Are all our major political parties now the same? Labour, Conservatives, the Lib Dems, and even Reform are united by one ideology: neoliberalism. Fiscal rules, austerity, and the “household analogy” bind them together into what I call the Single Transferable Party.
This is why public services are always cut, inequality deepens, and investment is suppressed—no matter who wins an election.
In this video, I explain why UK democracy has been hollowed out, why real choice has disappeared, and what alternatives—like proportional representation and ending fiscal rules—we must fight for if we want genuine change.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
Everyone says "All politicians are the same", and I've got to agree with the people who say that. The fact is that we now live in a political system where almost all our political parties say things which are almost identical, as if they're frightened to disagree with each other.
I call the resulting mess of political parties that we've ended up with "the Single Transferable Party". The Labour Party, the Conservative Party, the Lib-Dems to a large degree, even the SNP a bit, plus Reform - just in case you think they're different - they all deliver the same basic script, which is based upon their economic belief in austerity, fiscal rules, and neoliberal economics.
There isn't a cigarette paper to put between these parties when it comes to these issues. It's as if neoliberalism has guaranteed that every single political party in the UK offers near enough the same political agenda, and whatever happens in an election, policy stays the same.
Public services are always cut.
Investment is always suppressed.
People always end up without the benefits that they need.
Inequality always deepens because there's no attempt to tackle it.
There is no wealth taxation.
And the same failed economic narratives continue.
Elections are not delivering real change, and we're even seeing this between the parties who are not in power.
So, Labour and the Conservatives delivered the same agenda. We now know that. We wondered what Labour would do when it won in July 2024, because it never set out a plan before it got elected, and then we discovered it was just going to continue what the Conservative Party had done.
Now they're in opposition, the Conservatives are offering us what Labour is doing.
The Liberal Democrats do have some minor differences. They are very much more, for example, in favour of Europe than the other parties. But at their core, they too are a neoliberal party accepting the constraints that are imposed, like austerity, fiscal rules and everything else that goes with it.
But let's just mention Reform. There's no difference in political ideology between these parties and Reform. Reform is also a neoliberal political party. A bit more of an extreme neoliberal party. One that is indifferent as to the suffering that it could create for people by pushing the boundaries a little further with regard to, for example, removing benefits, removing pensions, cutting government spending, reducing the amount that is spent on the NHS, education and so on, but at the core, an exactly similar party to all the rest.
And even when it comes down to something like migration, there is now, as far as I can see, almost nothing to choose between the Labour Party, the Conservatives, and Reform. They're all, for example, talking about expelling the same people from the UK.
This is profoundly worrying.
Single Transferable Party is held together by the glue of neoliberalism, and it exists. It's real. We haven't got proper choices in our democratic system unless we move outside the mainstream. The Greens are definitely not in this arena.
Nor is Plyde Cymru in Wales.
And nor would the SNP be if its members really had a say about where the party is going. And there are other choices in Scotland, the Greens and Alba, which are not neoliberal parties.
The point I'm making is that unless you go outside the mainstream, there's just one political agenda.
Markets are treated as masters.
The state is treated as the problem.
Fiscal rules reinforce this by pretending there is no money.
And the household analogy that demands that the state be managed as if it is a household, even though the state has the capacity to make money, which of course, no household ever has, carries on as the underpinning of what all these parties say they believe, and probably in practice do believe.
First-past-the-post just reinforces all of these problems. What it does is require that all the parties play to what they call the centre ground, although in my lifetime, that centre ground has moved very much to the right. When I was a young man, it was social democracy that was in the centre ground, and the Conservatives were moving towards that position. They too ran a welfare state, and with it a true commitment to ensuring that nobody was left behind.
Now we have parties who are determined to work on the basis that those who cannot look after themselves are left behind. That is their new orthodoxy, and it is the Treasury orthodoxy of frugality and austerity that is what bounds the debate on these issues.
We are told that there is no money.
We are told that the books must balance.
We are told that this is prudent.
We're told that anything else is irresponsible.
And we're told that those parties who are talking about alternatives, and I've already mentioned them, are not to be elected because they would threaten the stability of the country when the stability of the country is already obviously imperilled by the actions of the Single Transferable Party, whichever one happens to be in power.
The result is that these parties do whatever they wish. They follow the Treasury mantra. They deliver austerity, and party members and voters are locked entirely out of any form of meaningful influence on the outcomes.
The consequence is that our democracy is becoming an empty ritual, and that is what people are saying. This is why they're saying it doesn't make any difference who I vote for because they're all the same. And the people who say that are right.
Go out into the streets, and most of the time you'll find that the public knows what's really going on and how they're being abused.
They also know how the economy is going and how it's being abused, and they know how to put it right.
They know that we cannot suffer a further decline in public services.
They know that infrastructure is crumbling.
And they know that inequality is worsening.
And they want action to deal with all those issues, just as they want urgent action on things like climate care, and housing and education.
Voter cynicism and extremism are growing in the vacuum created by the Single Transferable Party, but let me assure you, Reform are no answer. They will not be changing anything. They might, if anything, make everything very, very much economically worse for the people who are already despairing.
And the fact is that in this situation, what is called the Overton Window, the area of political possibility in which the political parties think they must offer their manifestos to the public, is shrinking.
Only neoliberal options are now called credible. But the consequence of that is what I've already been explaining.
Politics is reduced to managerialism, and there is no vision left.
Democracy is hollowed out from within and from above in such a situation, and there is no choice made available to us in any case unless we take the risk of voting for somebody outside the mainstream.
So what can we do about this? Well, those mainstream parties must follow the path which is being promoted by the non-mainstream parties.
They must abandon fiscal rules. They must be recognised for what they are as tools of political constraint.
We need, in the UK, to look at proportional representation because it is very clear that most people are getting no chance to get their voice heard in our political system, and we desperately need new ones.
Party democracy must be rebuilt. We're seeing the charade of party democracy at the Labour Party conference this week, where the leadership instantly ignore any vote they don't like. And we'll see exactly the same at the Conservative Party next week. And the Liberal Democrats might be a bit better, but only a bit.
The fact is debate must shift from finding money, which is what everybody talks about, and which every journalist talks about, to finding resources; finding the resources to build what we want.
The Single Transferable Party at present has no interest in building that future. That's why we have to name it for what it is. It is a party of austerity by choice, and it is not a party that wants to deliver opportunity for people. It's only when we look at alternatives and we reject the economic myths on which the Single Transferable Party is built, and reform the system and demand accountability that we will have elections where real choice is offered in the UK, and that's what we really need.
So what do you think?
Do you think all our political parties look remarkably the same?
Do you think that even Reform is very similar to our other political parties?
Do you think that they're all offering the same political agenda?
And do you want something different?
Let us know. There's a poll down below.
Poll
Loading ...Comments
When commenting, please take note of this blog's comment policy, which is available here. Contravening this policy will result in comments being deleted before or after initial publication at the editor's sole discretion and without explanation being required or offered.
Taking further action
If you want to write a letter to your MP on the issues raised in this blog post, there is a ChatGPT prompt to assist you in doing so, with full instructions, here.
One word of warning, though: please ensure you have the correct MP. ChatGPT can get it wrong.
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!
I was going to vote for the last option, but how can we exercise choice “outside the mainstream” when our ballot papers in general elections do not offer any credible candidates outside the mainstream?
how to exercise choice? Part of the problem is that the mainstream media groom people so they think they have a narrow choice: STP or Deform.
Richard noted: “Go out into the streets, and most of the time you’ll find that the public knows what’s really going on and how they’re being abused”
Which begs the question: how to create alternatives? & how to communicate that alternatives exist – whilst recognising that UK media have zero interest in communicating that alternatives exist.
I’m not being defeatist – but rather raising questions on – how to implement alternatives & communicate them? Keep in mind: Facebook etc are corporate entities and political gatekeepers.
Because we have lived with state retrenchment for so long, turning back the tide must look like an almost impossible task even to the most true democrats in our politics. However, we know here – at least – what can be done and what the alternatives are. I feel secure about those methods, all we have to do is try them.
Add in the corruption of politics by wealth – a wealth that is worshipped as successful and individualised – and it is a heady brew to deal with. I think the problem is well known – your democracy does not belong to us or you. It is just going through the motions as you MP essentially serves those who fund his/her party. The decisions about your/our future have already been made – privately.
This is called and celebrated as ‘rational self interest’, and it is the rational self interest of capital. Political parties now serve that.
You haven’t mentioned the Greens, but the Green Party has a different social and political vision, which under the new leader Zack Polanski is finally finding air time. I would answer your poll, but in local politics in particular the Greens are one of the ‘main’ parties, with more counsellors than Reform.
They are in the video that follows from this, I suspect tomorrow
Excellent post.
The main stream, neoliberal parties are stuck in the past. The need to balance the budget comes from the gold standard era which ended more than 50 years ago. Back then a government did need to balance the budget or to get more gold. If a government needed more money it either had to produce more gold or steal it from another country. At times gold production may have matched the need for more money and then the economy could grow. At other times there was not enough gold and the economy would be forced into austerity.
A good chart of gold production is at:
https://elements.visualcapitalist.com/200-years-of-global-gold-production-by-country/
From the latter part of the 20th century, despite increasing gold production, there was not enough gold. This forced economies off the gold standard.
Modern politicians are either naively stuck in gold standard era thinking, of needing balanced budgets, or are malignly fostering this false belief for their own selfish benefit (increasing inequality with them on top). I like to give most politicians the benefit of the doubt that they are merely ignorant, but this is no less pernicious.
The single transferable parties all believe that growth is the way out of austerity. But growth cannot happen, indeed is suppressed, by trying to maintain a balanced budget. In order to try to get growth they resort to all sorts of nostrums such as “reducing red tape”, blaming immigrants and threatening to deport them, saying we can’t afford benefits and pensions and taking them from the most disadvantaged in our society. I think some politicians really believe there is no alternative, that such evil behaviour a necessary evil. And none of this has worked. And the economy continues in a downward spiral of increasing inequality.
The only way out is for politicians to face the truth that liberalism is false. Until this happens, and government start spending the money that the real economy can actually afford, which means creating more money, regularly, the economy will not recover.
Fortunately a few politicians are starting to understand the truth, that neoliberalism is hogwash. We need more.
We live in a “nominal democracy” at best. One vote once every five years to choose from an identikit list of candidates does not constitute real democracy. George Montbiot and Peter Hutchison’s recent book (The Invisible Doctrine) contains some useful thoughts on how we can fight back (assuming that we are still allowed to think and speak about such matters). I do agree with you that many people are becoming increasingly aware of what is going on. They just need some help and direction in mobilising in opposition. In my opinion the need to oppose neoliberalism is essential because it is becoming clearer by the day that, as an economic and political doctrine, it is failing and may soon collapse. One of my greatest concerns is that AI will be weaponised against the public by the autocracy as a means of suppressing opposition.That is why Starmer’s policy announcement on digital ID cards in the back of a deliberately stoked up ‘crisis’ over migrants, is so chilling – yet another Trojan Horse?
So, what are your ssiggestions for fighting back?
Is it just building narratives bthey need help with, or is it more?
Or is it material that can be used on social media?
Any ideas?
I believe that we can fight back in a wide variety of ways. I like some of George Montbiot’s suggestions in his book and also his articles in the Guardian and his occasional videos. Resistance (an appropriate word that seems underused these days) can involve small gestures as well as mighty action. For example, whenever someone says something to me in passing which is reflective of the current climate e.g. “bloody migrants” I gently challenge them. An even more subtle approach (but one recognised long ago as a tool of resistance) is wearing clothes or badges that invite quizzical looks and responses. I love going to events, as a long haired retired lawyer in his late sixties, wearing a Billy Bragg T shirt with the slogan ‘Bridges not walls”. It really provokes comments and thereby starts debates. I believe that thousands of small actions can be as effective as the grand gestures such as protest marches – I attended the Stop the War marches in London against the Iraq war and it got us absolutely nowhere. I also like to write to the press although some will simply ignore my letters. When in practice I used to write articles for the professional journals (including a monthly column) and frequently made what some might consider to be ‘political’ arguments (even though planning law is, by its very nature, political). I became aware of how the press can easily be corrupted by the political class (of which it is but a part) when an editor objected to my description of Boris Johnson and his “characteristically contrived buffoonery”. The editor removed the word “contrived” which undermined the whole point I.e. that underlying the issue in concern was performative politics designed to deceive the voter. I have taken a complete break from social media since retiring as I ponder what part, however small, I can play in resisting the drift towards authoritarianism. I also never miss an opportunity to praise your Funding the Future website and the Taxing Wealth Report as both are extremely significant tools for educating the public of alternatives that exist. As to what else I may do, that is very much a work in progress. I suggest that all of us swap ideas whenever possible. Rome, it is said, was not built in a day although time is of the essence.
Martin
Thanks
I wish I knew the answer to your question
I am thinking about it though
Your point of persistent reiteration is, I think, key
Richard
I am surprised that only a few others have selected the Reform is different option. You successfully make your case that they all buy into the same fallacious neoliberal economics theory, but the nation Reform UK want to build with that theory is qualitatively much grimmer and nastier than the others. They all might want to underinvest and undertax, for fear of explaining themselves to journalists who are men of words, not numbers, but only Reform UK would be likely to make their two big investments hiring a political police force and building concentration camps.
Agreed
At the 2010 election, political Compass wrote
“Economic power has transcended political power, to the detriment of democracy. Between the big three, there’s no ideological argument about whether the prevailing economic orthodoxy is best for Britain, but simply which of them can make market forces work best.”…….Underlining the absence of substantial differences on the economic scale in particular, the public – and even the commentators – refer more than ever before to the three main leaders rather than to their parties. We know more about their personal lives; less about concrete policy. The tv debates, as welcome as they might be on some levels, have helped bring about a more presidential approach to politics. A presidential political campaign tends to highlight the style of the candidates rather than the substance of their policies. It’s a handy diversion in the absence of profound ideological distinctions.”
Ultimately there are two effects this results in, people, even if they fall for the consensus line, eventually get disenchanted with all of them and want something different but probably don’t know what needs to be changed, and it makes it easier for a “leader” who understands how to push peoples buttons and has his own personal agenda to claim that agenda is the change that they need.
Much to agree with
“Are all our major political parties now the same?” Yes. Blinded by ideology they act against the interests of Uk serfs every day in every way.
A small example. UK Power Networks – operates the electrical distribution network for London and surrounding areas. It is owned by CK Infra Holdings (HK). Ultimate control of CK lies with the Chinese Politburo/Xi. And here is an extract from Reuters:
August 2025: Hong Kong’s CK Infrastructure Holdings wants to acquire Thames Water if it collapses and is placed into the government’s special administration regime, media reports say. If it comes to pass the Chinese gov will have control over London’s elec and water – all because for 45 years traitorous ideological imbecilies have been voted into power by groomed UK serfs. Pathetic is not the half of it – vast quantities of attack angles, for minority parties, what do they do????? nowt. They are as useless as the chimps in power (Greens – I’m talking about you).
Richard, what I am wondering is, what would happen in the UK if our govt said, “right we’re going to officially adopt MMT”? As I understand it, it has not been officially adopted as “policy” in any other country, although it may have been practiced (a bit) in terms of QE and Pandemic response. Would adopting MMT, as policy, leave us as an unattractive investment prospect if all the investors we need to attract are wedded to neoliberalism? Could this be the reason all (most) parties shy away?
You miss the point.
We do MMT.
MMT explains what hapens now.
What you are asking is a different question – what happens if we behaved as if we undertsood MMT.
Let me make a video on that for next week.
Thanks Richard.
So, what you are saying is MMT exists and operates, but the people running the country from (almost) all political persuasions, don’t really understand and/or accept this. So they have levers they could use to influence the economy, but they’re just ignorant of how to use them effectively or are reluctant to use them?
No need to answer here. I will look forward to your video. I would like you to address how the investment world would react if a party of government did behave as if they understood MMT and started acting accordingly – given there seems to be some pretty staunch supporters of neoliberalism, balanced budgeting and (if they deem it necessary) austerity-driving economics.
That’s gopimng to take a bit of work. Creating the narrative flow is the issue, but it needs to be done. So, your wish is my command.
True with only 4 MPs in a 650 seat parliament, Green ‘use” is limited but they are a growing force especially in local government. They raise important issues such as the climate emergency, inequality, taxing the rich, genocide in Gaza that other parties are too timid to tackle.u
There may be too much caution or similarities. However, labelling them ‘the same’ is profoundly dangerous when it makes people feel that the outright dishonesty of some is present in all politicians.
With that view people then lean towards not voting or voting for those making unrealistic promises of a better future – i.e. populist demagogues.
Even if the differences are smaller than we would like it is necessary to both call for change and to highlight the least worst options and why some options can still be significantly worse than others.
You are absolutely right Richard but sadly, although I don’t know about the English and Welsh Greens, the Scottish Greens, the SNP and Alba are all as neoliberal as any other party.
This doesn’t mean there are no decent politicians, but in my experience they are all too afraid to speak out. I have not been able to find one, in any party, able or willing to stand up for constituents against corporate power.
And corporate power itself is now owned by a dwindling number of billionaire stakeholders, whose money somehow puts them above even international law.
I spoiled my ballot in the General Election and in last local election, and expect to do the same next year, unless a independent candidate stands who will actually represent and stand up for constituents, planet and ethics.
‘Least worst’ is not a valid reason to vote at all, and not voting at all just means you don’t care.