George Monbiot's article on the nationalisation of water in The Guardian yesterday concluded with what I think was an exquisitely crafted and profoundly poignant paragraph, in which he said:
It's a simple test: does the government operate in the interests of the country, or in the interests of private capital? This shouldn't be a difficult choice for Labour to make, yet, as with so many such tests, it flunks it. Why? Because it is terrified of any measure that might alienate even the most parasitic and extractive forms of capital. Strangely, however, it seems to have no qualms about alienating the rest of us.
In a few words, George summarised precisely why Labour is failing so badly.
It's failing us.
It's failing the country as a whole.
It's failing its membership.
Even its own MPs are making clear it is failing them.
And it is doing all that because of its dedication to a political philosophy that is itself very obviously failing, to the point where it is clearly beyond redemption, as anyone who suggests that Britain is not working can see, even if they do not frame their analysis in the way I do.
So why is the Labour leadership doing that?
Is it that they really do believe in this failed dogma?
Or are they terrified to let go of it and move on, as we must, into a world that relatively few are still willing to explore, describe or theorise about but which, nonetheless, must now be brought into being?
Or is it, as some think, straightforward corruption that motivates that stubborn resistance to change, the possibility of which we cannot rule out?
I do not know the answer to these questions.
What I do know, as most people also know, is that what Labour is doing is profoundly inappropriate, and even just wrong. Nothing can now justify its choices, but it shows no sign of backing down. Starmer, Reeves, Streeting, Kendall, Cooper & Co are dedicated to our destruction, and of a great deal of what is of value.
The result is that we are in a wilderness, although the required destination is obvious. However described, what we need is a politics based on care to replace that of deliberately manufactured human indifference from which we have suffered for the last 45 years.
What is not yet clear is how we get that politics of care, but get it we must. Our ability to adapt to the challenges we face is utterly dependent on our doing so. Needs must, then.
And what is clear now is that Labour will not be a player in that future. It only wishes to play in the past, and that is now another country, where we no longer want to be. We can, we will, and we must move on. And, whether Labour likes it or not, and however many of its members it seeks to silence, expel, or ignore, move on we will.
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!
Starmer claimed he had to expel the MPs this week because it is critical to do what Labour was voted in on, specifically its manifesto.
Implicit in voting out the Tories was the public voting for change. Change from never ending austerity and cuts. That was really what the public voted for as awareness of manifesto details is always mediocre at best. Where he’s failing is missing that. The newly independent MPs are supporting the real thing the public voted for. Starmer and Reeves aren’t.
Powerful words — this really struck a chord. It’s painful to see Labour clinging to outdated ideas while ignoring the people they’re meant to serve. We need a politics built on care, not corporate comfort. I’ve been exploring different spaces for support and hope, and SheMed has been one that reminded me how personal wellbeing and political awareness go hand in hand. Change is coming — with or without them.
In particular, I see no explanation for Reeves’ words and actions that doesn’t reflect badly on her. The least worst is that she’s a true believer in the City’s ‘productivity’ and ‘trickle down’ – that at least means she’s not a hypocrite. The worst is that she’s playing a cynical personal game to get a high-rolling City appointment post-politics. Between the two, I guess, come fear of ‘bond vigilantes’ or the Daily Mail, bad advisors, maybe imposed on her by Starmer…
Stupidity, weakness, corruption ?
The really scary thing is that if Labour (currently in name only) fail the country then what will come next be it Reform or Tory (OK, unlikely as things stand unless the Tories have a remarkable turnaround) or a Reform/Tory/any other extreme right party coalition will be much, much, much worse for the vast majority of the UK.
We are living in a strange world where being nasty and punching down is seen as normal and being caring, considerate, kind etc. is seen as extreme. Well, call me extreme then.
Craig
No steer and the rest of the LINO “leadership” are utterly devoid of an original thought.
They promote the status quo, especially the “poor” of our society are undeserving and need to be financially broken.
Continued austerity will produce a financial crisis. Don’t expect the world of finance to suffer much. But for the rest of us will suffer badly.
The reasons you gave: probably a combo of all of them.
Only an imbecile would vote for LINO as currently consituted. Guessing: 40% of their MPs are unfit to hold public office, most of the cabinet are traitors to the British state, for a range of reasons. As noted on another blog: elections in Scotland and Wales will, hopefully, wipe out LINO. If it is a wipe out and close to 100% (I hope) then the Wezzi gov needs to resign & hold elections. Starmer & the top bananas will lose their seats. This is less likely to happen – but in the eyes of most of the country they will have lost all legitimacy.
Well done McSweeney/McSwine fine job in 1 year.
The fiction of ‘taxpayers’ money’ – still propagated by politicians and the media- underlies everything Starmer’s party does. Championing the reduction of voting age to sixteen will certainly reinforce Reeves’s latest moves toward the further targeting of pensioners. Playing the race card is unlikely to impress young voters, but playing the age card could, they hope, massage the young vote to support attacking the ‘privileged’ pensioners as yet another diversion from taxing the rich. The move toward a care society is clearly beyond the capability of a morally and intellectually bankrupt ‘Labour’ party, but must be the central motivating principle of any emerging alternative party of the left. Breaking the paralysing fantasy of neo-liberalism poses an enormous challenge which must be faced if the real resources of society are to be properly mobilised.
Building on your MMT point. Like it or not, most people would agree that China’s economy has been the most successful of the past 20 years.
Was all its fantastic infrastructure funded by peasants’ taxes? Of course not. New money was created, and used to pay for the required skills and resources. NO black hole at all. And we can (but won’t) do the same.
I think that most of us, when faced with the need to act in a way that will affect others, ask ourselves – what will be the reaction if I do this? We know that we will encounter opposition, rejection and sometimes derision and also agreement and support.
We also know that if we act in such a way as to antagonise the powerful we will be punished,, mentally and materially. Our minds naturally seek an optimum way forward, most of us compromise.
This calculus is innate and so we develop an ideal and an objective reality and these run in parallel.
The wealthy and the powerful are not so restricted, they can act with impunity.
In government you have to decide if you are going to antagonise the powerful (The City, Trump, Netanyahu, the media, the accumulators of wealth), if you do you will be punished.
Starmer is not Corbyn, for him reality trumps idealism and thus a better world depends upon placating the prevailing power, a task that can never be achieved.
Only hope is that the collective dialectic moves towards a progressive synthesis.
All I would add after some thought is that I think many people have moved on already politically and with their hopes and fears (Reform). If the reports we hear here are true, then folk will rumble Reform too but it will be such a waste of valuable time and painful too.
All any of us can do is keep on banging on about the reality of the alternatives.
And if Labour successfully empower a Reform government, they’ve got clear views on some other infrastructure question.
https://x.com/TiceRichard/status/1945512209334903080
Thank you, Richard.
I don’t know if this community has come across the news that retired Treasury and Bank of England official Sir John Cunliffe has been asked to head an enquiry into sewage spills.
Firstly, we don’t need another enquiry. Secondly, John Cunliffe, with whom I have worked, has no expertise in this field. Thirdly, I suspect that his background or a certain community influenced his appointment.
And Cunliffe is explicitly prevented from evaluating renationalisation options! “I don’t believe it”… Well actually, yes, it’s rather obvious why.
The idea that someone as genuine and sincere as Rachael Maskell is a trouble maker show his wide of the mark Labour are. Maybe she did lead a revolt, but it is the current Labour party policy not hers that is out of sync with public opinion and what people thought they were voting for. Rachel is not natural candidate for the new Corbyn/Sultana party and I think she is genuinely in shock about what has happened. She seems a very odd choice of person to make an example of. Where Reeves comes across as cold and somewhat slimy Rachel Maskell comes across as a person of integrity who genuinely cares for her constituents. I know who I would rather have as my MP.
What is staggering to me is how much power the government really have and how few mechanisms there are to truly hold them to account for even very obvious negligence. You may be thinking of Boris Johnson but the case that especially stood out to me is Suella Braverman’s department losing I think it was 150 asylum seeking children and I’m sure there was considerably more throughout the dysfunctional and idiotological conservative government tenure.
She is still walking around as if nothing has happened. Meanwhile those children, god help them because we clearly aren’t.
How do we get rid of Starmer for doing a bad job? Who holds him to account on his manifesto? Who holds the government and the ministers personally accountable for the deaths they cause, on their watch, when it was unnecessary? I’m tired of hearing we do, when we elect someone else. That doesn’t work.
If there are to be aged 16 and 17 voters, is there a suitable “curicula” anywhere to cover macroeconomics? I found economics O level too basic in 1970 ish and A level just disappointing. Steve Keen “Debunking Economics” to be too advanced. ? Or something else?
I don’t think there is anything that really fits that bill, but others might know of something.
When I was in education in the 2000s there wasn’t.
However, most adults are economically and politically illiterate. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that basic economics and understanding of tax, spending and politics isn’t taught widely.
I find many of the older generation far less informed than the younger generation, so this is a poor argument for not giving them the vote. Given how many of pension age are informed by the likes of the Daily Mail and other right wing very biased media, maybe there is a case for educating them? Our local councillor when canvassing at the recent local elections said he was asked how they were going to stop the boats. Firstly this is hardly a local government issue and secondly Mid Devon is land locked and a long way from where any of the boats arrive!
Or current 16/17 year olds have been really badly affected by prolonged austerity and Covid so I’m all for giving them a voice. However based on current polling they are more likely to vote Green than Labour.
Have you seen J.D.Alt’s “Diagrams and Dollars”? Might such a diagrammatic approach enable better understanding of the relationship between public and private sectors.
I tried to do that in the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 but such thibgs are hard to produce.
So while our dear leaders have scrapped the green new deal, claim there is “no money” for anything even though there clearly was for bank bailouts, Covid and defence (aka offence war and death).
Other countries are getting on with it, just two recent headlines from China :-
“New loans mainly flow to manufacturing, infrastructure in H1 as financial sector continues to support real economy: PBOC”
“Shenzhen exemplifies how patient capital fuels China’s innovation drive, One new policy tool helping catalyze this capital is the use of science and technology innovation bonds. These debt instruments offer long-term, low-cost funding to support high-tech enterprises. Recently, VC company Shenzhen Oriental Fortune Capital Investment Management Co completed a 10-year tech innovation bond issuance worth 400 million yuan, with an interest rate of 1.85 percent, according to the report”
I am not a China booster I know they have their fair share of problems, all systems of governance do. I think they have realised how dangerous neoliberal economics is with the problems they have had regarding financial speculation in the housing market. Any sovereign county/central bank should act in the national interest NOT the interests of a parasitic minority regardless of politics.
I met a Chinese student around 2004 at the pay to play neo-liberal university I was attending. He wanted to learn from us. I told him to have more confidence in his own county and look around him at the wealth disparity, poverty and rampant hard drug use in the university town he was residing. I sure he took home some of the positives of our system.
If we don’t start investing in real important things now we will be left behind to collapse. I really hope change comes soon before it is too late……global warming.
Starmer and co are where they are on false pretences and as George Monbiot has correctly stated, they could even be corrupt. We don’t know that for sure, but why else would they be pursuing policies they were critical of a short while ago? It doesn’t make any sense to be looking at ways to reduce welfare spending when most of that money is returned very quickly to them through multiplying effects and taxation. My own conclusion is that Starmer doesn’t really care much about welfare, He has no proximity to people who rely on it. I’m as baffled as most ex-Labour people are, why the party has gone off in the wrong direction.
Me, too.
I pin it on Reeves, supported by Starmer, who spent so much time attempting to to convince the city, bankers and financial institutions that Labour could be trusted with the nation’s finances, and in so doing, then inexplicably painted herself into a corner on taxation! Let’s face it, she is relatively inexperienced, lacks political antennae and nouse, and is just not very good at politics – as evidenced by the botched winter fuel and welfare reform impositions, reluctantly followed by a reverse ferret after extreme pressure and untold loss of trust, faith and confidence. Her Mansion House speech, in my view, just makes it worse. Starmer has previously shown himself to be ruthless in his pursuit of power and he may well need to exercise that trait again, in pretty sharp order, by ditching his inflexible Chancellor and installing a more experienced and canny operator, if he is to retain any confidence in his government and his domestic standing.
I agree, Rachael Maskell is the real deal and my idea of what a Labour MP should be.
My hunch is that this is why she had the be kicked out of the PLP (not the Party).
Quite how she can atone for her sin of trashing a Bill that was such cynical move by the Party leadership and embarrassing one of its stars, who had to hide behind the Speaker’s Chair the next day, is beyond me.
When she’s asked if she would take the same course of action in the same circumstances in the future, they know that she could only answer that she would.
I fear there is no way back for her and that alone should tell everyone just how irrevocable the change in the Labour Party has been.
“The old world is dying, and the new world struggles to be born: now is the time of monsters.” — Gramsci
This quote hits hard right now. Labour isn’t leading us into a new future,they’re clinging to a broken system and managing its slow collapse. Still repeating the same tired myths, when what we really need is a bold break from neoliberalism.
That’s why we need to build power outside of party politics: grassroots organising, political education, shifting the narrative from the ground up.
A thoughtful read on how change is inevitable, whether embraced or not. It’s a reminder that progress needs both awareness and action. For those also exploring health changes, I find resources like SheMed helpful too.