Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves talk endlessly about fiscal black holes—but that's not Labour's real problem. In this video, I argue that the real crisis lies in the party's loss of purpose, ethics, and vision for Britain. It's time to ask what Labour is really for.
There is no audio only version of this video.
This is the transcript:
Labour spends a lot of time talking about black holes. Of course, what Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves are talking about are fiscal black holes, as they would put it. That means the deficit that is run by the government because its income is smaller than its spending.
But the truth is that that is not the real black hole that the Labour Party faces.
The real black hole that the Labour Party is facing is the fact that it has no moral compass.
It has no understanding of what it's about.
It has no concept of leadership.
It does not know what it is trying to do.
If the Labour Party was genuinely a Labour party in the form that it once was, it would be talking about how it was going to address inequality in the UK.
It would talk about how it was going to address poverty in the UK.
It would talk about how it's going to create opportunity in the UK.
It would talk about how it is going to build the missing infrastructure that the UK requires, like social housing, in particular, but also schools, hospitals, and that which is necessary for climate change.
Those are the things it would be talking about.
It wouldn't be talking about money. That's the language of bankers and business, and people have never voted Labour because they believe in bankers and business, and make them their priority.
People want to vote Labour because they think Labour should be ethical.
Well, if Labour isn't ethical, and there are no signs that it is, it's time for people to think again.
We need a politics of care in the UK.
A politics that delivers for people.
A politics that respects people.
A politics that respects that not everybody lives in London.
A policy that respects Scotland, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and people in the north of England, in the Southwest, East Anglia and elsewhere, as well as in London.
A policy that reflects the fact that a government understands that its priority is protecting people, and protecting people is not just about buying bombs, aircraft and nuclear missiles. Protecting people is about making sure they have a home, they have an income, they can meet their bills, they can provide meals for their children, and they can have hope for the future.
Labour has forgotten that that is what governing is about, and that's why I make so many videos criticising Labour, because it's forgotten what its purpose is, but I have not.
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!
If I thought it would work, I’d report Labour for breaking the Trades Description Act – because they are blatantly NOT adhering to Labours principles and as such have totally and intentionally misled/conned the electorate
If you have done like I have and read a lot on leadership over the years, the most common association I find is that of good parenting – being a good parent. That is what good leadership is associated with, setting an example, setting a direction, setting boundaries, being there when needed, taking responsibility for others etc.
Labour OTOH are being led by their funders and the good old fashioned British self-serving Establishment who are getting their pound of flesh out of their ‘investment’. Did I say ‘a pound’? Oh sorry, it’s a lot more than that I assure you – believe you me.
Caring, then.
And they don’t.
Yes – ‘Caring’ – agreed, but I wanted to focus on what I had triangulated over the years. I also have a strong distrust of words these days, and ‘caring’ is one of the most widely abused words I can think of, so locating it in another theory (management) seemed a good idea.
PSR what you describe is not much different to being a good man. These traits have often been portrayed in the last 2 decades as being weak. As a direct consequence, too many times has there been: Not enough men in politics who are good. Not enough good in political parties. Not enough good coming from government.
Surely ‘good’ people, of the kind described, are likely to be in other good, honourable work and do not want to have to subscribe to the lies and manipulations that are an integral part of politics almost the world over now.
Those who are ‘good’ (example the National Health Action Party of 2015) and I would say, Jeremy Corbyn’s Labour, are driven out and beaten back by any vile means neccessary. I always had huge admiration for Andrew Feinstein who came pretty close; but he would not have been allowed to ‘beat’ Starmer.
How do we change this? What has to happen before people vote for a ‘good’ candidate who has the good of the the majority of the population at heart? Another World War?
This claims he would not be allowed to beat Starmer is absurd
Of course he could gave done
Are you saying the vote was rigged?
It wasn’t. Corbyn won, after all
Can we stop such claims please? They benefit no one.
Agreed. 🙂
It’s not the point of your post I know, but I wanted to comment on the first paragraph of the transcript. It says:
“That means the deficit that is run by the government because its income is smaller than its spending.”
But this is always the case. The government doesn’t have an “income” from tax receipts. Tax receipts simply cancel the spending the government has made. ALL government spending is by newly created money. Yes, that spending may later be covered by selling bonds. That’s quite unnecessary and a bad idea. Nevertheless, when the government spends it’s with newly created money, not from income.
It’s not the point I know. And it’s just the introductory paragraph. Many reading your post will understand that the deficit is a metaphor. But, for those who don’t, it is, perhaps, worth mentioning the reality.
Sorry Tim, but this is pedantry. Of course it has an income from tax receipts. It uses it to cancel debt.
Far from pedantic when governments use this bogus ‘piggy bank’ narrative of government finances to fig-leaf needless cuts and privatisation.
When Jeremy Corbyn was elected Labour leader it was because thousands joined the Party in hope of a new direction. Apart from Corbyns honesty excitement was a new economic direction – Corbynomics.
It scared the hell out of the establishment, partly because.it was the members who financed it, not the donations to MPs for their ‘favours’.
In 2017 Corbyn got more than 3 million more votes than Starmer at the last election.
Recent polling indicates that should be start a new party it could get 10% of the vote.
If we had Proportional Representation
that vote could well increase. Should he or shouldn’t he?
As the author ofm much of Corbynomics I sensesd that excitement.
I wish John McDonneell had.
Totally agree with every word.
The problem is Starmer. The problem has always been Starmer.
Tuesday’s vote should be, must be, a confidence vote.
Starmer is out of his depth and must be replaced asp – by whom? Now there’s a question!
Hi Richard,
As always, very salient points and communicated impeccably. Sorry if I’m being a bit thick, where is the ChatGPT prompt you mention please?
Regards,
Iain
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/06/20/chatgpt-prompt-for-a-letter-to-your-mp/
The only black hole is thier respective imaginations – which show little sign of strategically thinking or trying to make a better, fairer, good society – especially with the levers they have access too.
For the few, not the many.
So, we have a ‘black hole’ (hate that expression) and Labours plan to fill it is reduce the WFA and reduce benefits. And that’s it.
Sorry, forgot expand the economy, which would mean spending money on say schools, hospitals, transport etc. Haven’t seen much of that.
Richard,
You do a great job, but how can we ever get past the black hole, which is Labour’s and the media’s understanding of economics?
The unshakeable assumption is that 100% of the £IOUs that the Government spends will be presented for repayment.
But:
1) The £IOUs the Government spends come back anyway to the Government as tax. As long as they keep circulating more and more will come back. Government spending is a form of investing.
2) A lot of £IOUs, particularly those created by banks, are locked in assets like houses, whose value depends on it not being realised. Those £IOUs can’t be accessed.
3) When a bank loan goes bad, who “printed “the £IOUs that are used to make good the bank’s loss?
4) Quite simply, if “growth” ever happened, the economy would need more £IOUs in circulation in order to function.
Yes Richard – ‘a government knowing what it is there for – making sure people have a home etc etc etc.’
A striking point was made on the recent R4 series on the 1945 election – ‘how did we do all those things even though the country was broke?’
It said that during the war when Labour and Tories were in coalition the Treasury’s role wasnt supreme as it is today – its job was to work out how to implement the real world aims of the government.
If you begin by talking finance as all governments now do – you have already lost it. Its the precise opposite of Keynes ‘anything we can do we can afford ‘
So yes Richard , Labour has to say what its here for , and then spend time talking and discussing how it can be done , including generating and distributing the finance.
Of course they wont do it , but it would make MP’s lives much more regarding taking part in such discussions.
Was Starmer knowingly telling lies to achieve LOTO status?
What we see in ‘his’ manifesto is very striking: his photo on every page.
He recently apologized dismissively for his racist speech on ‘island of strangers’ & ‘incalculable damage’ saying, I hadn’t read it carefully enough.
As we can see, he was the ideal stooge for the establishment.