In this morning's main video, I note that far-right commentators – the sort to be found in the Tufton Street think tanks – are suggesting that I am on the far left of the political spectrum.
Really? Since when did a belief in democracy, the need for a strong government capable of delivering decent public services for a very mixed economy, plus an absolute determination that no child should live in poverty, make a person far left?
Could it be that those suggesting that I am are themselves in danger of falling off the edge of the far right?
The audio version of this video is here:
The transcript is:
Does wanting children to be fed make you a socialist or some far-left person, or is it just normal human compassion?
I really don't know the answer to this question, at least when viewed from the perspective of the average right-wing commentator at present, because I have been described as being far-left and Marxist and communist and all sorts of absurd names on my blog and elsewhere now for simply talking about the fact that we should be relieving child poverty in the UK and raising taxes to do that. Only two billion or less is needed to take one million children who are in poverty as a result of the two-child benefit cap out of that poverty so that their parents could provide them with what they need.
But the Labour Party is not promising to do that. And I think that's wrong.For saying so, I've been described as far left.
Now, I'm about as far left as Harold Wilson perhaps was, or members of his cabinet were, and not all of them. I'm probably to the right of Tony Benn, and I'm not going to apologise for that.
I believe in a bigger private sector than he ever did. In fact, I'm quite a strong believer in the private sector and its role in the economy, and I don't mind people making money from it.
But what I do is combine that with a social conscience.
Are those on the right who describe me as a left-winger saying that I should not have a social conscience? I should not follow the teachings of all the major wisdom traditions on earth, which are summarised, in fact, in Christianity, which many of them will say is one of their guiding philosophies, which says, “Love your neighbour as yourself”.
Nothing wrong in that statement. Let's be clear about loving yourself. It says that that's okay, so long as you love your neighbour as yourself.
I do that. I try to live my life like that.
Does that make me a socialist? Or far left?
Or are these people so far to the right that they've lost touch with the reality of basic human caring?
And are they doing something else? Are they trying to redefine politics from their perspective, to which we must all then subscribe?
I think I'm on the soft left, the moderate left. I'm not a hardcore, clause four socialist even, as once would have been described by the Labour Party. I don't believe that all the means of production should be in the ownership of workers. I'm happy to believe that we should have companies which are in private ownership.
But that, apparently, is now far left, according to people who are so far right that they hate every aspect of government, every aspect of any form of government regulation, and every aspect of our democracy that provides people other than those with the power afforded by wealth some element of choice in our society.
That worries me. Because this, frankly, is the language of those who are describing, well, what I consider to be neo-fascism. And I don't subscribe to that. And I never will. In fact, I'll spend the rest of my days opposing it.
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!
According to you 60% of the population are on the ‘far right’, which strongly suggests your frame of reference is vastly distorted.
I would call Reform and the Tories far right.
Labour is centre right.
Where did 60% come from, or do you always make stuff up?
A feature of communism is confiscating private property. The communist justifies it on the grounds of collective good. They might be subtle about it by declaring you are environmentally insolvent using arbitrary accounting so no compensation is due, no appeal. It’s still the hallmark of communism.
Nothing about environmental insolvency is about confiscating property. It is about requiring those declared to ge so to create a plan to become environmentally solvent. You gave, very obviously, not read a word of it, rather typically.
@Golden Rhys
You do realise that the Enclosure Acts consfiscated huge areas of land that had been held and used in common for centuries, creating many large landed estates.
This, some not even 200 years ago, was the wholesale expropriation of public property without compensation.
The whole absolutist concept of “private property” was one which existed, but then was captured by capitalism.
Your identifying any collective assets as “communism” puts you firmly on the far right.
Agreed
now, of course, they have inflated the price of property loading people with debt and reducing most young people to tenants. So much for the property owning democracy of Margaret Thatcher’s dreams. We drift towards a plutocracy.
Same end, different means.
The Overton window for British politics – including the leadership of the Labour Party – has moved so far to the right that you are indeed on the far left of British politics. Not the real far left of course, but there so few communists and full-blooded socialists (in the sense of advocating public ownership of the means of production), that there are few people to the left of you. The Greens perhaps.
It would in fact be interesting to ask Keir Starmer if there is space for socialists in the Labour Party, if he is a socialist himself, and if so how he defines it. I expect he would dodge the question rather than giving a straight answer, just as he dodges questions about his support for Jeremy Corbyn (was it real or pretended?) or his platform for election as leader (ditto). What is the core of his personal beliefs, apart from seeking power.
It’s quite weird to be a perfectly normal social democrat of old and yet be described as far left.
I am unapologetic for being so.
As one US Plutocrat points out
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2014/06/the-pitchforks-are-coming-for-us-plutocrats-108014/
The Tufton St Cabal may find themselves at the – rather minimal if any mercy of the mob if inequality carries on growing.
Thanks for the “Pitchforks” link – I liked that article. It’s a pity that Starmer isn’t making the case for higher wages – instead he’s left it to Farage to make better pay a central policy and Farage will use it to build support in struggling towns with low wages.
far-left, Marxist, communist, woke, greenie, socialist, zero-carbon, etc etc
The political playground, where tropes and name calling is the norm to disguise the reality that those doing the name calling do not, at any cost, want to engage in discussions on, as pointed out, hungry children (in a rich country).
For the name callers to engage meaningfully would expose them for what they are: prostitutes paid to defend the indefesible.
The labels are used to frame debates, in a population that has been groomed/trained like a dog – whistle and it comes – “woke” and the groomed mind auto-classifies in a negative way the person accused of being “woke”.
Speaking for myself, I’m interested in results. A functioning health service, run for results, not profit, an educational sector aimed at providing the whole population with a good education, not those with money and so on & so forth. The trolls that come on this site can label me as they see fit – when they do – they have just lost the argument/discussion and exposed themselves for what they are – see above. & in any case, life is far far too short to engage with imbeciles, paid or not.
Thank you and well said, Richard and Mike.
@ Mike: You are on / in the money with your description. I have personal experience.
I would not insult prostitutes by tarring them with the same brush as the Tufton Street gangstas, who, by the way, own Labour, too.
I know some SWers and have a lot of respect and affection for them. I find them intelligent, full of empathy and insight, not at all judgmental and often on the left. According to the ones I know, most started off after encountering financial difficulties. Austerity here and overseas are a watershed moment. I would split them into a quarter public sector professionals, including one who was a palliative care nurse, a quarter private sector admin staff, a quarter the only job they have ever known since school or university (or during university) and the rest there for other reasons.
——-
Editor note: SWers = sex workers
Colonel Smithers, you are of course correct,
SWers only! sell their bodies, for which they are to be pitied, by contrast the Tufton St et al crew sell their minds, for which they are to be despised.
Many SWers have little choice (although for some it is a career – good luck with that) – the Tufton crew have choice which speaks volumes about them & their morals & lack thereof.
Unfortunately you have to engage with the “killing off the planet” imbeciles who don’t understand fiat money!
As ever you fail to understand the people that don’t align with you and try and pretend that they want different things than they actually do. That way you can pretend to take a moral stance that is entirely unwarranted.
Most people on the left and right believe in broadly the same principles about supporting others, the need for the state to provide key services such as health, education, social security etc.
Where they differ is about exactly how that is implemented. To pretend otherwise is a blatant lie.
It’s somewhat strange that you try and call on Christianity, when so much of what you do is to stoke division and misrepresent other people (‘neoliberals’). Of course one of the key commandments is not to judge others, something you do in your blog multiple times a day.
But the most vile of your statement is the one that says “…people who are so far right that they hate every aspect of government, every aspect of any form of government regulation, and every aspect of our democracy that provides people other than those with the power afforded by wealth some element of choice in our society.”
Do you honestly believe that the majority of those on the right HATE EVERY aspect of government and every form of government etc?
It’s funny that you’ve called both Labour and Tories as neoliberals and yet neither of those parties are proposing to drastically change the amount of government involvement in our lives, which continues to increase. To pretend otherwise is a downright lie.
You can’t try and take the moral high ground if your claims are just blatant lies, in means that everything else you claim gets called into question too.
OK, let’s prsume you’re right (you didn’t need to abuse to be heard, but you did).
If most people on the left and right believe in government why are they so keen to underfund it and leave it in tatters?
Why do they seem to want all government sercices to fail? Please explain – because that is what those politicians are decicated to doing – and most people do not agree with them.
As for my supposed vile statement, have you read the output of Fufton Street? I have. What I say is wholly fair.
And they are certainly anti-democratc – even Jacob Rees-Mogg has admitted the Tories have gerrymandered.
And if you did not notice it – both Labour and the Tories are promising to reduce the role of government in our lives – this is all their economic pplcies are about.
Biut the funnist claim is on Christianity – which is a religion all about judging – which Jesus most certainly did. Have you noticed what he did in thw Temple? And have you read the Good Samaritan? Was it not a judgement tale?
Your comments simply do not stand up to any scrutiny. Why did you bother? If I might pass judgement (it’s what my job role requries) you failed.
@ Ian Piper
What a load of old B******s.
Mr Piper:
“you’ve called both Labour and Tories as neoliberals and yet neither of those parties are proposing to drastically change the amount of government involvement in our lives”..
True statement, which means that, for example, you will need to get used to sewage in a regular basis in rivers. Perhaps you are used to that already?
Or over priced energy (coupled to rapacious elec network operators), or a failing health system, or schools that are falling to bits. I could go on for some time. Neo-libism? it is based on a utopian fantasy that for the most part revolves around small government and markets. Take a look around – is it working well? The tories are the bunch that bought into the neo-lib fantasy and are being destroyed – deservedly so. next up: Labour – it will tear them apart. I’m not offering points of view, just reality.
Right. I’m off to read a bedside story to the future: a little girl – god help her given what we have done or failed to do.
In May, The Guardian wrote: “Starmer: I’m a socialist”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/may/27/starmer-im-a-socialist-and-progressive-who-will-always-put-country-first
I’m not sure who he was appealing to. Perhaps he considers that being a socialist is one up from a neoliberal.
In terms of “labelling” you are so so quick to call anyone who disagrees with you from
the “far right”. You band the term around like confetti.
Anyway why are you bothered so much by labels?
The far right label is correct
The far left one is a joke
Getting things right matters
James: so putting to one side labels, what do you propose should be done about:
millions of hungry children in the UK,
rivers & seas polluted with sewage
massive backlogs on the NHS (& dentistry),
costly energy,
poor transport
I am interested to hear your ideas/proposals.
Please excuse the length of this account of how the far right has emerged from the views of a few political economists, whose utopian yearnings for the 18thC and 19thC, has been captured by neo-fascism.
It is utterly dominated by free-market dogma and the associated racism of social Darwinism.
These are very stark beliefs indeed.
Purist free market capitalism, that of the Austrian economic theorists, including Hayek, Mises, etc., as amplified by the postwar free market Chicago School of Milton Friedman, believe government only exists to promote profit and protect private property, in all its manifestations.
They are free market utopians, and a hangover from 19th laissez faire.
There are few, if any, wider public obligations.
This cadre entirely accepts Spencer’s social Darwinism. This underpinned 19th C ‘laissez faire’, and led to pre-fascist eugenics.
It states that there is an innate superiority of the rich and inferiority of the poor, so rendering the poor sub-human in material terms (yes it is as clear cut as that).
It means the poor can be treated like cachi, and justifiably so, as they are also genetically inferior.
This ‘power and wealth equals superiority’ attitude explains the present social welfare approach of the Tories, which is why they do not care about poverty created by cutting benefits.
The poor deserve nothing because they are inferior.
They won’t ever say this of course. There are still some working class Tories.
In 20thC social landscapes, Social Darwinism stigmatised immigrants and renders them second class citizens.
In the UK the hangover of white superiority from empire exploited both Afro-Caribbean and Pakistani peoples by attracting them here as immigrants postwar to make up for labour shortfalls, but all the time they were not really Brits, but second class, and to be kept at that level.
Racial prejudice was cultivated by conservatives to reinforce the lower status of non-white immigrants. ” No Blacks, No Irish, No DHSS, No Dogs ”.
These echoes of Nazi Germany’s differential racial status were strongly amplified by right wing conservatives at that time. The current right now almost deify Powell.
Stigmatising non-whites also led to Tory racist ‘divide and rule’ strategies that peaked with Theresa May’s ‘hostile environment’, and the disgraceful abuse of the Windrush generation, but also current “Stop the Boats” social Darwinism.
‘Illegals’ are sub human to Sunak, but more a vote winner for Reform.
The right wing neo-liberal Chicago Boys were heavily engaged in 1970s socio-economic experiments in Chile and elsewhere, where a fascist dictator, who had often achieved power through a military coup, privatised the entire country, stole, sold off or gave away public assets, and generally imposed repressive authoritarian regimes, ‘disappearing’ opponents, just as Putin has done. That’s pure neoliberalism for you.
Hannah Arendt would have argued these 1970s free market regimes verged on totalitarianism where there are no other options possible in thought and action, as Orwell stated.
Pinochet was Thatcher’s South American bestie.
Thatcher’s “There Is No Alternative” echoed his totalitarianism, but in a very British way.
Liberalism is/was to be mocked (do the “Wets” = the “Woke”?) and suppressed by whatever means possible, as the state was to be progressively reduced to a brutalist core that only protected private property with trickle down the pseudo logic that justified prioritising the rich.
This became the era of the early ‘Gated Communities”.
Since the 80s the extreme neoliberalism of the Austrians, once regarded as far right doctrinally, and virtual neo-fascists, has been validated by deliberately increasing inequality; increasing social stigmatisation of the poor; with massive growth in relative and absolute poverty; active prejudice against immigrants (especially non-white); and progressive reduction of the state by privatising services, even if not selling off all the capital assets, such as under the English academy schools system. It has caused a slow descent into chaos.
The latest manifestation of free marketeering, removing any constraints the state may wish to impose, is the Freeport thinking of the Special Economic Zones.
This is pure far right laissez faire dogma, and needs resisting.
The rules don’t apply to us, because we are superior, and have the power of money.
This power is justifiable because we are the Ubermensch.
(Yes, I do know the real Ubermensch was actually a Nietzschean construction of an ideal)
The rise of Brit populist right wing figures, mostly bankrolled by wealth accumulated by property magnates, whose rentier mentality instinctively supports far right dogma, is but one manifestation of t’Brit Ubermensch.
(But you can still have a pint with these men of the people.)
Populists love strongman regimes, and authoritarian leaders have grouped together in mutual support of their own repressive regimes and far right thinking across Europe and the US.
They combine free market neoliberalism; social stigmatisation of the Untermensch, (poor and non-white immigrants); with social Darwinist nativism.
Current plutocratic power elites are represented in the UK by the Conservative and Reform parties and are not merely right wing, but include elements of fascism, including suppression of rights of protest.
This is not just prominent in the UK, especially England, but also too many of our European friends and neighbours.
Where LINO fits, we can only be pessimistically speculative.
The entrenchment of Putin’s dictatorship has also been as a result of neoliberal capitalism from the Harvard Klondikers parachuted into Russia in 1992, whose attempts to transform Russia into a Western capitalist country created the current oligopoly, utterly destroying the transitional economy and creating chaos and poverty, collapsing GDP by 50%.
Anyone pushing back against the emergence of neo-fascism on the right, which aiming to discredit anyone remotely to the left of Attila the Hun by labelling them ‘far left’ pejoratively, is basically engaged in subterfuge,
The entire neoliberal experiment is based on 19th and 20th C proto-fascistic concepts, and the concealed values of the Ubermensch.
And this pushback is why Richard, who I’d describe as a social democratic liberal, is labelled ‘far left’ by far right trolls.
Thanks
Features of communism can include wanting to abolish the Monarchy, end privilege and stifle dissent.
A communist would also be on the side of raising Capital Gains Tax on private property without an inflation allowance, effectively meaning that on death a high proportion of the value of your property is confiscated and transferred to the State.
The people calling you Far Left do have a point. Surely it would be a better strategy to own it.
No, people who want to abolish the Crown are Republicans. By your definition 99% of US citizens are communists.
And no, communism has never had anything to do with indexation allowances. Since we have not had indexation allowances for a considerable period you have just defined all recent chancellors as communist. I think you’re wrong.
Maybe you should try thinking before posting?
I found your post really interesting because it shows that we need much better politics education.
‘Features of communism can include wanting to abolish the Monarchy’
A far left or a far right party (or a centre party) could want to abolish the monarchy. Republicanism can’t be defined in those terms. Majority of Scots or a third of English who are republicans aren’t communists (some of them will be, but a small majority otherwise our political landscape would be completely different).
‘Features of communism can include wanting to end privilege’
This is actually called meritocracy. Democracy without meritocracy is impossible. Even Tories (including Thatcher) claimed to be a party of meritocracy .
‘Features of communism can include wanting to stifle dissent.’
Well yes – it could, but I can’t see anyone on the left stifling dissent, while I see and have seen parties and individuals on the right doing it.
‘A communist would also be on the side of raising Capital Gains Tax on private property without an inflation allowance’
I don’t really see how this is connected to communism in any way or form.
But – I do find your post really concerning. It shows that you’re afraid of meritocracy and that for you keeping privilege is central.
Thanks
HI Richard,
I think you are left wing. I think the attempt to label you, is an attempt to de-legitimise your arguments (you will remember that Corbyn was attacked not for his policies, but personally).
You will also be aware that your blog and videos, have exposed the lies espoused by today’s politicians and their media friends, and provided incredibly coherent arguments against their positions. This represents a threat to them.
Your policy positions would put you bang in the centre of Europe (maybe 5 years ago), but would also align with the British public.
You should be very proud, but also wary of further personal attacks to come.
Regards
Left wing, I agree. Of course I am. Far left, I disagree…
I suspect that Tufton Street will call for the abolition of the Monarchy as soon as it suits their purposes.
Come to think of it Democracy as well
Sadly, definitions such as “hard left/right”, “soft left/right”, “ultra left/right”, “fascist”, “Nazi”, etc. are, in many (most?) cases misused – the Corbyn years being the worst period of this in recent memory. It is very annoying because when terms are overused and abused they just become meaningless, cry-wolf words, leaving us unprepared for when the real thing appears (of course, I’m think mostly of Nazis and fascists here).
Incidentally, I found some useful, better defined terms in Liz Fekete’s book Europe’s Fault Lines: Racism and the Rise of the Right, Verso, 2019.
You are not “far left”, I would most definitely say that in your case the term is being abused because you are a concern to someone or other.
A more accurate term might be, “A lovely bloke, on the left, who clearly cares about other people.”
I think lovel might be going to far, before my sons might appear here and say so…
Richard, I’m so happy that I’ve found your site. This is the first place I go to when I switch on my tablet to find a sane voice in this madness. Keep up the good work and thank you.
Thanks
Labels are the shorthand used by the media to smear the enemy du jour. Best avoided.
I keep boring on about 1984 – but the today’s language does seem very Newspeak – and your concern with poverty or public ownership of utilities very much Thought Crimes.
You and most commentators here are now apparently ‘far left’ – for ideas that were once seen as mildly social democratic.
As it is , there are also thoughts we are not allowed even to consider .Obviously there will be no @BBC programme discussing whether there is or is not ‘money’ to invest in public services and reconstruct the NHS, or whether the fiscal rule is really a rule – and do we really have to ‘borrow’ and if so ‘who from’?
Its interesting and sort of terrifying how @BBC and the three big parties – collude in the extent and scope of the debate – ie tax/spend/borrow which suggests that nothing can change – ever – unless magic ‘growth’ happens.
Much to agree with
I have posted before that as a Wilson-voting, slightly left-of-centre oldie I see you as a social democrat type coming from a dissenting background. I get accused of being far left for simply sticking to my unremarkable mainstream old Labour position.
BE PROUD though that you have undoubtedly done enough to be on the far right (and Labour) bot and sock puppet (mostly ad hominem) attack lists. You are doing a great job and a necessary one.
Thanks
The Terms ‘Left’ and ‘Right’ are on wheels, and Tufton Street perambulates the ‘Left’, just as it perambulates facts to fit whatever nonsense it is currently spinning in the interests of its paymasters.
It is all plain guff.
I really don’t like the use of the left/right political spectrum. There are many issues on which people would generally agree and where there is no need for partisanship but get lumped together somewhat arbitrarily into a single linear measure (e.g. mixing economics up with environmental issues and civil rights). Commentators love it because it makes it easy to write a headline and do “analysis”, and politicians use it as it encourages triablism. Once people make a decision about where they stand they will start to frame everything based on that measure, to the point of even changing their own minds about something they otherwise would have agreed with. It is especially marked in highly polarised countries like America, but I fear that it is creeping into the UK as well.
I think we all would be better off if we stopped using this language altogether – whether it is identifying or calling others by a left/right position. In this post you say others have called you “far” left, you describe yourself in this post as “soft” and “moderate” left, but what does that even mean? When the entire concept of the “spectrum” is as abused and open to subjective interpretation it is, distinctions like that are pointless.
Left/Right needs to go. Adapting to new language is tricky, but I think doing so will be essential for getting political discussion back on track in this country. Everyone should start describing things as they actually are, in a more objective way: No left/right on tax, Are you “in favour of taxing wealth” or not. No left/right on labour rights, are you “in favour of the right to unionise” or not. And if changing language makes it a bit more difficult for commentators, politicians and voters to identify and recognise where some’s views lie in relation to your own, thinking more critically about what people are saying can only be a good thing.
According to Political Compass the current Labour party is slightly to the right and significantly more authoritarian than the Lib Dems.
The Greens, Plaid and the SNP are the only left wing parties. I admit to being very left wing as the political compass test confirms, but an accountant who believes in the value of business and private enterprise is never very left wing.
I would argue that Labour is to the right of Ted Heath and more worryingly much more authoritarian.
It seems that anyone that challenges the views of the two major parties is very left wing and that this is an insulting term. How can a civilised country support a return to growing poverty and destitution?
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2024
Labour is, undoubtedly, well to the right of centre on any reasonable analysis
Totally agree. But many believe they are voting for a left wing party that will help reduce inequality.
Agreed
That is not what this Labour Party is
Surely the point is where do you fit compared to the majority of the population.
And if you think that Labour are ‘well right of centre’ then that puts you into an extreme position, whether you’d like to think of yourself as an extremist or not.
How many errors can you make?
Do you think Labour represents their membership? It is clear that they do not.
And do you really think that they will represent the views of all those wuo will vote for them? You’re in cloud cuckoo land if you do. Those people are voting Labour because it is the only way to be rid of the Tories – and if you talk to people it is incredibly clear that people have only a little more faith in Labour – and want all the things they appear intent on denying them.
There is no way the fact that the Labour Party has moved very rapidly right suggests I am on the far left for pointing this out. All it says is that the left has been vacted by Labour and that, I very strongly suspect, people will not forgive them for that very soon.
“When I use a word” said Humpty Dumpty, in a rather scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more or less” .
“The question is” said Alice “whether you can make words mean different things”
“The question is” said Humpty Dumpty ” which is to be master”.
For many of us it is instinctively impossible to allow Tufton Street (and the media in general), to be the master. What we are called carries with it a media constructed stigma but we cannot pretend to be what we are not.
Hmmm. Anybody else find it amusing/interesting that every one of the naysayers in this thread accusing Richard of dishonesty/delusion seems to have received approximately 40 upticks for their often risible posts? I wonder why this might be the case? *Cough* Bot farm *cough*.
Always good to see that the Tufton Streeters feel they need to put some effort into trying to discredit you. It shows there is some concern. Their content is risible, the attempts to make them look well-supported are simply pathetically bad.
I had not noticed….
I am often branded as far left. The irony is that some of the people who do so are the same people that called me a “soggy liberal” or a “pinko” way back when I was a student in the 60s.
I have changed my mind about many things over time but my basic political orientation has remained the same being guided by the Buddhist principle of compassion towards all sentient beings. One person I know who claimed to be a Maoist back in the 60s is now making posts to Facebook about how proud he is to be a member of a party led by Starmer. As a result I feel I can safely ignore his opinion of me.
In the end it is easier to label someone far left than to give a coherent reason why they should be be considered far left, and both are easier than actually engaging with their opinions. It often redolent of lazyness or unclear thinking and while it is worth pointing out the error, it is not worth losing any sleep over.
Much to agree with