I listened to an interview Lewis Goodall did with union leader Mick Lynch yesterday and liked a lot of what Mick Lynch had to say. This is based on a computer generated transcript, but it is pretty close. I edited some pieces out for the sake of brevity:
I'm a very binary person. We either have a labour government or we have Tory government that is going to be more right wing than the one we've got as that's the only way they're going.
The worst Labour government we'll get will be better than the best Tory government. That's my general disposition and it always has been.
That's not new [to anyone in]in my union. I'm sometimes regarded as a bit out of step on that because that's regarded as disappointing.
I am pragmatic. In particular ideology was a big mistake for the left internationally. The Eastern Bloc and China: I think they've been terrible calamities for … left politics.
I look at what Clement Attlee and Nye Bevan achieved in his period and what others achieved, and even Wilson and Callaghan and others in Scandinavia, and in Europe through democratic socialism and social democracy. That has stood the test of time more than ideological Bolshevism, or whatever you want to call it, Leninism or Stalinism or whatever. I think they have been a disaster for the working people of those countries, so I'm on that wing that doesn't mean you're shy about what you believe in. I think changing our communities through public housing and public ownership is a real fundamental change. That changes the class basis of our economy.
This reminded me of a quote attributed to Niels Bohr in the film Oppenheimer, where the exchange was as follows:
Niels Bohr: Algebra's like sheet music, the important thing isn't can you read music, it's can you hear it. Can you hear the music, Robert?
J. Robert Oppenheimer: Yes, I can.
Both resonate with me. I will never be the world's greatest theoretician. I might not even be an outstanding theoretician. But I think I hear the music of political economy, without the need for any ‘ism' but pragmatism, tinged with empathy. The condition of the person dismissed too often as ‘ordinary' is what matters to me, and not the promotion of any ideology.
I am not saying theory is unnecessary. I spend far too long thinking and writing about it to ever believe that. But, the critical point is that dogmatic belief in any theory will always be a hindrance to understanding the true nature of our political economy. Rules are of use, but blind obedience to them makes no sense at all.
There was a perfect example of this on this blog yesterday. In my thread on the so-called maxing-out of the nation's credit card, I referred to the government as a deposit taker as if this was a virtuous act. Accounting pedants came on here to point out that deposits are a liability of both a bank and the government. They sought to suggest that I was wrong as a result, and did not understand the accounting involved.
In the process of doing so they entirely missed the point that without deposits, a bank has no meaning. Holding deposits is it essential purpose. The liability is not, in that sense, problematic: it is at the very core of the business model of a bank, as it can also be of the government that wishes to provide people with a place for safe saving. Small-minded reading of a balance sheet cannot, in that case, provide any sense of the true significance of deposit taking for either governments or banks, and the person who simply knows the rules of accounting does not as a result, ever understand what the issue that I sought to raise was. The people quibbling on this issue cannot, as Niels Bohr put it, hear the music.
My purpose in writing this blog is to interpret the music, so that it might be understood. That might be a pragmatic exercise, but the consequences are more important than any theory, not least because those who can hear the music could never believe in fiscal rules.
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:
“The worst Labour government we’ll get will be better than the best Tory government”
That probably sums it up, even if there is much to dislike about Starmer’s Labour party, it is better than the alternative.
This.
There’s much to be critical about Starmer’s Labour but it’s missing the point. The imperative at the next election is to consign this dreadful Conservative government to the dustbin of history
To that end I don’t understand why so many people say they will refuse to vote Labour, by voting Green for instance, and is just playing into the hands of the Tories
But consigning the Tories to history does not mean voting Labour necessarily.
Where I live that would be a complete waste of time.
“consigning the Tories to history does not mean voting Labour necessarily” (RM)
Precisely: it’s constituency dependent. As I posted on another thread, in my Sheffield constituency a Labour win is more or certain (even with the current MP standing down, to be replaced by a young BAME woman councillor) but next door, the Liberals are hot on the heels of the incumbent Labour GND champion: vote for her and hope she can do something with a Starmer government; vote LibDem and hope a hung parliament will bring more action on FPTP, party funding and GND? Unfortunately for the second option, the LibDem candidate is not attractive. And I doubt many voters will think about matters in the way they are here!
This is a great follow up to your earlier, rhetorical question. Being right is part of the process of persuasion. It isn’t always enough, perhaps rarely enough, but persistence coupled with pragmatism will pay off.
Aside, on the back of recent discussions on the Truss debacle. The real issue isn’t how much the government spends, it’s how it is spent. Is this the basis for a persuasive attack line, something like “ you wasted/stole our money, we’ll spend it wisely?” Needs a lot of work for sure but short and snappy always beats long and accurate…
Excellent post. I’d suggest that your critics yesterday are, in Dutch, “miere neuker” I leave it to gentle readers to translate.
In terms of “any LINO gov better than any tory gov” – perhaps. But the last 45 years has seen the tories shift to the extreme right, followed by LINO. Furthermore, it is clear that the mob running LINO now are very very happy with this rightward shift & have set the party up such that moving in the opposite direction is quasi-impossible (deselection etc etc).
Mr Lynch is absolutely correct in critiquing ideologies etc etc – the problem is, LINO for the last 30 years (exception Corbyn) have allowed their hunger for power, to blind them to what Labour is about. In turn this means that under the current Labour politburo, things such as a good education for all citizens, a functioning health system open to all, housing fit for purpose are… dreams. The Thatcher project continues in turbo-charged form. LINO is too weak-mined & too hungry for power to offer any sort of alternative, no matter how weak.
My metalwork teacher used to tell us ‘rules are for the guidance of wise men and the obedience of fools.’
He would add, ‘if you are wise, you will do as i tell you.’
However, we lads (girls had to do needlework -it was the 1960s) liked him. The Head didn’t have a warm relationship with him.
Rare for Richard to be speechless.
The extract you publish mentions social democracy and democratic socialism. For me, voting Labour would be the triumph of hope over experience because LP is not democratic and not really socialist. The current leadership proudly expels its socialists and believes that ‘strong leadership’ requires it to ignore the wishes of its members. Sir Kier would have fitted comfortably into a previous iteration of the Conservative Party. History will surely identify the failure to confront the rightward drift in UK politics as an abandonment of principles. To say as much, and to decline to vote for a slightly better alternative to the cruel government we have had for the last 14 years, is not ideological.
This world – as it is now – is ruled by dogmatism. Look around you.
Let’s all just be aware of that, and let our consciences guide us to where we see fit, wise words from Mick or not.
Too much of what New Labour did was just a stepping stone for 2010.
There does seem to be a continuous thread in British politics that is not being addressed. As if what the Attlee government achieved was a mistake.
It is pragmatic to be aware of this – Mick too.
I like Mick Lynch. I think he talks a lot of sense and a pragmatic approach to moving towards genuine change, is I think the only option now. As the Tory party moves further to the right, and that is clearly thier chosen direction, it is important (for me anyway), that they are damaged at the next election. I know we go on about this, but unfortunately in the system we have, FPTP, 2 Party – 1 Ideology, only Labour can really bring about the constitutional change we need. Getting them to recognise this and do it is of course the hard part. History has shown that voting LibDem or Green, will not do it, because the breakthrough point for them in terms of FPTP seats is around 30% of the vote. I’m sick and tired of the “wasted vote” that is the bread and butter of Tory rule, the fact that the millions who vote against every Tory Govt are very quickly forgotten about. It’s got to stop.
After the next election, I think the next battle is constitutional change, and getting home to Labour that the Tories ultimate goal is a form of fascism. At least the Labour membership and many unions recognise the need for change. It needs to be banged home that failure to do so leads to fascism, because eventually FPTP will put the Tories back in power and we go further to the right. Then we have no democracy. My view is now a pragmatic one. I don’t like much of what the Labour leadership are saying, but I ‘d rather have Starmer as PM than Braverman, Truss, or the waste of space that is Sunak. I’m afraid anything but the Tories (obviously not Reform Uk) is all we really have right now.
(To note, I would much prefer a hung parliament with Labour having to do a deal with LibDems, Greens and SNP, but I doubt that happens. Hopefully, Lib Dems and Greens pick up a decent number of seats where they have the best chance.)
As my elderly mother – a lifelong Liberal of the anti-apartheid generation, considerably more radical than the Labour councillors she had to deal with – used to say “Hung parliaments, and the higher the better” …
I’m sorry but I don’t buy this at all (MarP).
As the Tory party moves further to the Right it will exert a gravitational pull on politics in general, away from any so-called ‘centre ground’ which could actually leave us quite far to the Right anyway.
That to me sounds like bad news because it pure perception thing in comparing ourselves to the worst of the Right and not the more moderate Right of (say) Ian Gilmour’s Tory party.
That was a party not so ‘deracinated’ (thank you Col. Smithers) from the society and communities it was impacting on when compared to those Tories who have got rich quick through the bent financial system and sale of public assets of Thatcher.
Look at the way ‘Blue Labour’ has emerged from this new far Right reference point. The next field of battle is not constitutional change at all, because it is not even going to be on the cards with the Labour’s continuity approach. They will argue for more pressing issues to tinker with.
The next battle ground in constitutional change however is party funding and addressing the overweening power of the rich on our politics which to me unlocks the problem of the suffocating orthodoxy that we have to endure.
But to do that, Labour under Starmer has to undergo some form of realisation, some form of epiphany but I see no hint of this at all.
In short, I think that Labour has fallen out of love with democracy. And the withdrawal from democracy started when the Labour Right took on the Labour Left and worked against it instead of with it. The worst is that the Labour party is actually going to be behind public sentiment on this and a great opportunity for change will be missed.
If not already………………….
Yes, I agree that the Tory Party has moved to the right and continues to do so, that is very clear, but a look at the politics since Neo Liberalism took over in 1979 shows that Labour have not always followed. It gets a little complicated, but history doesn’t lie.
As a response to Thatcher being elected in 79, Labour went full on socialist. Michael Foot was the leader, and the result was the SDP breakaway. At the next election, Labour were hammered, got around 26% of the vote, but FPTP saved them with 206 seats. They then dropped Foot and went soft left with Kinnock. His battle was with the Militant Tendency, remember them? Still not good enough to win an election. After John Smith passed away, Labour went full on Tory lite to win those middle England FPTP seats with Blair. It worked. After Brown lost, they had Miliband and defeat. They then turned to Corbyn. Now, no one can accuse him of being Neo Liberal, Tory lite. Two election defeats later, they dropped him and it is back to “what do we need to do to win” mode, and Starmer is chosen and he has decided to follow the Blair blueprint back to power.
Now, Labour face some different battles. Under FPTP they are now fighting on two fronts. One, for those middle England seats that they have to win and two, how do they make up for all the seats lost in Scotland to the SNP? In the past, Labour would always win big time in Scotland, but no more. The Tories don’t need to, and don’t care. They care about those middle England seats. That, I’m afraid, is where FPTP elections are won and lost. Foot, Corbyn couldn’t win them. No socialist manifesto has.
The reality is, since 1979 we have had 31 (ish) years of Tory rule, 13 or so of Blair/Brown, more or less, Tory lite rule. So, what’s the answer to stop it? I think it is constitutional change and it needs to be wide ranging. Realistically, under FPTP, only Labour can do that. Of course, Labour may do nothing, but I doubt whether the Lib Dems or Greens will ever get enough votes to change things. They’ve been trying long enough. The Tories will only ever change things to benefit themselves. The best chance right now is Labour, although it is probably very small. The alternative is the Tories and we know where that leads.
One thing that Starmer is missing, is an understanding of the mood of the country. Right now, opinion polls suggest that many policy areas that are good for Lab, public support is strong. Lynch is right, Starmer needs to be brave. Instead he’s just desperate to win, so won’t do anything to rock the boat. He’s winning the “anything but the Tories” vote right now, but he’s ignoring the desire for real change. As a strategy, that could backfire very quickly when he wins.
So, this is where we are. What’s the alternative? Positive abstention, and hope that 60-70% of voters follow and reject the system that way? We already have a situation where 30-40% don’t vote and certainly the Tories don’t care. For now, I don’t think that is the answer, especially when there is a chance to really damage the Tory party at the coming election. So, in one sense if Labour don’t deliver, I can live with it if the end result is the Tory Party is seriously damaged by defeat. As Lynch says, any Labour Government is better than a Tory one. They just need to understand the danger of a system that will let those Tories back in at some point.
I think we’re now at the stage that those on the left need to working on ways to pressure Starmer’s future LINO government (which is pretty much a certainty, given the ineptitude of the current bunch of Tories) into moving leftwards.
I’m not sure if they are daft enough to fall for it, but if you could get Starmer or Reeves to talk about how Thatcher went about governing, I’m sure they would be very critical of her policies. They would then be left open to pressure by pointing out their current policies are to the right of where Thatcher stood…
I suppose there is little chance of such a thing occurring. The gatekeepers will never let Starmer or Reeves face somebody not in the right-wing media to ask them awkward questions. They can deal with criticism from the right, but wouldn’t be able to put forward a sensible response to a considered critique from the left. Other than, “The Tories made us do it”, which is going to be their refrain for the next decade as the country continues to disappear down the crapper…
In Scotland, there is a campaign to basically, ” kick the SNP’s arse” and be serious about gaining Scottish Independence as, so far, after ten years, we are no further forward because they always play by Westminster rules. A section 30 plays into Westminster’s hands as they will refuse a referendum on Independence!
The campaign is for us to spoil our Westminster election ballot paper by writing across it “#END THE UNION”.
If there is a big enough uptake, then it should be declared that there are “x” amount of spoiled voting papers with “#END THE UNION” and draw attention to the SNP that, for once, do what the voters of Scotland desire.
A similar campaign could be used in the rest of the UK by spoiling the voting papers by writing across it, for instance, “#END FPTP”. An idea?
I prefer positive campaigns
No one will know a thing about this
“My purpose in writing this blog is to interpret the music, so that it might be understood. ”
That is EXACTLY why I read your blog every day. I can’t read the music—accounting and financial wizardry is not my thing at all. But I do know that what financial wizards are doing in the background and foreground is profoundly affecting/or will affect my life.
I need guidance, and you provide it, Richard. I trust you, in the sense that I really do believe you have ordinary people’s interests at heart. I am definitely an ordinary person, and without guidance, I would be woefully uninformed on these issues.
Thank you for what you do. It really is invaluable.
Thanks
Whenever individual experiences cohere and socially rhyme: it chimes.
For whom do these bells now toll ?