I have noticed that The Spectator and other further-right publications have described the new political party that Jeremy Corbyn, Zarah Sultana, and others might create as being 'hard left'.
What is hard left about wanting people who have disabilities or who are unable to work to have the money that they require to meet their needs?
What is hard left about hating the idea of children living in poverty?
What is hard left about wanting people to have the chance to live in their own homes, providing security for them and their families, without being impoverished as a result?
What is hard left about the desire that all people have enough income to make ends meet?
What is hard left about wanting public services that work, because they are properly funded and the people who work in them are treated with the respect that they deserve?
What is hard left about caring about climate change, and the future of our children and life on this planet?
What is hard left about wanting peace?
What is hard left about caring for others, whoever they are?
What is hard left about wanting for others what you might desire for yourself?
What is hard left about believing in democracy?
What is hard left about understanding that markets fail, since they very obviously do, and that as a result, we need the state to underpin and regulate them to make sure that they are fair?
What is hard left about thinking that everyone should have an equal voice in our society?
What is hard left about wanting that society be fair?
What is hard left about believing in the state when it is very obvious that we are going to have one?
What, in summary, is hard left about caring?
Someone from The Spectator, or other right-wing papers, needs to answer these questions, because what they are doing is promoting the opposite.
Why would you do that?
What would motivate you?
And how do you think that good outcomes might result?
As far as I can see, there is nothing hard left at all about any of the above things. In fact, what they represent are the Christian values and those of other faiths that the right wing of politics claims to be dedicated to. So, what is so wrong with these ideas when a politician actually espouses them?
And why is it that the right-wing makes it so easy to spot the difference between the things that they say, and the actions that they take?
Why is it, as a consequence, that their politics is so laden with hypocrisy?
And why is it, as a result, that they are so terrified of people who want to walk their talk, and respect the world and those in it, that they feel they must describe them as hard left?
I wish I knew, but I don't, because their mindset is, as far as I can see, beyond the reasonable comprehension of any caring human being. And I put the emphasis on the word 'caring'.
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!
Well said Richard.
Right wing media outlets owned/funded by rich work in the interests of the rich. They want to continue profiteering unchecked. They favour ineffective governance from a small state that, even when it enacts legislation to level the playing field, cannot enforce it.
They don’t care about values from faith. They are as hypocritical about any faith they claim to hold as they are anything else. They will lie to get what they want. Whether it be framing true centrism as hard left or smears about left of centre politicians.
Thanks Richard. I have only just discovered your web site, very helpful and reassuring for my beliefs..
Why is the right so uncaring? It’s about socialisation, group think, and fear of change. We are getting to the end of the beaten Eaton Oxbridge set, those who were beaten at boarding school by teachers and prefects with no parent for support. The hang over will go on for sometime. This does not explain the right in other countries like the US. The life experience of the rich is limited and unchallenging because they are rarely faced with major crises, like homelessness.
They cannot identify with or understand poverty or poor people. They fear them and fear “sinking” down to their level. So a group think develops in which they attack agents of change like Corbyn. We know the current wealth distribution leads to massive mental illness at all levels in society, and they, Spectator journalists would probably be happier in a more equal world.
Never underestimate the influence of cocaine, a very egotistical drug that takes away compassion.
Fear is my final point. Many middle income people vote conservative because they fear that the left will “mess it up”, take away their privileged lifestyles.
The Overton window has moved so far to the right that anything vaguely left of centre can be smeared as “hard” or “looney” (in the US) as radical or communist.
The Labour Party is not really a party of the left any more. More centrist or even centre-right than centre-left. They are more left than the Conservatives, but the Tories have drifted way off towards the populist nativist authoritarian neofascists in Reform.
Perhaps there is space on the left for a new social democratic party of the sort we are missing. But perhaps Zarah and Jeremy and others would do better by joining the Greens.
There are many quite difficult Green policies
I could not join
But then, I am not a joiner
Haven’t you just paid to rejoin X?
It’s essential to engage with those who don’t care.
If the left values purity above winning we will always be marginal .
The Greens are wrong on nuclear power so miss out on a major solution to global warming. Running a flat or small house on nuclear power creates the weight of a sheet of A4 paper in nuclear waste a year. For the UK as a whole that is about 100 shipping containers that could be easily put down a mine shaft in a geologically stable area. For 50 years that is that is 5,000 shipping containers by which time, hopefully solutions will have been found to global warming. The other matters, its dangerous – not very dangerous, terrorism – Iran has not built a nuclear bomb and they are a state, also, no one has stolen the gold at the Bank of England so things can be protected. I cannot join the Greens while they are anti nuclear power. A new left party with Corbyn in it looks attractive.
Sorry, but that is wildly wrong.
If it was that easy we’d have done that by now.
We haven’t, because it is not that easy. It is the exact opposite. The Green Party have this policy right. There is no room to play with nuclear power.
Whilst the Green party does have social justice at its heart,not all Greens are left wing,some are environmentalists, but less keen on the social justice policies. And as a Green, whilst I prefer Corbyn to Starmer there are big ideological differences between Corbyn and core Green party policies. Both would work together constructively, but I think being one party is a step too far.
I see no reason for one party.
I see the reason for cooperation to get PR.
Of course they are hard left.
We all know there is no money for all these pie in the sky dreams you list.
Of course no children in poverty would be nice to have – we all know that, but we also know only too well that its just not possible – the markets woudnt allow it, and country is already groaning under the highest tax burden in history.
Please get on message Richard – and if people didnt realise these dreams were hard left we all know that deep down – they are anti semitic.
We know these things to be true – we dont need a Ministry of Truth to tell us . We have the Guardian.
i
Irony is permitted here
In response to your efforts to get the message out, Richard, and relative to this particular blog. I have set myself the task this weekend to try to get the anti-neoliberal economic message and the fact that we should – indeed must – strive towards being a more caring society that is focused on the well-being of the many (and not the further enrichment of the few) out to a few more people by completing the Guardian “People in the UK: what do you think of Labour’s first year in government?” survey. Possibly some of your readers may also wish to do so? https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/jul/01/people-in-the-uk-what-do-you-think-of-labour-first-year-in-government-keir-starmer-politics?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other (I’m not sure if the link will work).
Your blog provides a treasure trove of material that enables quick sourcing of facts and figures to put forward. Needless to say, my own response will not present a favourable opinion on Labour’s first year. Particularly not the continuation of neoliberal policies that have proved disastrous over many decades. Their economic illiteracy and political choices are astonishing and so far removed from what used to be Labour principles that they should hang their heads in shame.
It worked for me…
So I did it.
Might it be that the basic purpose is to parasitically exploit us to passively accept greed as the foundation and purpose of current socio-economics via main stream media manipulation?
“There are two kinds of writers and politicians; the ones who tell you truths and those who tell you what benefits them.”
(From Clifton Fadiman)
Very good
Ah, the views of The Spectator – always such a reasoned, rational mouthpiece for respectable and acceptable society’s opinions… (or so it would see itself)
https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/and-now-lets-bomb-glastonbury/
Agree, call them out. And remind people that we did care after the war, we had nothing, cities reduced to rubble but we cared, built homes for everyone, and the NHS, if then when we were broke, why not now!?
The Overton Window is positioning theory in action, OW has normalised uncaring attitudes and acceptance of there is no alternative, TINA, so caring is effectively positioned as lunacy.
Might be wrong but the right seemed to have hired psychologists to manipulate people, authoritarianism, positioning theory, and addiction just to mention a few …
The psychological basics have been known for a century, and Dan Kahneman got an economics Nobel for showing that people thought emotionally first, rationally second. That’s why lies (told first) stick, and the debunk (told second) doesn’t, and why simple solutions, however ridiculous, get traction (stop the boats). Cameron created a psychological unit for that sort of influencing, but all major advertising since the 70s uses those techniques.
This is why the UK needs a written constitution, including a requirement that all political and government communications at all times be “clear, fair, and not misleading”. Only then can exploitation of human weakness using lies and misinformation be stopped.
The “clear, fair, and not misleading” words are taken from Financial Conduct Authosrity rules.
I have never met Zarah Sultana -although I do remember being immediately impressed when I saw her impassioned maiden speech and thinking she’s very young but will go far- but I have worked closely with Jeremy Corbyn, and I find his politics interesting.
He is above all collegiate, disliking abrupt personal confrontation, but can be very robust in defending or promoting political ideas and his priorities which he is passionate about.
He was always over committed, often late for one meeting as the previous one overran, helping all sorts of community organisations in his constituency, and backing radical political initiatives in Parliament.
I recall Jeremy, and the MP with whom I worked for the longest time, the late Llew Smith (who took over Michael Foot’s south east Wales valley seat), always used to amend the Labour Government motion in support of a nuclear defence policy that would be debated when Parliament returned each October, by proposing Trident be disarmed. Jeremy chaired Parliamentary CND for many years, and was assiduous in questioning ministers over nuclear weapons issues, and taking up the UK’s abject failure to abide by its legal obligations to put British nuclear weapons into disarmament negotiations under Article 6 of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty by initiating several parliamentary debates.
Jeremy would always link the priority ministers give to forever funding Trident and its hugely expensive infrastructure (£205,000,000,000 at the latest count) with the failure to invest in social care, in secured welfare, and in the environment.
His labour programme for the 2017 general election, which he came close to winning, and got considerably more votes than Starmer did in the 2024 General Election, was perhaps the most progressive ever to be put before the electorate.
Jeremy’s values may be broadly Christian, though he is an atheist; Zarah and the four male independent MPs who might join up with the new party are Muslims; she is certainly Socialist, they are not necessarily so; it is going to be a broad-left multi-faith, multicultural coalition: a good reflection of the progressive wing of the nation.
Richard, would there be any point in you sending The Spectator an abbreviated form of your post above in the form of simply posing those questions?
I personally doubt it…
The MSM and City vilify the left and despise caring because their real agenda is to extract as much wealth as possible on an ongoing basis from the pockets of serfs. Hence we have financial engineering ever mutating into new tricks, resulting in worse social outcomes. Think enforced loans at high interest rates (the original water extraction method), dubious use of derivatives (who really benefits? accounts do not tell us) and now private equity going after any service with captive customers (e.e. council car parks).
Always the result is harder times for the serfs, financial gain for the few.
Correct
Blimey the party doesn’t even exist yet and the right wing MSM are getting their smears in already.
Right wingers like to call us “hard” left because our politics are guided by reason, which is tricky for them to follow 🙂
It’s tricky for them to refute.
Agreed.
Here is the real Project Fear again courtesy of the Establishment.
I hope Corbyn and Sultana (and whoever else) remember that the old Labour party was a mixture of progressive interests that were martialled effectively and inclusively to bring about change. It is sectarianism that has killed Starmer’s Labour as far as I am concerned and resulted in the toothless morality free government we have now. And let us hope that whatever this possible new party does, the first thing it does is read and learn about the real power it might have.
However, I think that they are in for a hell of a ride from the media and the established parties.
There’s a group I belong to on Facebook called Peace and Justice which says they support Corbyn’s ideals. Yesterday they changed the name to Arise – “Peace and Justice” support group.
Another group I follow is called Arise- A Festival of Left Ideas.
When I asked if the name change was anything to do with this, I was told to wait and see, with a smile.
Corbyn, Sultana, Burgon and McDonnell are quite often giving speeches at the meetings of these two groups and have to go off and vote in the middle.
Personally, I don’t object to that. Corbyn is a month younger than me. I wish I had his stamina.
Yesterday Jamie Driscoll was asked if he was going to join their group. His response was that they were going to join ours. It’s called Majority Movement.
Good things are always hard (when they insist there’s no money) left.
Sermon on the Thatch (jointly written by those that have too much money/those that write for trash such as the Spectator, the Torygraph, Times etc etc.)
Blessed are those who have disabilities or who are unable to work, they should just go away (& die quietly)
Blessed are children living in poverty? (mine don’t)
Blessed are people having no chance to live in their own homes, they will have no security for them and their families, & will be impoverished as a result?
Blessed are people not having enough income to make ends meet? (I’m alright jack)
Blessed are clapped out public services that don’t work, (I don’t use them)
Blessed is the climate change, it always has
Blessed are the warmongers (St B.Liar) – they employ people (& I’m not the one dodging the bullets)
Blessed are those that don’t give a stuff about others (they don’t care about you (& never have)
Blessed are those that don’t have what I have (get yer ‘ands off me yacht with ‘ot n cold running blondes)
Blessed is less or no democracy? – its overrated
Blessed are markets (which only fail cos there ain’t enough of em, state regulation – pah!)
Blessed are the voiceless for they shall remain silent (or else)
Blessed is unfair society (Life ain’t is-it?)
Blessed is less state for it doth muck things up for the rich.
Dearly beloved in summary, why care? (only a mug would do that).
The gospel according to St Thatcher and St Raygun of blessed memory.
Yoo true for comfort
Very good. Are we allowed in this instance to label such neo liberal saints as the anti-Christ ? There is a book that analysed MAGA as a potential anti-Christ by the theologian Matthew Fox: Trump & The Maga Movement as Anti-Christ (A Handbook for the 2024 Election): iUniverse (2024).
I saw the “hard left” phrase on the front of one of the gutter-tabloids at a petrol station yesterday.
Corbyn was never more than “social democrat” in terms of his 2017 manifesto.
Congratulations on the reach of that post. “Use” Twitter for as long as the algorithm (and Musk) tolerates you. Those stats are impressive and justify the effort. Especially if many of them aren’t aware of your work already.
It might be worth checking what “de-trolling” tools are still available – some 3rd party tools have been blocked on X since Musk altered 3rd party access to the interface. I’m out of date on that as I left before all those changes.
There will be trolls. Always. But thank you.
The soviet union was a hard left political project. It was not very caring. Complete opposite in fact. It required complete devotion and loyalty.
There have been many political party splits from the labour party. None of them have succeeded. I doubt this one will either. Though the labour party base may feel different this time because Corbyn did not split from it, he was expelled.
What about the Lib Dems? Did some people not come from Labour
I think it would be fair to say that the SDP experiment failed and most of the remnants (except David Owen and a handful of others) were absorbed by the Liberals.
The Brexit Party and Reform show it can be possible, but the struggles of any third/fourth party to really break through in the UK shows how difficult it can be. Perhaps the SNP is an exception but that took decades. The Lib Dems were on the upswing again at the last election but they easily could get squeezed out again.
The Greens have just got from one to four MPs. The parties in Northern Ireland, the Party of Women, Alba, Plaid Cymru, TUSC, etc, are not really moving the needle very much.
Much to agree with.
If and when Corbyn et al form a new party we can expect to see in the UK a resurrection of the McCarthyism that pervaded US society like a cancer in the 50’s, the seeds of which were evident as soon as Corbyn won the Labour leadership
Well written sir.
For those below the line that claim there’s no money, a 2% super wealth tax, on anything over £10 million would raise at least 24 billion pounds.
Remembering that:
One million seconds = 11.57 DAYS, and
one billion seconds = 31.71 YEARS
So £24 billion is nothing to be sneezed at.
If the right wing rags then say the rich folk will leave, I would say that I will wave them goodbye!
However, unless we reform our broken & rigged 2 party electoral system first, nothing will change for the better… #PRnow
Politely, it would not raise that
A) It will never happen
B) You won’t be able to prove values
C) The while system will be completely bogged down in appeals
D) Just read the Taxing Wealth Report – there are so many easier ways to raise £24 billion.
Why propose one that will not happen and could not work?
Is it that you do not really want to raise that money at all?
And do you really think tax pays for anything? If so, you have a great deal of learning to do.
You have to get these things right to succeed in campaigning. I know. It irritates people in NGOs who want simple solutions, but I was probably the most successful technical tax campaigner of the real era of tax justice campaigning.
The time to remove money from the system (Tax) is when it MOVES. (When earnings are paid, when invoices are paid, when assets are transferred by trading, gifting or inheritance, when financial products are bought or sold.
The time to tax wealth is likewise when it moves.
Prey animals understand this very well – when they move, they get spotted by predators.
The problem with wealth is that so much of it is dead, motionless, doing nothing, making no one happier. But EVENTUALLY it needs to move… SNAP!
I have a question. When stately homes plus attached land furniture, fittings, and any Turner/Constable landscapes they contain, are given to the National Trust/Tate Gallery in lieu of inheritance taxes, what does MMT (and an honest accountant) say has happened to the “money” involved? How is that accounted for by HMRC to whom the tax was owed in the first place? The inheritance tax never gets “paid” but I get to visit and my spouse gets to visit the gift shop.
The debt is paid
Remember tax is a debt
The double entry is credit atx debt account, debit landed estate held for the country account
Have always admired Zarah Sultanan’s integrity. Here’s a video she put out in 2020 when she entered parliament: https://www.doubledown.news/watch/2020/24/february/Unboxing%20Political%20Freebies%20with%20Zarah%20Sultana%20MP
Well said!
Tom Fitch at 1.16 raises nuclear power. This is not the place to fully explain why it is not a good economic idea for the UK or a sensible ecological idea for the planet.
But I will make a few observations.
Firstly, if you want political support for nuclear power, don’t bank on the new Corbynista party, as Jeremy has long opposed nuclear energy, in part because of its inextricable links to nuclear weapons, which he has always implacably opposed; and in part because nuclear is the dirtiest form of power production by some margin, when measuring the longevity and toxicity of its wastes. ( Burning fossil fuels fuels does, to be sure, produce uncontained greenhouse gases, which is very bad as well for our planet’s equilibrium; nuclear waste produces different environmental challenges). One important point to make with nuclear waste is the key metric is not volume but radioactivity. Nuclear proponents always down-play the difficulties of radwaste by citing the relatively small volume of waste created-a few swimming pools, or the sizzle of the Albert Hall concert venue in London, are often cited to demonstrate the comparatively small volume- but the extreme radioactive longevity of the waste, sometimes millions of years for some actinides( ie components of the radwaste); always for tens of thousands of years is overlooked.
Present day humankind is charged with developing a stewardship/ burial-with-retrieval-option plan to encompass 10,000 years plus. This will be mainly passive not requiring active human intervention, but it will require passing the managerial oversight from one generation to another across millennia. The longest known human institution is the Catholic Church that so far has persisted for around 2,000 years. Radioactive waste oversight will have to last, uninterrupted, for five times as long as that.
It is quite an ask. There is currently just one working subterranean disposal facility for very long-lived radwaste, at Onkalo in Finland. It just opened, and is by normal definition, still in its experimental phase.
In my view it is irresponsible to add to the existing volume of legacy radwaste unless or until there is a demonstrable technical method for long term containment from the biosphere and terrorist intrusion of the current radwaste burden.
After all, would you take off in a plane knowing it has no landing gear; or live in a 30-story tower block with no toilets or sewage system?
Agreed
@Tom Fitch
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2025/07/05/what-is-hard-left-about-caring/comment-page-1/#comment-1029446
Maybe when we have solved ALL the problems that Windscale/Sellafield (ever wondered why we changed the name?) has with our current nuclear waste backlog (like leaking water tanks and the lack of an agreed solution for the existing waste) then we could think about whether we want to create more?
Windscale Fire
3 Mile Island
Chernobyl
Fukushima
etc etc at least 99 accidents.
(We do like building them by the seaside dont we?)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_and_radiation_accidents_and_incidents