2025 is not looking good politically. Trump will be in the White House. Europe is in disarray. Starmer is already a lame duck. What chance have we got of anything going well?
This is the audio version:
And this is the transcript:
What does 2025 offer politically? It's an important question because we have to plan. If we don't plan, we will fail, as the old saying goes. And therefore, to look forward is a necessary part of life, knowing that forecasting is one of the most stupid things that we can do.
Just look back a year.
We would have forecast that Labour would form the government in the UK, with a landslide.
We would not have forecast that they would have ended the year in the mess they're in.
We would not have forecast that Macron would have called an unnecessary election in France and, as a result, left the country with four governments in a single year.
We may not have forecast the collapse of the coalition in Germany and all the consequences that now appear to be flowing from that with regard to the rise of the right.
And would we have forecast Trump? I don't think so. I didn't. I held out hope that the Americans might just have some sense and vote against Trump, even if not for the Democrats, who never did excite anyone at the present point in time. But they didn't. They voted for Trump.
So, where does that leave us with forecasting 2025? In a pretty difficult place, let's be totally honest. Because the fact is, we don't know what's going to happen.
The most massive uncertainty is, of course, all down to Trump, and let's not pretend otherwise, because what he does as leader of the USA will have enormous influence on the UK, Europe and way beyond. And it looks as though he is intent on destruction.
What we have to ask is, what is he really going to try to destroy?
Is he going to destroy world trade by undertaking trade wars as he threatens?
Is he going to undermine the dollar, which he could do if he did that trade war?
Alternatively, will he inflate the dollar or the US interest rate to support the dollar because the dollar is threatened by trade war?
And in turn, will he in turn crush so many countries outside the USA whose debts are denominated in dollars, with massive consequences for worldwide poverty.
Will he turn on the American people and, in particular, will he try to human traffic 11 million people out of the USA to destinations unknown?
Will he turn on the labour unions?
Will he turn on his political opponents?
Will he turn on the press?
All of these things are not known. But depending upon what he does, the popularity of the far right around the world will be impacted. And the far right around the world is going to be one of the major stories of 2025.
We know that in the UK, Nigel Farage is seeking massive funding from Elon Musk, and maybe others according to his party, to transform the way in which he thinks UK politics can be done by putting Reform in the mix as the main opposition party to Labour when it comes to the 2029 election, a feat which would not be terribly difficult to achieve given the dire state of the Tories now, but which nonetheless would totally transform our agenda.
Unless that is, Trump, by then, has made it so apparent that far-right populist politics is sufficient to crash the well-being of the people in a country and therefore leave Farage and all his look-alike copies in Europe and beyond bereft and forlorn because their dreams will be dashed on the wreckage created by Trump.
I don't know the answer to that question. It's a simple, straightforward fact. How can I? How can anyone else know the answer to that question? These are things that we simply cannot know because we are dealing with a situation which is really beyond our experience.
However much we dislike politicians, and a lot of people dislike politicians, and there's some good reasons why they should, because, let's be honest, there's some evidence that they're not the most trustworthy people on earth, we presume that they will be rational, at least to some degree, and predictable, within a certain parameter, and yet Trump is none of those things.
Who would have predicted that we would have a president of the USA who's demanding control of the Panama Canal, over which he has no rights, and that Denmark give him Greenland, over which he has no rights. And yet he's done both those things over the Christmas period. So, we are in unknown territory.
And what we do know is that the neoliberal politicians have no answers to any of the challenges that he poses.
Austerity is not an answer to anything that the far right can put forward. They will talk about transforming our society. What we know the far right will really do is crush the role of government and, therefore, destroy the hopes of millions of people in the UK who depend upon it. But that isn't how they will describe their mission before they get into office.
And In response, we will have neoliberal politicians, whether they be Tory, whether they be Labour, whether they be Liberal Democrat, or frankly, SNP, all of whom will say “We must deliver government within the budget constraints that exist because we are dependent upon the taxes paid by the private sector economy to deliver the services that you want from us. And those services cannot be paid for as a result because they're not paying enough tax.” All of which ignores the absolutely simple, straightforward fact that they create the money that pays the tax in the first place.
And so, neoliberals have run out of road. And this is the crisis for 2025. Neoliberals without any idea how to manage the situation that they themselves have created by focusing upon balanced book politics above all else and far right populists trying to destroy that system, but with nothing to put in its place.
The challenge for 2025 is to find anything out of that mess.
It is going to be a mess.
It is going to be difficult.
It may well be uncomfortable to an extent that we are completely unfamiliar with.
I don't see the government in the UK collapsing as a consequence, although clearly in France that is quite possible because the latest incarnation put in place by Macron looks as unstable as the last few that he's created.
And in Germany it is highly likely that an unstable coalition will result from the election that they've got to have in the new year.
And there are many other countries where there are still problems of instability, including Korea, where frankly, we have no idea what government might emerge, but which is of significance in terms of the stability of the Pacific Rim.
In all of those countries, there are problems. In the UK we may see a change of leader. Will Starmer survive this because he's been so bad, and will Labour MPs, seeing their own futures at threat, want to keep him? I don't know. But there is no obvious heir apparent anyway.
Angela Rayner for Prime Minister? It would be an interesting idea, but it would be pretty unpredictable, I think.
Rachel Reeves for Prime Minister? I don't see it.
And nor do I see Wes Streeting for Prime Minister.
So, Keir Starmer will probably survive by the skin of his teeth. Maybe to be abandoned in 2026.
But the big questions for politics in 2025 are not domestically grown.
The stability of Ukraine, the stability of the Middle East, are the other factors that we have to look at in this as well. What will happen in those conflicts? Who knows, because they are almost beyond our understanding in the sense that these are existential conflicts by states to try to extend their power in a way which is beyond our comprehension because we wouldn't want to do it.
So we have to be broad-minded about politics in 2025, knowing that unless we are, there is going to be no agenda for 2026. And that's what 2025 is really going to be about, establishing an agenda from which we can build again.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The main problem with Starmer and his inner circle looks to be they view being in government as a way to improve their personal contacts, and get lots of lucrative gigs, lobbying, consultancies, directorships and get on the 5 star international circuit when they leave office, so don’t want to stay for the next parliament. They don’t want to get a reputation for doing anything remotely socialist as it does not go well with the right wing US billionaires they particularly want to get in with.
Look how rich Tony Blair got after leaving office.
The language used by Liz Truss and other failed Tories and other neoliberals is similarly skewed to appeal to US right wing billionaires to get on speaking gigs circuit.
It is true to say that Neo-liberalism has run out of road.
But it has not ran out of money – funding – and therein lies much of the problem I’m afraid.
Yes, PSR, you have identified the key problem facing democracy. Neoliberalism is extremely profitable for the elite; they can afford to spend huge sums to protect their cash cow. Breaking that cycle is going to be extremely difficult.
Democracy 2025 Brings Together Experts and Advocates Across Wide Range of Litigation, Advocacy, and Policy Groups to Deploy Swift Legal Defenses
Washington, D.C. – Today, a large coalition of leading pro-democracy organizations is launching a multimillion-dollar effort called Democracy 2025 to ensure swift legal challenges and responses to harmful and anti-democratic actions expected in the first days of the Trump-Vance administration.
Democracy 2025, resourced by Democracy Forward, includes a growing roster of 280+ legal, expert, and advocacy organizations and 800+ individuals representing millions of people and communities across the country. Members include litigators, strategists, advocates, academics and policy experts, and faith leaders who are prepared to challenge expected governmental actions that will harm people, communities, and our democracy. The actions the groups are prepared to respond to include efforts to purge and target our nation’s civil service, roll back health care access, harm immigrant communities, undermine labor protections, and dismantle core functions of the U.S. government.
There is also the Democracy In Europe Movement 2025 in which Varoufakis plays a leading role.
It is quite radical.
DIEM25:
How radical? DIEM’s UK advisors are Ken Loach, Caroline Lucas and John McDonnell. All deserving of their position, but no longer “movers and shakers”.
It seems to me that the UK’s “left of Starmer” parties are pulling in different directions with too many wannabe messiahs and not enough fishers of men.
Ian Stevenson
Thank you
Anne Cruise
This is their manifesto
Radical in that it wants a change of system, not an improvement
https://diem25.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/05/DiEM25-Manifesto-2022_pages.pdf
Your commentary would make much more sense if you understood the difference between being right wing and the ‘far right’.
As you keep failing to understand the difference, you’ll keep making the same mistakes.
I promise, I know the difference.
Keir Starmer is right wing.
Farage, Badenoch and Braverman are heading for far right.
Trump, the AfD and others are there already.
And you aren’t Ricky Fowler.
‘Ricky’
Enlighten us then?
Tell us the difference as you see it.
I suggest buying a copy of John Seymours Complete Guide to Self Sufficiency or Hessayons The vegetable Expert might be a good investment………..
“So, Keir Starmer will probably survive by the skin of his teeth. Maybe to be abandoned in 2026.”
Is anyone currently in UK politics “fit for purpose” to be a good Labour Prime Minister?
Yes
But they are keeping very quiet right now
If Trump tries to deport 11 million “illegals” over into Mexican border or fly out some to other Latin America countries, what if Mexico refuses to cooperate and the other Latin countries? It would be a logistical fiasco let alone the gross inhumanitarian aspects. Musk will also try to retain or increase he number of skilled migrant workers that are needed in the high tach companies.
“tries to deport 11 million “illegals” over into Mexican border or fly out some to other Latin America countries”
There is a reason Trump wants to buy Greenland!
Might, at least in part, the problems we have had imposed on us be connected with double standard/two faced Neo-liberalism?
Might it be that, instead of actually attempting to resolve differences through conversation/negotiation, uniform rules, regulations, clarity, consistency of information and purpose and an attachment to humane equity, they pursue a policy of undemocratic, elite group, self-interested domination?
Might Neo-liberals falsely present themselves as following an ultimately benign and beneficial “Rules Based Policy”, whilst, in reality, they manipulate, moralize and propagandize, using extreme language and, sometimes, force, based on selected, false premises such as “balancing the books” and “support for democracy”?
Might Neo-liberalism present/sell itself as democratic and liberal whilst actually being a hegemonic, “might makes right,” domination-seeking, anti-democracy purposed movement?
P. S. Might such be indicated by our having a voting choice between Labour Neo-liberalism, Conservative Neo-liberalism, Lib-Dem Neo-liberalism etc.?
Search ‘the single transferable party’ on this site.
This is the term used to describe the false choices these parties offer.
Thank you Richard for a thought provoking post it got me thinking about what are the popular centrist put downs used against left wing ideas, amplified by the msm and wealthy classes.
The one that immediately sprang to mind was of portraying anyone on the left as being naive and childish because they don’t recognise the reality that the wealthy are in charge and we have to take their power seriously. They argue bond markets can bring down governments and it is naive to suggest otherwise. Andrew Marr is a particularly prominent proponent of this position and a keen supporter of Keir Starmer who he sees as a serious grown up in the room clever leader able to flex the constraints of neoliberalism using disingenuous tactics which will never the less improve the public good, albeit at the margins. That’s the best we can hope for. Will Davies provides a succinct description of this perspective
https://lrb.me/davies4622pod
This argument renders governments relatively powerless in the face of accumulated wealth and you are defined as a serious grown up in the room only if you recognise this. It is then possible to dismiss anyone who doesn’t adhere to this view as irrelevant, there is no need to take them seriously or engage with them at all, they are the noisy children in the playground making impossible and stupid demands on the adults. In order to sustain this position the mantra that you can’t tax wealth as the wealthy are too good at tax avoidance has to be a grown up truth. The other grown up truth that needs to be maintained is that the wealthy use their wealth to invest (trickle down economics) which I think is wearing thin, and becoming harder to maintain.
The perpetuation of the government can’t do anything view also explains why most of the population are completely fed up with politics and democracy. Why vote if the government is powerless to improve things.
The counter argument, as made in these blogs, is that the wealthy aren’t these clever wealth creating people portrayed by commentators like Marr and Davies, they didn’t create their wealth, governments did and therefore governments do have the power to control wealth. Because governments control the money supply they control wealth creation and can potentially control wealth accumulation. Gary Stephenson covers this well in his analysis of the accumulation of wealth arising from QE since Covid, and the need to address this through taxation and redistribution.
For me centrist commentators like Andrew Marr are the midwives and hand maidens of wealth accumulation providing a respectable face for the damage being caused and to call them out we need to address the planks of their argument as is done everyday in this blog. They are not the grown ups in the room they think they are.
Strictly governments do not control the money supply. The banking system creates as much money as possible (albeit through loans) within its risk appetite. There is a well known paper by the BOE which makes this very clear. https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/-/media/boe/files/quarterly-bulletin/2014/money-creation-in-the-modern-economy.pdf
Wrong
The Bank of England regulates banks, including their creation of credit. So it is responsible for the money supply. You are assuming its political statements reflect reality.