One of this blog's more regular commentators, Andy Crow, said this on the blog overnight, talking about the submission I made to the House of Lords Economic Affairs Committee:
What more can you do but attempt, daily, to change hearts and minds ?
You ARE winning some. Lots actually. We just lack major influence. Some of us don't actually have even minor influence, but we like having a voice speaking for us. It does make a difference. Particularly on the really dark days.
I have some of those. I expect you do too, but you don't let on. Brave… or clever…..? I've no idea. But the cover is good. It fools me. (I am prepared to be fooled) And supports me.
Thank you for that.
In reply, I said this:
Do I have dark days? Of course.
Do I worry? A lot.
How do I cope? By doing something. It's the only way I know.
But does it make all the worry go away? Rarely.
So, I keep going.
I think that is worth sharing. If it ever comes across that I do not have my doubts, worries, and concerns, that might be good stage management on my part, but that's not the truth. As my family would tell you, I am both a worrier and a short-term catastrophiser (which they have learned to ignore because it always passes quickly).
I most certainly do not think I am possessed of all the answers. Precisely because I wish I were, which hope is based on a belief that those answers must exist, there is always more to do.
And because I am probably neurodivergent (or what is called ADHD, although I have no diagnosis), I find sitting still and doing nothing about what concerns me very hard.
I call that a strength, by the way, and not a weakness. I happen to think being 'normal' is rather oversold as to its desirability in our society. Neoliberalism might wish us to be just that, so that we are profoundly compliant with its wishes, but that is not my desire. And as a matter of fact, my experience is a very great many of us don't even vaguely approximate to that version of normal, and I don't and do not want to.
So, I react to the events around me by writing and talking about them. It is what I can do.
I think we all need to react in whatever way we can. The way we do need not be the same. And that's a strength.
But what we most definitely do not need to think is that disagreeing makes us abnormal. It does not. It makes us critical thinkers, appraisers of the truth, seekers after justice and campaigners for those in need. Progress has always been dependent on those willing to be such things.
The only oddity is that it seems that every single person in Labour seems to have forgotten that these days. But that makes them the oddity: how can you be a politician without a cause, and yet they do not seem to have one?
In that context, I am pleased that I know why I am here and what I am trying to do. That's one thing less for me to worry about.
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!
I appreciate your efforts, Richard, even if you make so many posts that I can’t really keep up as I only pop in now and again!
There’s certainly a bit of the Cameron about the Starmer/Reeves axis. They wanted to be in charge because they thought they would be good at it, yet here we are – they’ve destroyed most of their political capital on a needless and poorly thought out policy move which will immiserate some of the poorest pensioners.
To this post title, I’d add another question.
How is it possible to be a Chancellor who has never heard of Keynes?
Or a economic reporter in the media who apparently hasn’t, either?
I call it the IFS-ification of economic discourse. Every policy decision has a microeconomic number, plus or minus, but the macro outcomes aren’t ever considered – or even mentioned in the media.
Oh, she’s heard of Keynes
She has deliberately decided to contradict them
Thank you for your tireless campaigning Richard. You speak on behalf of many people who do not have the platform you have worked so hard to build.
It takes a lot of courage and tenacity to speak out particularly when challenging the establishment.
For most people doubts and worries go hand in glove with self reflection which in turn leads to refining and modifying views.
Thanks
Thanks for sharing.
Sometimes, it gets too much and sometimes I just wish I could shut off altogether and just ‘be happy’. But I can’t. It’s like feeling the ground moving from beneath your feet and you have to stand up and plant yourself firmly on that ground.
Feeling now exactly what I felt when I began to pay attention to Mrs Thatcher (my reaction was that I foresaw from a very young age the abuse that would result from her policies) you do wonder what has been learnt.
As for politicians, it is very simple.
The cause is themselves.
Let’s face facts. Would you not agree that politics is an easy way to make money now?
“Some of us don’t actually have even minor influence”
I disagree. The more people that understand how economics really works, the more of us correct the misunderstandings of the old guard.
A few years ago, hardly anyone knew about Modern Money Theory, and now I see multiple comments. At some point we’ll reach a tipping point because most people will know.
I tend to agree with that
On Monday I attended a family wedding on the sunny isle of Cyprus.
It was, as you would expect, a joyous occasion but most of time I felt like an external observer, for the gnawing injustices of the world never leave.
It may be that I am psychologically dysfunctional but the question always surfaces ‘do we have the right to be enjoying ourselves this much?’
Yes
Even in the midst of all this mess there is the chance to be happy with each other
That’s one of the many paradoxes of life
We have to accept them
We do not need a return to the failed dogmas of Puritanism; what we need is compassion, tolerance, and joy. There is a springboard to refresh the spirit of our world.
If the politicians (who are always Puritanical about other people’s lives, but never their own); are obviously incapable, then we need to change them: already. We can delay the compassion, tolerance and joy there a little, until they deserve it; which requires them only to choose – either shape-up, or ship out.
Richard, I echo those comments, thank the heavens for you and your non troll contributors – keeps me sane on those grim days where the poor and powerless and picked on.
Thank you.
Thanks
Just to add my thanks for all your hard work
I share your thoughts on dark days, but have recently had a tiny bit of success. I had a small part to play in speaking against the clause in the Green Party policy that declares that tax funds spending. It has now been removed.
I am considering joining the GP Monetary and Banking Committee with a view to getting rid of the Positive Money nonsense. Wish me luck!
I do wish you luck
Happy to help
Well done sir, I wish you all the luck in the world.
@Keith Slater: I too wish you all the best on getting GP policy realigned. I may see you there!
Some discussions at last weekend’s GP Conference were encouraging in that regard (with several references to Richard, indeed!).
Thanks
In what context? Who by?
Richard: in a couple of sessions of Economy and Finance working group, with MMT the main theoretical basis. I need to get into the details of various documents to know exactly how it’s developing; and it’s maybe not for the public domain at this point. (I am fairly new to the GP and very new to this policy group and its processes.)
Thanks
Richard,
I have read your blog daily for at least 3 years now – I come to it because it’s more fair, balanced, full of ideas and hopeful than anything I see on TV and in Print. Your contributors on here are exceptional. PSR is a standout, but there are many others. I thank them for turning me on to ideas and books, that give me hope. It is essential for sanity
Until 2017, I worked in he media, I had to step away due to neurological issues, which I have had all my life, but had developed and continue to develop in damaging ways in regards speech and articulation, which is why I can perceive what is happening but can’t express it as well as I liked.
Your blog is a VITAL contribution to the current ways of the UK and the world. I tell ex-colleagues, family, friends to read it because there is a growing feeling they have are being had. They say what can we do? And all say is, well, you do nothing till the fire comes to your door, and that fire is coming.
I really hope you can get awareness of your knowledge out there – perhaps an alliance with Carol Vorderman?
Thanks for reading, never underestimate your value Richard.
Many thanks. I appreciate that.
On average around 20,000 people read this blog each day and another 20,000 on average view the videos. There seems to be little overlap, unsurprisngly.
And alliances are under discussion right now, but it’s too early to talk about them.
Thank you so much for your blog. I try my best to understand some of the ideas, I do however understand the big ones. I’m moved by the spirit of you and other contributors that things could be so, so different. We could live in a world that could be a lot more equal and essentials provided for. As someone who pulled out of economics at Poly, but remains proud of my accounts o level, I struggle to follow some concepts, but do try. I recommend and share this blog. I remain optimistic and refuse to give up hope. Thank you for all your work.
Very much appreciated, Anne. Thank you.
I try to read your blog everyday, mainly because I learn something from it and am helped to both pose and explain, to myself and others.
E.g if tax destroys money and debt creates a form of money then what part of the system was exposed by not cancelling WFA?
Is it external investment if so what and what is the likely return on that investment or if internal debt sales what is the risk(default, increased interest payments, extended terms)?
I’m keen to understand the system and the constraints it imposes on the poorest as these are political considerations as well as financial and need to be well understood by the electorate (understanding being what I am gleaning from your blog).
Mealy mouthed MPs on Today programme are not breaking through in terms of explanation other than professing how loyal they are and really only result in confusion and dismay.
After all, if whatever the system is, is maintained at the expense of the people we are on dodgy ground.
Thanks
Such a good question to ask: “How can you be a politician without a cause?”
Or, maybe, shifting it a little: “Why are you a politician?”
The answer would be most illuminating, wouldn’t it? What is Keir Starmer’s cause? I wonder if he could define it honestly, without waffle and spin.
I doubt it
That is what worries me
What stands out to me is that different things are expected of politicians at different times, which seem to be contradictory. I’m not sure that MPs have a job description as such, and what this country is is typically described as a “liberal democracy”, or a representative democracy, but many countries describe themselves as something that they’re not, and I disagree that electoral systems are compatible with democracy. With regards to expectations of MPs we seem to expect them to be representatives, but also, and in contradiction with the role of representation, we want them to have conviction, vision, cause, and so on, and we expect political parties to produce a manifesto with their plans for government. Representatives need skills and abilities, however, they differ from those of vision, conviction and cause. Similarly, government is not the same as representation. Representation is what we may want from an advocate, a mediator, a lawyer. Government does something different to this. So there’s an incoherence in what we think about what MPs ought to be doing. Is it a job of representation? If it is, the key skills they need will include listening to understand, facilitation of consensus building amongst different interests and groups, planning and implementing different ways of living to run alongside each other, and, in those situations where that’s not possible, ensuring recognition for those whose wishes can’t be realised. If MPs are representatives, their ideas are not relevant, and they don’t need a manifesto, since their role is not to tell the population how to live, it is to implement the wishes of the population about how to live. The two views are incompatible, even though they might correspond at points, simply because what an MP wants might be the same as what we want. But that doesn’t amount to representation, it’s just coincidence. I’m not interested in the continuation of electoral politics, since it pretty much looks like a dud, for about as far back as you might care to look – there was never a point where it worked, and then suddenly the wheels came off. Similarly, the idea that someone with power will act on the wishes of someone without is, in my view, naive. And the evidence is clear. For instance, most people want a public NHS and govt is not providing it. Ditto with water, utilities, education, transport. Govt is not representing (the electorate), but it does have vision, and conviction and cause (which it is representing some people, with the same cause): to continue to privatise, to divert govt money to the private sector to prop up zombie capitalism, to ensure the corporate takeover of govt is complete and maintained, to create an ideological context that neutralises opposition. It’s just not a good vision for most, or for life on earth as a whole.
As I suspect Jan knows, Alex Salmond was fond of quoting the line that Scotland’s Independence “was a cause unwon” – and that, to many of us in Scotland, is perhaps the best definition of what is a driving ’cause’ in politics. One of the many reasons I admire your efforts is that they seem to proceed from the same kind of dedication but in the wider field of macro economic, and therefore social, policy.
As to Starmer’s motivations, let alone those of Reeves – just yesterday exposed as having boasted of supporting the means testing of WFA in the House in 2014 – I suspect that fealty to rising personally within the establishment has been mistaken for virtue. ‘I have risen so I am right’ – the piety of the possessors1