There are a number of basic elements to politics, but in practical terms the most important one is that it requires that decisions be made. In turn, this requires that a politician has a set of criteria known to them, and hopefully to others, which guide them when undertaking this process.
As is now very apparent, whatever decision criteria did once guide the Tories, they are now either now dispossessed of them, or those that remain are so alien to people in the UK that they no longer wish to associate with them. As a consequence, that Party and the country are in a total mass .
In response, Starmer had turned the Labour Party into a mechanism for the delivery of what Rafael Behr, in the Guardian this morning, has called blandness. In a typically disappointing Guardian comment, he sings the praises of a man whose great merit is, apparently, that he does not upset people unless, that is, they are on what he describes as the left. Behr seems to think that opacity as to purpose and meaningless as to goals are sufficient criteria to lead the UK at present. My obvious question in response is to ask why it is that our ambition is now so impoverished?
The obvious answer to that is that neoliberal politics has won. In place of decision making, which requires that politicians make choices between conflicting aim, the criteria of maximising financial well-being irrespective of the distribution of the gains has been adopted. This corrupt form of utilitarianism defines a decision criteria, but only to the extent that it passes the responsibility for decision-making to markets that are in practice entirely indifferent to the consequences of their actions, about which the politicians passing the responsibility to them are happy.
The clearest indications that this is what Starmer and Reeves are doing are the adoption of fiscal rules that are deliberately intended to incapacitate the decision making powers of the government, and the outsourcing of economic management of the economy to the Bank of England, whose behaviour is the very clearly callously uncaring as to its consequences.
In this context, the welcome of Natalie Elphicke into Labour Party ranks was another clear indication of the total abandonment of principles inherent in this policy. Who cared that her comments on migration have appeared racist? What does it matter that she is anti-abortion? What is the problem with her having supported her sex-offending ex-husband? Why worry that she has persistently supported the increase of inequality in the UK? She believes in the power of markets. Isn't that enough?
For Labour, right now, apparently it is. The question is, however, whether it will remain that way.
Starmer is banking on Reeves to deliver his blabndness, whilst claiming that nothing else is possible. But will people really believe that we can no longer afford good government, which is the premise that underpins what Labour is now saying? will people, quite rapidly, reach a point where they will declare that enough is enough? A failing NHS, a shortage of drugs, a collapse in the quality of education, the continuing decline in the justice system and simultaneous demands for increasing taxation , which Rachael Reeves plans will inevitably require, could create a breaking point. Mr. Bland could be rumbled as a failure on the scale of Sunak remarkably quickly if this is the case.
When, or if, that happens, a number of things will occur. One is that people will no longer accept the assurance of the great and good that the management of climate change can be deferred, which is what the Royal Society is apparently still trying to do by still refusing to condemn the role of big business in the creation of this calamity.
People will also refuse to accept that in the country, where stock markets are at record highs and private wealth is growing, with more than £15 trillion of assets supposedly controlled by the wealthy, we can no longer afford to provide the most basic elements of public services that were apparently deliverable when the country was poorer.
People will also refuse to accept that money is the sole decision criteria to be used when it becomes apparent that the trade off is between balancing a Treasury spreadsheet and the death of one of their loved ones.
Perhaps most significantly of all, as it becomes obvious that the failure to act on climate change represents a risk to every single child, from whatever background they come, the demand for action from the government will become overwhelming.
To put it another way, the demand for principles, for apparent and accountable decision criteria, and for actions that are consistent with them, will become the political demand. It will be become clear that blandness delivers nothing, offers no hope, and has no solution implicit within it. It will then look like an aberration, a complete political miscalculation, and failure in terms of political judgement.
I very doubt it will require a movement to the left to achieve this outcome. The ongoing failure of government will, by itself, be sufficient to make it clear that the abandonment of responsibility, which is implicit in Starmer's approach to government, is a rejection of the hopes and desires of the vast majority of people in this country, and beyond it, whose well-being is dependent upon the decisions that government makes, which he will be refusing to deliver. It will be a desire for competence, for responsibility, for caring, and delivery that will create change. Whilst a Guardian commentator can now think that the people of the UK want blandness, I do not believe that is sustainable. What they actually want is action in the face of failure, decline, stupor and indifference, which is what politics is delivering now, and which it seems neither Starmer nor Reeves have any intention of changing.
Tipping points happen. One will. Natalie Elphick's absurd welcome into the Labour Party will not create that tipping point, but it is the clearest possible indication of the moral void at the heart of the Starmer party project. That void will create a moment when the public will expect leadership, and Starmer will clearly not supply it. at which moment they will realise that neither of our political parties are delivering what we need. They then either move to the far-right or, more likely, they may clear that the failure of the neoliberal project, even if they do not use such words, has gone on for long enough and will demand positive change to deliver hope for the future.
Natalie Elphicke's defection, and Starmers welcome that has been extended to her, is the clearest sign as to why his capacity to govern is so limited. That is because he does not have the most basic understanding of what is required to undertake that role, which is the capacity to make decisions based upon a transparent ethical framework which we usually describe as an expression of political preference. He has no such framework, and that is what will pull him down.
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:
Tory neoliberalism has always put profit before people, ever since Margaret Thatcher became prime minister.
The results are clear, abject failure. Why would anyone want more of the same?
The Neoliberal cult (for that is what we’re living under) always had a moral void underlying it. The Starmer Party is simply yet another reincarnation of it enabled by a poorly educated populace. It makes sense to keep drawing the public’s attention to the fact they live under a grotesque and morally derelict cult.
You are right but I would say that what has happened, possibly in congress with poor education, is a population that have been funnelled to embrace neoliberalism rather than just being subject to it. Thatcher was very good at finger pointing and finding scapegoats to cover her vile policies. This current lot have simply refined that process now and operate it on many fronts. War on woke, culture wars, aggressive stances on migrants, benefits for the sick and on and on. How else can we explain vast numbers of people supporting policies that will ultimately hurt them?
I see that Rafael Behr uses the adjective wholesome in relation to Starmer. Perhaps he meant holesome.
I remember the John Major grey puppet from the original Spitting Image run. Might be time to make a new one for SKS
As you say Richard, desperately disappointing.
Behr suggests that people are now desperate for an undramatic, non-ideological ‘weetabix’ candidate for PM, like Starmer , ‘ There are worse things to serve up to a country that is sick of more pungent political flavours.’
Maybe as he says – its not about soaring rhetoric – but it should be about recognising that the dire state of the country does need fixing. But he also says that polls show that people see the country as “broken”, “a mess”, “struggling”, “divided”, “expensive”, “poor” and “chaotic”.
This suggests that people might also understand that it will require a major effort to fix it – and could be persuaded by a proper argument which shows how investment to fix public services could be implented and the money raised, and inequality reduced.
Behr just doesnt want to confront the fact that Reeves and Starmer refuse to engage with any ideas as to how to fix things.
This will cause a monumental crisis as soon as they are elected.
Labour is not “shrewdly exploiting the mood” (as Behr claims), but the passive beneficiary of Tory implosion. Voters have less confidence in Starmer’s Labour than they had in Ed Miliband’s Labour:
https://twitter.com/Trickyjabs/status/1782526711885623349
..and even that will evaporate when nothing changes.
Elphicke is only a superficial manifestation of a far deeper set of problems for NuNuLabour.
Recruiting a prominent ERG member, someone whose right wing colleague stated yesterday that he didn’t think there was any space beyond her to the right, is simply crass by any standards.
I’d argue that the current situation in UK politics and especially the Labour Party is possibly even worse than this very welcome and powerful blog piece outlines.
Neoliberalism is not a “corrupt form of utilitarianism”, maximising corporate profits and then, entirely coincidentally, and by some invisible hand, also optimising majoritarian welfare.
It is not utilitarian at all, as neoliberal doctrines have far more restricted goals. The cultural hegemony that has increasingly embedded neoliberalism in its most oligarchic form, just as Gramsci considered, is basically a form of neo-feudalism, with a very small elite, supported by an accommodating technocracy, and then a large group of consumerist neo-serfs.
No greatest good for the greatest number is possible.
Friedman’s “The social responsibility of business is to increase its profits” identifying the very limited corporate purpose of ‘maximising shareholder value’, is entirely exclusive and elitist and totally restricted in its target beneficiaries.
It ain’t Joe Public that is for sure, whose agency is intentionally zero.
(Interestingly, the ultra zealot Friedman later admitted in a private letter: “I agree that corporate executives might have duties to the general public which sometimes outweigh their duties to the shareholders.” and later qualified ‘social responsibility’ as a by-product of profit maximisation, but it was a reluctant admission of the limitations of and fallacies inherent in his dogma.)
What we have now is far more dangerously authoritarian (as evidenced by Abby Innes) with only committed neoliberal parties of government, plus a few minor neoliberal parties as alternatives, such as the SNP, Lib Dems etc.,.
The worst assumption from the SKS leadership cadre is that what currently passes for ‘liberal democracy’ is the ultimate that is achievable, as it was in Blairism.
Fukuyama’s premature and arrogant ‘end of history’ has been accepted by western political elites yet-
“at a time when …… never have violence, inequality, exclusion, famine, and thus economic oppression affected as many human beings in the history of the earth and of humanity” (as Derrida noted)
I believe Colonel S commented last week that a deputy governor of the Bank of England stated that inequality was not an issue in the UK.. – a triumph of elitist self delusion.
As all we can expect is from a compliant Starmer government is a resurgence of Blairist corporate liberalism through, then the Left in the UK is going to be heavily marginalised for many years.
The counter narrative to neo-liberalism, including MMT, is going to be more actively suppressed than Diane Abbott is being now, and so the ability of left groups to present alternatives almost entirely overpowered.
The right is as ruthless as the authors of the Zinoviev letter, with its Daily Mail and other right wing cheerleaders.
This is why articulating the alternatives is so important now, and then, very loudly, post GE.
And I believe people on the left really do need to organise, as has been suggested here for current ‘independents’ pre GE, and then those climate crisis groups, and anti-war and civil liberties protests will be needed even more as a counter balance to that eternal blandness that doesn’t even reach let alone surpass the Weetabix test…..
One neoliberal cipher will be replaced by another neoliberal cipher. Rejoice, for his colour is red.
Very occasionally in the past, morality has surfaced to guide policy. We have the NHS, we had council housing (for heroes), we had equality legislation, divorce and gay law reform, etc.
I attribute it to a generation that saw war, often on the front line (Mac, Wilson, Heath, Callaghan etc), and witnessed the bravery regardless of class, race, orientation, gender etc.
There are no moral compasses at all now in the echelons of power, merely money grabbing and snide calculations.
Starmer (or his morality free advisers) has made a political calculation that he doesn’t need the left, the Muslims, the Greens etc. Under FPTP he is free to play political games while repressing democracy within his own party, drunk on his authoritarian dominance.
Political alarm bells should ring when such as Worthing have significant defections to Independent. The people who took that council from no Labour in 2015 to a 15 seat majority now were snubbed, with the imposition of a London PPC. The key drivers of the sea-change became Independents. The Greens are making inroads, too.
The more Labour becomes ‘democratically centralised’ on Soviet lines, the more fragile its response to crisis or attack becomes, as the base collapses.
Para 3 – Behr called it “blandness”, not “blindness”.
It took me a long time to realise why I wasn’t really following your argument.
In the spirit of helpfulness, please don’t bother publishing this comment.
I think we should be grateful the Natalie Elphicke affair on top of the Conservative Party implosion finally allows us to see very clearly there are just two things the British need to become and that is morally and monetarily literate. The two go together hand-in-hand. I put morally first because all life has to balance the needs of self against those of others but the latter of course also means the ecosystem of this planet which is now threatened by human beings’ failure to adequately care. Morality is about caring and the use of the money medium is one of the principal means we show it through a democratic process which itself in circular fashion is also driven by balanced caring. Clearly none of Britain’s political parties have reached the stage of understanding the literacy linkage, those that do need to continue to press it!
A shift to the far right is underway almost everywhere in the west.. In the absence of any other lead ship that is one outcome disillusionment can produce.
What is your basis for writing:
“They then either move to the far-right or, more likely, … demand positive change to deliver hope for the future.”
Based on what’s happened across the Western world (and beyond), I see the first scenario as much more likely, after a short and disappointing Labour interlude.
You seem to have answered your own question