Our constitution, lacking formal rules – relying on the ‘good chaps’ theory of Hennessey fantasy fame. The Labour leadership seem far from ‘good’.
Difficult to disagree with anything in Richard’s piece , yet some of us are still soldiering on trying to discuss ideas within Labour . Ideas are just what – Starmer, Reeves and Co. are terrified of – presumably because they aren’t confident of understanding and analysing what can be done.
If Labour could only govern with LD/Green support – that would open up possibilities – (PR/Climate action) but even if they do get a majority by themselves – they will not be able to avoid addressing how to run the economy and improve things .
Richards’ ‘there is money’ ideas might look a lot more appealing then.
Well said Richard.
Laboured is already doing a lot of self-inflicted damage to themselves, never mind what you say.
They are obviously going for swing voters and also hoping that voters sick of the Tories will just vote for them.
The latter sort of assumption has propped them up for too long and made them inward looking and gutless.
What they should have been doing is fighting for left wing principles and ideals and modernising them.
In many ways, it has to be said – they almost deserve to lose.
When Blair won in 1997, there was a spring in my step on the way to university, a renewed hope.
If Labour win in 2024, my reaction is more likely to be ‘And…………………………?’.