I admit that one of the difficulties of blogging regularly is working out what is worth talking about, and what just keeps the flow going. I am interested in the former. If producing the second was the task that blogging became then I would rapidly give up.
This challenge presented itself to me this morning. Faced with limited time (there is a plan for the day) and a messy news agenda, out of which little actually stands out, the question as to what to write about, if anything, did come to mind.
Having framed the question in that way the answer then became apparent. The question to ask is what, if anything, do our politicians believe in?
In my youth this was, I think, easy to answer. The Tories served an old-school establishment and whilst not exactly business orientated, because wealth was always their greater interest, they were more inclined to favour trade as a route to the creation of ‘new money' than were Labour. The result was an inherent mistrust of government.
Labour, on the other hand, favoured the working person and reduced inequality. They favoured unions as a result, thought highly of the state as an instrument of change, and were relaxed about trade pursued by nationalised industries as a consequence.
The Liberals back then really did not matter and nationalists were hardly on the scene. Relatively speaking, life was simple. We knew what the choices were. Importantly, the choice was real.
And so too is life simple now, except that for most people the opportunity to choose between opposing politicians has very largely been taken away from them.
The Tories dislike the state and all it stands for. They love wealth and use the state to increase the wellbeing of those already possessed of it. If a little (or even a lot) of none-too subtle corruption is required to assist that, so be it. That happened in the 90s. It has happened again more recently. As for anyone else, in reality the message is ‘sod you'. Games will be played to secure votes, but that is about as far as things go.
Labour just wants power for its leadership. That is it. There is no philosophy, belief system or creed. The prevailing status quo without the overlay of Tory incompetence and corruption will do for them. If that power happens not to meet the needs of the electorate the attitude is, once again, ‘sod them', because incompetence is the only other choice in Labour's opinion.
The LibDems want the EU back. As for the rest? Who knows?
The Greens want to save the planet but still have other issues to sort out.
And, quite reasonably nationalists want out of here without as yet being sure how, which creates the paradoxical demand to try to present a veneer of competence in a system stacked against them doing so.
It's all so deeply unedifying.
On Friday I was asked what was my theory of change that might explain how we might end this dire situation. I suggested a four stage process.
First, there has to be angst amongst sufficient people. A critical mass (but not the majority) has to think something is wrong.
Then there is analysis. That explains what is wrong, and how it can be put right.
The third stage is the promotion of solution focussed change. In other words,the demand is not just for something different, but for something specific that solves the problem. Analysis is not enough. Detailed plans are required that convince people that change is possible.
And then, finally, there is a need for champions who are willing to promote these solutions until change happens.
I think stage one exists in the UK.
I try to meet the need for analysis and the creation of solution focussed policy options. I am not alone with the former, but the solution focussed space is very thinly populated.
And then we do need champions. They are people who are willing to state their beliefs in an era when almost every politician has forgotten the significance of doing so and only wants power for its own (and their own) sake.
The missing element in the process of change is, then, people who believe that better is possible and who are willing to talk about solutions that achieve that goal.
Any volunteers?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Better is possible as evidenced by the past (in no particular order):
☑️Free university education
☑️Cheaper train fares
☑️Cheaper energy
☑️A better NHS
☑️30-year fixed rate mortgages
☑️House prices typically 3-4 times salary
The list goes on, and technology and economies of scale should have meant that all these endured, or even gotten better. For me, the decline started with Thatcher, and there seems to be enough evidence to suggest that Thatcherite, neoliberal, neoclassical economics is the cause of the decline. The last 14 years seem to offer strong evidence of that. More of the same can not be the solution.
” And then we do need champions”. Amongst the present crop of politicians, I’m afraid I don’t see anyone. And since I’m an S.N.P member of long standing, I include our present leader, and First Minister. While he maybe a competent person, I feel we someone who has real passion, fire in their belly, if we are ever to achieve our goal of Independence.
Agreed
…” the promotion of solution focussed change. In other words,the demand is not just for something different, but for something specific that solves the problem.” Unintended consequences, for every change action there is often an equal & opposite action. e.g. Government funds additional NHS spending to improve through put of patients using digital technology, robotics surgery & Ai scanning for rapid medical condition detection………………..but……..
Sorry, but what does that mean?
I think you’re being overly cynical Richard. There definitely are politicians with the passion, vision, and commitment to work for a better, fairer society. I know because I work with them and try to help them as best I can to get elected, which is the essential first step to making change happen.
But it’s really hard, under the current electoral system, to get an election result that reflects the balance of opinion of the electorate. And the incumbents, together with their likely successors, have absolutely no incentive to change the system, because they’d then be out of power for the foreseeable future.
Who are they?
Anyone in Labour is crushed by the system
I have considerable time for our local MP, Lloyd Russell Moyle, though he has dished his chances of having a role in the next Labour government by taking a stance on Gaza.
Clive Lewis is a decent person. Indeed, he has more in common with the Green Party these days than the party he supposedly represents.
I know Clive as we are bith members of the Green New Deal Group
Absolutely. First Past The Post enforces a two party system, known as Duverger’s Law. The resulting two main parties (excluding regional parties who also benefit from FPTP) should form internal coalitions to represent the necessarily wide range of political views of these behemoths (the situation Richard details early in his post). Increasingly the major parties are subject to internal power struggles, coups, expulsions and become dominated by a certain faction (Corbynism Vs Blairism, ERG Vs One Nation Tories, Trumpism in the Republican party).
The beneficiaries of FPTP are the only bodies who can bring about a change away from that system.
I basically agree with everything you have said.
All I would add though is one of the key drivers is the ‘get on the gravy train’ mentality there seems to be.
In a world brutalised by deliberately making money scarce and also expensive due to rampant exploitation – because you need money for your kids (from feeding them to (maybe) university), to getting around failing services (the NHS) and keeping up with the Joneses, people tend to change their behaviour in the system than seek to change it.
It is fear that makes people behave as they do. We are a fearful society. That is where the political input is so sorely needed – a politics of bravery. You have written a book about this.
Seconded but. —
Guardian today: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/20/i-dont-think-theyre-bothered-about-people-up-here-voters-in-lee-andersons-ashfield-turning-their-back-on-all-politicians
extract: “the overriding sentiment among those who spoke to the Observer was a visceral hostility to all politicians – an anti-politics instinct that long predates Channel crossings and which some accuse Anderson of fuelling. “I’ve voted for both parties over the years, but it’s difficult to vote for anyone at the moment,” said Rose. “I don’t think they’re bothered about people up here.”
“The loyal opposition” is contentless in terms of ideas/proposals/courage. This leaves two possible routes. A.: a couple of 100 brave individuals stand as potential MPs against the various party machines and offer policies that will work. or B: circa 2026 we wait for “a dear leader” offering simple messages, & simpler ideas to resolve very complex problems.
On a related note: I don’t want to sound as if I am blowing my own trumpet, but, at the House of Commons select committee on energy last week, the two guys sitting next to me giving evidence offered simple ideas to resolve highly complex problems – and they were supposed to be experts! Most of the fora we have are entirely unsuited for the discussion of complex subjects be they energy, polticial economy, monopoly critical services etc etc. In turn this means that very few (including the politicos) have any idea even which way to point. Port Talbot: The writing has been on the wall for 2 decades – action? Nada. As I noted to one (labour) MP – by all means don’t take action – that will lead to Wales heading in an identical direction to Scotland. Senior European Commission guy, last weelk: “Mike – Wales is on the glide path to destitution”. UK MPs? mostly like the chorus in a greek tragedy. This is going to end very badly.
Much to agree with
I thought about referring to this, but did not have the energy.
Much to agree with viz a viz over simplifying solutions to complex problems – the ‘cost centre’ culture in the public sector brought in by Compulsory Competitive Tendering (and the rest) rendered seamless services into ‘business units’ and consigned joined up thinking to the dust bin a long time ago.
If it ain’t on the specification it don’t get done guv and it will cost you extra.
I know Ashfield well – it’s a hard place but the people were the backbone of the country at one time when there were pits and coke plants etc. It is one of those forgotten zones for sure and we will lose it forever to extremism if we don’t watch out. There are other places like Ashfield or being turned into Ashfield all over this damned country.
For too long in places Ashfield and the East Midlands, Labour took their voters for granted – particularly in the Blair era.
The New Labour obsession with swing voters and just being a seemingly more competent conservative party is not enough at all. What are Labour doing? There is huge unmet need and the solution is very simple as the woman who confronted conceited Sunak the other day – you took the money away, so put it back.
So voters and politicians are in a dance of death really ,with one in survival mode (the voter) and the other (politicians) seemingly having given up trying to harness the power of the state to intervene in markets as their survival mode.
Disaster beckons.
As for Wales………………………….what was it that Keynes said about the ownership of critical economic industries?
Sorry to say – it get’s worse:
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2024/jan/22/brexit-checks-existential-threat-uk-fruit-flower-growers
extract: “UK growers are reliant on the EU for young plants that start life in countries such as the Netherlands before being imported into the UK for planting. Most soft fruit plants, including strawberries and raspberries, are imported as young plants, while significant numbers of tomatoes, fruit trees and nursery plants also start life in European countries equipped with large greenhouses and better conditions.”
Fact: all greenhouses in NL as gas heated. Thus energy is the main cost input for greenhouses. (the journo never bothers to define “better conditions” !!).
Example: recover waste heat from Rockwool’s 24/7 operation near Bridgend and feed to greenhouses (or datacentres – a 24/7 operation or… the list is long). At no point does the article consider even the possibility that – you know – the Uk could “grow its own”.
Pathetic – gov, journo, all. The perfect illustration of neoliberal neoclassical economics – gone bonkers.
Agreed
Out of interest I watched your appearance at the committee Mike. It was clear that unless a solution is a “big thing” to point to, or “easy” the MPs just don’t have any appetite to act. From my limited experience of advising the government on other matters, that is a feature and not a bug. Thoroughly depressing.
Oh, Jeremy Corbyn?!
He never did understand the economics
That may well be true but I do nevertheless honestly believe that Corbyn took on the party leadership / potential premiership with the intention of trying to make this country a better place. I never got the sense that he was there for personal gain, backhanders, privileges etc. For that specific reason I found him immensely refreshing and am sad that he didn’t at least get his chance at leading the country.
I agree with that
I seem to remember, Richard, that Corbynomics was not un-adjacent to your own thoughts/philosophy…and then he bottled it! (I got the impression that, had he been allowed to follow his heart, he would have borrowed/spent what was ‘necessary’ – regardless. Would ‘the markets’ have reacted in the same way as they did with Truss? Dunno…but McDonnell struck me as no fool. We’ll never know but my goodness he came close and I, for one, reckon the country would have been a better place. Hey ho!
McDonnell lacked conviction and bought austerity from virtually day one under Corbyn
Remember, he talked about maxing out the credit card
Oh! Did he?! Goodness – I’d forgotten that. I’d thought he signed up later. I do remember Professor Bill (from down under) saying he’d met with them/McDonell and they’d lost the plot. Ah well…Oh dear…
Keep plugging away then, Richard!
You know, John Bew in ‘Citizen Clem’ (2016) reckoned that Attlee did not really understand economics’ either but look at what Attlee achieved?
If you do not understand economics it may well that you don’t have to.
All you perhaps need is a heart or at least an understanding of what is happening to the people of the country and a desire to do something about it.
Maybe
But some understanding of economic realities must help
Richard. Jeremy Corbyn may not have understood the economics, but he certainly got the people. They/we loved him because he gave us hope of a better future.
There was a Labour leader not too long ago who hadn’t sold out Labour’s values, and represented a large number of similar minded people. Sadly, he lacked the right kind of charisma apparently, and made the mistake of including people who disagreed with him in his shadow cabinet.
Anyone who aspires to tell truth to power will be treated as badly as he was.
Given the behaviour of the latest Conservative administration some sort of competence and not being corrupt would be a start
But5 far from sufficient
In my view what’s necessary is four-fold. First to recognise belief in the mantra “market good/ state bad” is the main source of problems nationally and globally. Secondly, it’s to understand that rejection of the mantra needs detailed analysis why this is so. Thirdly, from this analysis policies can be formulated. Fourthly, champions will follow.
“Late Soviet Britain” – delivers the goods & charts a way forward.
As befits my profession I suppose whilst I agree with your list of conditions required for a change, I’m pondering on what changed between our youth, and now; what’s the underlying politico-sociatal illness that has crippled our politics.
My suggested diagnosis is ‘certainty’ best vocalised by Mrs T “There is no other way.”
It is simply both false and blocks discussion and change.
1) there are always numerous routes to any destination physical, social, economic, or political. Any mountain has many routes to the summit, including decent from a helicopter or balloon!
2) Bayes law shows that if your prior belief is that status quo is 100% correct then despite any evidence to the contrary no change is possible. Exemplified by Ken Clarke’s refusal to permit evaluation of his market reforms, and New Public Management from which the NHS continues to suffer.
Similarly, the belief that bigger is better and more cost effective, is seldom tested, despite evidence that customers, patient, staff and managers often do better in smaller groups/firms even if profits & wages are lower.
Or the belief that performance related pay improves productivity, it rarely does, if complex cognitive & logical thinking is required.
So my suggestion is we try to ask how certain people proposing changes are more often: if they say 100%, then ask them to invest in a donation post dated to a suitable charity of half their annual income, to be evaluated at an later agreed date. I base this on the two contrasting maxims, “common things are common, and are commonly concurrent” and ” ‘Never’ Never happens. ”
My feeling is that admitted uncertainty will creep in, and with it a chance to improve things, for all of us.
I admit I do not follow your penultimate paragraph
I was trying unsuccessfully to suggest a treatment for certainty and to encourage independent evaluation of changes.
I feel that if those suggesting a solution was certain, then they would have make a donation that would personally hurt them in the pocket if the evidence proved them wrong. The issue of timescale would have to be agreed and so the speediness or otherwise of the effect they were expecting would also be demonstrated. E.g. if a politician believed a new law would stop something happening within 6 months they would have to give half their salary if within 6 months it hadden stopped. Of course if they accepted it might not work, we can start discussing what might be better.
The two maxims were simply comments that I learnt through life that you must be prepared for things that are “impossible” to happen and that the obvious solution often fails to work. Hence I’m uncertain if my diagnosis is correct, but I think it’s worth a try, similarly with my solution.
Very sorry to all if my unexpressed thoughts created even more confusion than normally follows my thinking!
I see your point
I am not convinced of its usefulness
We all, always, manage uncertainty
Better is possible ( idea for the analysis part) – https://www.theguardian.com/books/2024/jan/21/how-much-personal-wealth-is-enough-ingrid-robeyns-limitarianism
I’ve long joked with friends that billionaires simply should not exist. Maybe it’s an idea that will catch on eventually. I can’t see £10m being remotely possible right now (and politics is the art of the possible)
Andy Burnham would be an ideal candidate or a younger Bernie Sanders character would inspire all generations.
He3 is very neoliberal – as was apparent in 2015
I think that what we need is a totally new of cohort of MPs who are there for the reasons Richard sets out so clearly above.
So here’s a call for #thenew650.
We don’t need a new party. We need new thinking.
So let’s see what happens if we bring in a host of new people and let them actually start to govern the country for the good of the people in the country.
A thread: https://twitter.com/shelagh/status/1749034727682584903
People can only live in a fantasy world so long before reality breaks in -or they break down.
The Mail headlines that Hunt is going to create a ‘Lawson boom’ with ten billion ! headroom he has. That is about 0.1 % of government spending. The old ‘cut taxes and grow the economy.’
The Lawson boom was followed by the Lawson ‘bust’.
I feel like John McEnroe ‘you cannot be serious!’
Quite a good response
£10 billion coudl aso be so much better used
Ian, it’s Just typical Daily Heil drivel. Shouty, mindless propaganda devoid of even the simplest thought, just repeating the lazy right wing trope of low taxes, small state is good.
Richard, Can I correct you? What we need are politicians who CAN BE BELIEVED when they say change is possible.
I think transparency and privacy is major issue; and who can exercise either.
The entitlement of corporate entities to use NDAs for anything and everything that affects them; and keep their dealings largely secrete is one example; particularly when we look at the Post Office, which has been allowed to run amok with Crown privileges, and even effectively to keep its affairs secret even in Court.
Then there is Government privacy and secrecy and what it is entitled to hide. Whats App messages hover uneasily between individual entitlement to privacy, and the corporate or Government entitlement to privacy over such messages.
Has Government or any Corporate institution been charged over their (or individuals representing Government or Corporate body) What’s App messages in the UK? Is it clear even whether it is illegal to delete them? As far as I know (without being sure), there is only one case currently in the Courts in England, brought by a Transparency group, merely to test whether is is illegal or not. I do not know of any case in Scotland (I may be wrong).
I am not proposing that illegality should not be pursued, whomsoever is the culprit; if there is illegality it should be pursued. I am however slightly disturbed by the particular ferocity of the pursuit of Nicola Sturgeon, in the Media and by Opposition politicians; whom media and opposition politicians appear to have assumed already that it is illegal, without – as far as I can see – providing the evidence for its illegality, or the precedents (notably Douglas Ross MP, MSP the Scottish Conservative leader); however much we may regret the loss of material. If it is illegal then it should be pursued; but with equal application against all. This applies both in Holyrood and Westminster, depending solely on the law (and are we supposed, perhaps to believe that it may be illegal in Scotland, but legal in England?). What precisely is the law on which Douglas Ross is relying? What is the legal precedent?
Unfortunately in this Union it seems impossible to apportion blame with equity any more (deleting Whats app messages appears to have been wholesale in Westminster and Holyrood); or requiring any reverence for the distribution of justice wherever it apples, rather than with Trumpian disregard for fairness; and for more than mere political advantage. We have brought trial by media to Scotland; and I can say with confidence that the law in Scotland has historically been strict on its reprobation of the use of such tactics.
In Britain, however the contamination of our public life by abusive politics now befouls everything. We are sinking lower and lower in the mire.
To avoid wading through hundreds of old out of date messages, many users of WhatsApp have a default timer for disappearing messages, 24 hours after they are sent.
Ministers should not
Just as the minutes of meetings are archived by government, so should WhatsApp messages.
John I believe that the difference between the WhatsApp messages for the respective Governments hinges solely on how they used WhatsApp for communication. If, as is argued by Scottish Government that ministers were under the obligation to record their dealings correctly in Official records and did so, that should be the end of it. However as you note that is not how Douglas Ross works. He thinks that because UK ministers were using WA sleekitly to get around normal procedures, ScotGov were guilty too and the deletion of WA messages proves that M’Lud.
Mr Martin,
Douglas Ross was not just claiming the Scottish government was “sleekit”. According to Sky News (19th January, 2023): “Scottish Tory leader Douglas Ross said both Ms Sturgeon and Mr Swinney have ‘huge questions to answer’ and claimed their actions may have been illegal”. As far as I have been able to find, he has advanced no clear evidence of illegality.
The inadvisability, or even the potentially reprehensible nature of What’s App deletions are issues requiring examination; their alleged illegality, however is quite another. They should not be conflated, nor should accusations of illegality be thrown into the public arena, without clear reference to evidence, or to any specific law that may have been broken. Asking whether any law has been broken may be fair in some circumstances, but no doubt lacks political ‘sound bite’ impact; but vaguely suggesting illegality without any substantiation threatens to reduce the public arena to a Trumpian bear-pit, and should be avoided by responsible politicians.
Its that second stage Richard that appears to be so very problematic: there are plenty of talking heads offering different reasons for and solutions to the present woeful condition of the country. Intentional misinformation and plain old ignorance continue to drown-out attempts at educating and reasoning with so many people which in turn prevents them from being able to make considered and well-informed decisions. Until a way is found to dispel this concocted nonsense I can’t see how we’ll progress beyond this second stage.
I think stage 2 is done
We know neoliberalism has failed
Stage 3 is the issue now
Stage 3 is nothing but pretence.
I’d better give up this blog then
That’s what it is about
Leveson 2 might have helped define parameters to media reporting had it not been abandoned by the Tories in 2018, with that arbiter of fairness and legality Matt Hancock in charge. While the main intention of Leveson 2 was cleaning up media output in the aftermath of the phone-tapping scandals, it’s hard to see how that could be achieved without addressing the fundamental issues of press ownership, bias and misrepresentation of facts. Given that only 2 daily newspapers in the UK – the Guardian and the National – represent views other than those of the political right, it’s hardly surprising that the Tories torpedoed Leveson 2 and, given the direction of travel in World politics since 2018, there’s no chance of its resurrection.
There are things which are the responsibility of the state and there are things which can be part of the market. The responsibility of the state is to look after its people and the country. The people need decent free education including post secondary, free, decent readily available health care – at its broadest definition, decent housing for everyone, properly run, compassionate social services which makes sure everyone is looked after. The state has to ensure the country is sovereign ie it is not subject to pressure by other countries, huge vested corporate interests inside or outside the country. The state has to run the basic monopoly type infrastructure such as power, water supply, sewerage, roads, transportation, security. This should ensure that infrastructure is run by professionals – engineers etc who know what they are doing – not money makers – we can have a discussion about what individuals can pay for this. The market can be allowed to do what it thinks it can do but with limits eg the way the media operates is extremely self serving to a minority of people because of its ownership structure so much of what is important isn’t reported or is very biased, prurient or just lies. This section can be open to discussion but I am getting at the problem of foreign ownership which can be distorting and hard on the economy – this is also part of sovereignty. Now this is just a start from my point of view but it should form the basis of any good government and the beginning of discussion. I live in Canada and don’t know even how to get this discussion going.
Are we taking about YOUR stage 3 or theirs?
Because theirs is all pretence – they keep thinking that they can bamboozle us into thinking it has nothing to do with them.
That was the way in which I reacted to your post.
It’s not only you and this blog that has raked over neo-liberalism so comprehensively – the results can be widely seen but wrongly ascribed.
For goodness sake don’t stop the blog, but the neo-libs won’t stop fighting either. They have a lot more to lose than us – financially anyway.
Ok
A misunderstanding
“The LibDems want the EU back. As for the rest? Who knows?”
There may be much to criticise about the Lib Dems, but this “what do they stand for?” myth is not fair at all.
It’s very clearly set out on the party’s website …
https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
`The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.’
And our current `vision’ , adopted at our last conference for our pre-manifesto, is there too – main points below if you’ll forgive me taking so much space. I personally concentrate on electoral reform and environmental issues – and read your blog to find arguments to shift our still too conservative economic outlook. The party is at least more open than Labour to the need for investment to combat climate change and the environmental crisis.
From https://www.libdems.org.uk/vision
1. A fair, prosperous and innovative economy that promotes
opportunity and wellbeing.
– note that this avoids mention of `growth’
2. Fair access to good public services and a strong social safety
net.
– includes `Liberal Democrats believe that an active
state is essential to empower people and provide the support they need.’
3. A flourishing environment, with fair access to nature for
all.
– includes `The climate and nature emergencies are the most pressing threats
to prosperity facing the UK and the world.’
4. A strong United Kingdom and a fair international order.
– includes `We will immediately fix our broken relationship with Europe,
forge a new partnership built on cooperation, not confrontation, and move
to conclude a new comprehensive agreement which removes as many
barriers to trade as possible.’
5. A truly fair democracy, where everyone’s rights are
respected and individuals and communities are
empowered.
– includes `We will introduce proportional representation for electing MPs,
and local councillors in England.’
Any party would agree with the LibDem aims.
That is the problem with them.
‘The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.’
Forgive me but I had to laugh – I mean really.
On this blog, regulars might know my antipathy towards liberalism because I don’t see how it can work.
And right at the end of their existential valediction, the Libs Dems completely screw it up don’t they – a typical liberal problem.
Basically no-one will be enslaved by ‘conformity’. I mean……………..are you serious?
Talk about trying to get out of jail.
Talk about being inconsistent.
Talk about putting individualism first.
Talk about asking the impossible.
Talk about – dare I say it – conceit.
The Orange Book balances all the above with ‘conformity’ does it? What – conforming to the normal rules of society? In banking and finance?
Effective societies in most animal species have an element of conformity in them – the Tories know this better than anyone but so does the Left.
Conformity – a certain amount – is necessary. And not only that, conformity to certain things like the law are essential.
It’s not a question of conformity itself – it is what one is expected to conform to or not.
So once again the Lib-Dems – inculcated with the fundamental weakness of liberalism – make a total hash of it.
The fundamental weakness is to have rosey definition of a ‘rational individual’ because that is who is being put first. This definition seems free of the effects of greed, power position and other accrued benefits. It is far too subjective and idealistic. And it will fail as it always does.
I was going to vote Lib-Dem at the next election but you know what – having seen this – I don’t think I’ll bother at all.
They’re not just having us on but are having themselves on as well. No wonder we are in such a mess.
David Byrne says..
Much to agree with in this thread.
However, if we consider that the country is suffering terminal decline, then drastic surgery is required. Two ‘procedures’ are recommended:
1 vote out the 650 incumbents and their advisers
2 ensure that the Oxford University mafia is permanently removed from parliament,
Just do it, dear electorate, you know that it makes sense!
@PSR That’s rather bitter stuff.
Yes, the LD Values are rather motherhood-and-apple-pie, but there are huge amounts of detailed policies in the Policy Papers you’ll also find on the LD website. And these policies are actually written by members, not by leaders top-down or consultants.
You mention the Orange Book. I am myself still bitter at the way Charles Kennedy was got rid of instead of supported through his alcoholism.
But Clegg, Laws etc are thankfully gone.
You talk about “the fundamental weakness of liberalism “. But “liberalism” means such different things to different people, it’s no longer a very helpful concept. Don’t use it as an excuse for division: progressives are split across the various parties and we need to work together.
[And if you don’t like `progressive’ as a label, please tell me what those of us who care about the planet and everyone on it – would `supporters of the UN’s SDGs’ do? – should call ourselves.]
I stick with the LDs because they have as high a proportion of progressives as any and because they are a genuine membership party. Look at Labour for instance: 80% of its members support Proportional Representation, they passed a motion at conference, but have an authoritarian leadership that won’t accept it. What’s the point of belonging to a party run that way?
Thanks for your response Denis – a lot to agree with.
But let’s get rid of ‘liberal’ if it means too many things. The ‘p’ word is better – ‘progressive’
And ‘conformity’ – well look what the non-conformists did with the ‘big bang’ in the city, RTB, BREXIT and Covid – do the Lib /Dems even know what they are talking about? Not exactly intellectually rigorous is it?
So, the party is about rule breakers than rule takers?
At least Labour are in some perverse way being honest about what they’ve abandoned in full view.
The Lib Dems are just leaving the back door open in my view to play it either way. Again.
I remain profoundly unconvinced I’ m afraid.
The history of the typical parliamentary leadership the modern Liberal Party or Lib Dems have provided scarcely provides a convincing precedent for what it typically offers. The example of Clegg in the Coalition Government with the Conservatives; weak, gullible and completely committed to Austerity; based on profound economic ignorance. Jo Swinson was the Post Office Minister in 2013. In Parliament at the Despatch Box (9th July) she said this about the Post Office scandal:
“Yesterday evening, an interim report into alleged problems with the Post Office’s Horizon computer system was published. The report was commissioned by Post Office Ltd from external forensic accountants, Second Sight. The Horizon system records all transactions conducted at every post office counter across the country. The Government welcome the publication of the interim report and the Post Office’s statement in response.
Although Post Office Ltd is 100% owned by the Government, the company operates at arm’s length as an independent commercial business. The Government do not play any role in operational matters. It is important to note that the issues in the report have no impact on Royal Mail, which is an entirely separate business. It is also important to be clear that, contrary to misleading media reports, the review explicitly confirms that
‘we have so far found no evidence of system-wide problems with the Horizon software’.
The very small number of sub-postmasters who have experienced issues with the Horizon system are a minute proportion of the tens of thousands of people who have been successfully using the system across the network of 11,500 branches on a daily basis since 1995. Out of 68,000 users, only 47 cases have been put forward to the review.
I want to emphasise that the interim report makes no comment on the safety or otherwise of any conviction of a sub-postmaster for fraud, theft or false accounting. Equally, even if it had, the Government cannot intervene in the legal process to review or appeal past convictions. These matters can properly be dealt with only by the relevant judicial authorities. The interim report published yesterday analysed four cases. It found that there was scope for the Post Office to improve aspects of its support and training for sub-postmasters, and it has already taken steps to do so. The Post Office has further proposed a number of measures to build on some of the points made in the Second Sight report on support and training for sub-postmasters. I welcome those initiatives as, I understand, does my right hon. Friend the Member for North East Hampshire (Mr Arbuthnot), who has played a key supporting role in identifying cases for examination in the review.
The Post Office statement issued yesterday welcomed the broad thrust of the report’s findings and outlined three initiatives to deal with the issues raised. First, it will set up a working party to complete the review of cases started by Second Sight, and will consider all 47 cases brought forward by the Justice for Subpostmasters Alliance—the JFSA—and MPs. The JFSA has been invited to join the working party. Secondly, an independent figure will chair a review to determine how best to adjudicate disputed cases in future. The JFSA and other stakeholders will also be invited to take part in this process. Finally, a new branch user forum will provide a channel for sub-postmasters and others to raise issues at the highest level on business processes, training and support. The company will take forward the proposals as an urgent priority. I commend this statement to the House”.
Is that what we need in Parliament, representing us all; the David (the ordinary elector, the person who realises ‘that could be me’), against Goliath? I think not. I rest my case.
Believe it or not John that is exactly what I was reflecting on when I wrote my missive about the ‘Lib’ in Lib Dems.
Clegg obviously did not want to miss an opportunity to impress the Establishment and prove he was one of them – he wanted to ingratiate himself with them (and it worked for him didn’t it?).
He and Jo Swinson most certainly did not want to support any other conformity other than what would reward them handsomely for their acquiescence.
I doubt if Swinson was looking for advancement. I do not know, but suspect it was credulity; a function largely of inexperience and a soft-centred lack of independence of mind. It is quite characteristic of Scottish liberalism.
On the economy you know as much as anyone of the need for a redirection of national wealth away from ramping of asset values towards investment in infrastructure and skills training; about prioritising public services that keeps people functioning in the labour and informal economy (cheap housing, internet, transport, health and care, etc); avoidance of fiscal traps starving investment and overconsumption of useless products etc.
My contribution is in policies on health and social care.
I would confirm support for a comprehensive universal health service. Social care should be fully funded for those with dementia and similar needs. Health and social care funding would be funded by designated funding sources (hypothecation) but driven by needs not arbitrary financial limits. (ie redesignating health spending as AME not according to departmental cash limits)
I would take away restrictions on spending on local services paid according to tariff. all cash limits do is create serial bottlenecks. this would include A&E departments , GP services etc ;
Investment decisions should be made by large regional bodies according to agreed political priorities with proper governance structures reflecting all stakeholders but biased towards money being automatically being available for investments saving money.
I would expand end of life services avoiding hospitals as refuges of last resort and properly fund social care.
Funding and salaries should be established according to norms in economically similar countries.
Many more doctors and other professionals would be trained and retained.
Richard,
I took some liberties with the nomenclature of your four stages.
Angst
As a species, angst is certainly something we do well. There may never have been a time when humans didn’t feel angst. There may never be a time. Lydgate’s postulate requires updating & simplifying for the C21st, ‘You can please some of the people some of the time. Period.’ It is incredibly difficult to distinguish genuine angst from faux rage, what Jeff Tiedrich refers to as the ‘wingnut grievance bubble’. Real grievances are plentiful, but humans clearly don’t think we have sufficient & happily imagine more. I lack any formal credentials to understand why this should be, but my kids will tell you that my default position usually involves the words, tribe & identity.
To your point, angst exists & if studies on social cohesion, ill health & levels of happiness are to be believed it is becoming more prevalent & to the fore.
Analysis
We haven’t yet reached the stage of angst paralysis, but the point of analysis paralysis is well passed. The massive increase in volumes of data & our ability to process the data hasn’t widely delivered the predicted benefits but a situation where we are often ‘data rich, analysis poor’. An obsession with metrics has led to more debate about whether we are measuring the correct thing than to sustainable improvements, adding weight to the adage that, ‘what gets measured gets fiddled’.
The second problem with analysis might best be illustrated through referencing step 1 of a simplified process improvement approach. Define customer value. Many years of driving & delivering business improvements has taught me that whilst often more difficult to define than first thought it is possible to identify what both internal & external customers consider to be of value. However, the concept of applying ‘what a customer is willing to pay for’ in a broader societal sense soon meets the hard reality that value is not so easily pinned down. I once had a boss who liked to say, “Who wouldn’t vote for motherhood & apple pie?” Age has taught me that the answer is, lots of people. Many, many more than a young idealist realised. My point is that for analysis to be valid it is critical that you first define, ‘what good looks like’. Trite but hugely important. We just don’t collectively agree what good looks like.
Finally, if nothing else is learnt from the Covid pandemic surely it must be clear that numbers & particularly statistics & epidemiological modelling are not topics for rounds at the local pub quiz. Humans are largely crap at numbers & particularly crap at risk analyses. Folks just want the answers without ever understanding the workings out.
So, yes, analysis is a critical step, but first answer the question, “Is there consensus on what we are aiming to achieve?” Today, the answer is probably “No”.
Answers
Worldwide, governance models routinely fail to deliver on their promises. Some are more successful, but it is difficult to identify societies that aren’t faced with huge challenges, apart from perhaps a few where wealth & geography isolates them. Most democratic models are based on folks choosing between seemingly different paths, at least clear distinctions in principle are presented at choosing time. The well-trodden path of over promise & underdeliver is the outcome.
The UK problem is at least three fold, short term thinking in support of remaining elected, too much legislation & an antiquated legislative process. In addition to passing useless & pointless statutes, the UK parliamentary system simply cannot keep pace with change. Parliament has become like a cyber security team, always one step behind the criminals.
One possible solution to the short termism, is to move key strategy definition out of Westminster & into commissions. Bodies representative of the wider public & with actual sector knowledgeable participants. MPs with relevant skills from all parties would participate but would not chair nor control.
A second possible solution to entrenched short term thinking has its roots in a very interesting debate I heard on the selection of research projects. A very strong argument was made in favour of trashing the current selection process for one that picked projects for funding almost at random. The logic was partly based on the human weakness of predicting the future & therefore research that might benefit us. Simply put, we need to explore the strange, the left field options more often.
Thirdly, the UK Parliament needs to work sensible hours & members should be in attendance for debates, not swan in, grandstand & disappear. The second chamber requires a complete overhaul. I favour retiring peers, huge changes to the honours system & making the second chamber a house of representatives, comprised of representatives in the same ratio as the country voted. Should 60% of the country have not voted for the current administration, the second chamber should reflect this. That way your vote will always count.
So, do what you always did and get what you always got, we need fundamental change to find the answers. Once we have defined what we seek.
Advocates
Every cause benefits from a champion. That is until such time as the champion is torn down or strays into demagoguery. I’m as much a sucker for a well-reasoned advocate as the next person, though I’m aware of the risks associated with personality cults. Blair gave us Iraq, Johnson gave us Brexit, Trump’s Covid denial killed more Americans than all the ‘never ending US wars’ combined.
Perhaps more important than ‘champions’ is for folks to have better critical thinking skills? Now I know I have drifted into the realm of fantasy.
“You can lead a horticulture but you cannot make her think”. Dorothy Parker.
Time for a coffee.
Useful
I was also working on this a bit more this morning
So, thank you
On the matter of analysis, I was a too focused on the ‘what are we trying to achieve?’ question. Post coffee I realised I missed something I believe to be just as pertinent.
Nobody more than you knows that the purpose of analysis is insight and that what we have today is a constant flow of meaningless numbers. Without the context, individual stats convey very little insight. Process behaviour analysis methods are designed to facilitate insight but remain unfamiliar to many.
The mathematics isn’t difficult to understand but it doesn’t stand a chance against the combined might of ‘gut feeling’ & sensational headlines. There are aspects of mathematics taught at school that will not be of much use to the average school leaver but training children in statistical process (often called process behaviour) control might make us less prone to over reacting to single data points & more astute at evaluating potential critical process inputs. In my dreams anyway.
Thanks
I admit by analysis I did not mean data production. It was meant to refer to interpretation of data, albeit some will be wrong. Assumptions would need to be stated.
That should lead to understanding and so solution focussed answers.
This is the DIKW model
As soon as I see a knowledge pyramid, I think of Whewell’s Pyramid (19th century philosophy of science). The problem there? It took for granted you would never need the foundations of the pyramid to be on wheels.
Whewell’s pyramid, however had – within very narrow limits – a degree of internal robustness. DIKW? The concepts of ‘wisdom’ and ‘knowledge’ seem extraordinarily loose, viewed philosophically; and the setting as a hierarchy (natural, deductive, inductive, necessary?) seems a little too facile and glib. How does someone move from a notion of the supposed links between DIKW to a fixed hierarchy: perhaps someone read Whewell and thought they could reproduce its big scientific claims for the digital age?!
Incidentally, a recent scholar reconfigured the DIKW pyramid, via Maslow (somehow), as a squashed Venn diagram….. but quickly lost my interest.
Very interesting Mr Power.
Please stop by more often.
During a 2009 ten country overseas volunteer deployment, conducting a ‘Needs Assessment of Anesthesia Care in Sub-Saharan Africa’, I witnessed the damaging impact on healthcare systems in developing countries. This is a direct result of the UK migration policy of ‘Scavenge – Exploit – Deport’; poaching the so called ‘Best and the Brightest’ from countries that could not afford to train them. While we are still plundering resources from developing countries, and keeping them in perpetual debt, this now includes talented human resources. This morally bankrupt policy will increasingly destabilize nations and drive the desperate to make dangerous journeys to escape conflict seeking refuge.
In Malawi a local Nurse Anesthetist and I began working on a solution that involved training some of our Medical staff overseas alongside local practitioners. This was the first of a number of documents entitled ‘Collaborative Circular Migration’ of which you received a complete copy for evaluation. I know how incredibly busy you are so I do not expect you to get to it any time soon, but as I really respect your judgement, I will value your input at some point. Unlike those on the hard right, I do not see migration as a problem and I do not obsess over it like the current Tory government. The Tories real agenda is to build a massive cohort of illegal workers to break the power of the unions; the failed Rwanda scheme is just a useful distraction tool, but only if we are stupid enough to get sucked into that vortex.
I was horrified when the pervasive lies of unscrupulous politicians conned the British public into voting for Brexit and the UK became more isolationist. I was disgusted at how brutally the life chances of young people had been decimated. The proposals of Collaborative Circular Migration are designed to reopen the opportunities that Brexit choked off. In case you are thinking that there are far more pressing issues that concern ordinary people, driven by rampant inequality in this country, I agree. However, certain components of Collaborative Circular Migration would have a significant impact on freeing-up housing and reducing pressures on all of our services including care and the NHS.
Removing the financial penalties imposed on those who wish to retire overseas would accomplish the above goal. We can open-up opportunities for young people to train overseas and take a state sponsored Gap year as an alternative to wallowing on unemployment benefits. We owe it to our young people to have a decent chance to experience life and not be financially unable to leave home until they turn thirty! All of the proposals in Collaborative Circular Migration are designed to be mutually beneficial. I would like to see a Socialist Government take onboard my concept for an ELR (Earn – Learn and Return) visa for ‘Eco-nomads’ that would also accommodate Asylum Seekers by allowing them to work legally until their claim was processed.
Sometimes I feel a little guilty that I was able to travel so extensively and experience so much after leaving home with very little money and no support at 17. I firmly believe all young people, no matter how poor, deserve the same opportunities for a rewarding independant life. As an ‘ideas person’ I am always looking for workable solutions that help build equality and better life chances for all. I hope you will read through and comment on my Collaborative Circular Migration proposals at a point where you have more time at your disposal.
I have read through.
I get the importance of the issue, but am not sure what I can add.
Reading most of the views expressed here points to the requirement for CHANGE, particularly in the area of how to handle the cycle of (a) money creation (spent into circulation), (b) subsequent taxation (removal of some of it from circulation as a precaution against potential inflationary pressures) & (c) the so-called “deficit” funding via bond sales.
Problem 1 is that (a) is classified as “debt” despite the fact that BoE electronically creates public spending money upon demand from government that owns BoE. Given that latter fact & irrespective of the mantra that money is debt, I cannot for the life of me understand how or why the government can simultaneously be both debtor & creditor relative to any given tranche of created money. In my view this is nothing more than a legacy from the days when BoE was a private company i.e. not owned by the government. In other words this is habitual practice that suits the financial establishment perfectly.
Problem 2 is that the roles of national taxation (b) as partial “repayment” of the alleged debt, the inflation control aspect, & that spending precedes its collection, is concealed or disguised via the mantras of “tax & spend” & “taxpayers’ money” etc…do not appear to be understood, not just by the public (who can surely be forgiven) , but more importantly by most politicians, media, & many economists – who should not be forgiven for such culpable ignorance and/or for being outright liars.
Problem 3 (c) is encapsulated by that excellent phrase “the ludicrous narrative of National Debt” which I don’t believe needs elaboration at this point. Its redemption, including in recent years, fiasco of QE, has always been based on money creation, accompanied by arcane, convoluted, obtuse financial practices including much electronic skulduggery, of BoE & by implication, government. You recently described this state of affairs as a “sham”.
The overarching problem however is how can any such change be implemented, if those politicians, media, & many economists, will not even entertain the possibility of change or even TALK about bit.
You, Richard, have been at it professionally for (25?) years; coming from an entirely different discipline, I have been at it as an amateur for some 15 years. In that time I have gleaned some knowledge (green as grass to start with) but if I can do go through such a learning process, why on earth can’t these so-called professional “chattering classes” do the same. The answer is of course rhetorical – it can only be because of vested interests in preserving the status quo.
My suggestion that individual readers, in their own words, might want to do a variation of my submission to the “BBC for starters” so that it might end up as an en masse attention-seeking mission, went down like a lead balloon.
Undeterred by that lead balloon experience, I found an article from December on the BBC website, & wrote a complaint (again limited to 2000 characters). Their unusually defensive reply, kicking it into the long grass, is appended below. My complaint is not – you probably know what it said. I will publish it if anyone wants me to. I intend to follow it up with a few simple facts (not opinions) for them to check.
So what, folks, do you have in mind as an alternative? Most of us are invested in the content of this blog/site, & no doubt will continue, but take careful note, that the only people who have to power to change things ARE NOT LISTENING, LEARNING OR TAKING ANY NOTICE AT ALL.
BBC REPLY: Reference CAS-7739906-C9C8C4
Dear Mr Peyton,
Thank you for contacting us and for reading the BBC News Website. We understand you had concerns about the article: “How much money is the UK government borrowing, and does it matter?” (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-50504151). For us, the BBC News website is the best of BBC News on the web and an unrivalled resource of authoritative fact and comment. BBC News aims to provide access to the information and ideas everyone needs to make sense of an increasingly complex world, providing background and context to the news.
In this case, the feature aimed to explain about UK government borrowing, using the understanding of the terms as defined by the OBR, the UK Government and others. BBC News is committed to reporting fairly, accurately and with due impartiality. We are editorially independent and not subject to political influence or agenda.
Indeed, it is important to state that in all our news coverage BBC News never takes a position on any story.
That said, your concerns are noted. Please be assured that your concerns were sent to senior staff at the BBC News Website and senior management via our daily report. Your views are important to us and we welcome feedback from our audience to help us review how our news is being written and reported.
Thanks again for taking the time to get in touch.
Kind Regards,
Ciaran Hanna BBC Complaints Team
http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints Please note: this email is sent from an unmonitored address so please don’t reply. If necessary please contact us through our webform (please include your case reference number).
Thanks Alan
When I wrote to the BBC last year about their mistaken view of taxes paying for government spending, they replied:
———22 Feb 2023————-
We have looked into your points, but our article is correct.
– “The government gets most of its income from taxes” – this is correct, and backed up by IFS: https://ifs.org.uk/taxlab/taxlab-key-questions/where-does-government-get-its-money
[National] Debt is the total amount of money owed by the government that has built up over years. – that is backed up here – https://commonslibrary.parliament.uk/research-briefings/sn06167/
—————————————
I have also contacted The Institute for Fiscal Studies via email and Twitter, and they have never replied. That makes them unaccountable.
Thanks
Mainly for Ian Tresman….but to all, take heed:
Ian, your comments re the seeming inability or reluctance of the BBC to keep up to speed, are noted.
Given their very recent recantation of how bank lending works, however, at long last acknowledging that it is not based on the use of depositors’ money, maybe there is hope. It only took the BBC almost 10 years to the day when BoE’s Q1 Bulletin 2014 told us all in just about plain language, exactly how it works! That recantation was elicited in response to a doctor (bright & astute re Economics) acquaintance of mine who badgered them into it.
I, well-known for my propensity to bash my head against a brick wall, will try to do the same in terms of the money creation/destruction cycle.
Why don’t readers of this blog/site do the same? The more of you who do so, the merrier, & the better chance we may have of making the BBC (&many others!) sit up & take notice.
In due course I will publish all of my material & the BBC’s replies.
Nil deperandum ‘n all that!
And The Institute for Fiscal Studies needs targeting too, as they are source of the misinformation.
Someone somewhere in the BBC did give Stephanie Kelton air time in this video clip:
https://www.bbc.com/reel/video/p08jbbry/why-we-need-to-debunk-the-deficit-myth-
IFS now on the hit list! Sounds to me an oxymoronic organisation – just like the OBC !!