I was talking to an old friend, Tony Groves, of the Echo Chamber podcast, based in Dublin, on Friday, largely because I was recording a session with him.
We were, as social media types do, discussing trends in views, listens and reads, and we both agreed that something extraordinary is going on.
He is getting traffic levels typically only recorded during general elections in Ireland, and there isn't one happening right now. And, as I noted yesterday, this blog has just recorded its best-ever month. We are also having an exceptional month on YouTube and, unlike last November, Trump has not been elected to boost the figures. So, we asked each other, both before we recorded and during the recording, what is going on?
My answer was that maybe that moment between the old dying and the new being born, which Gramsci wrote about in his Prison Letters way back in 1934 (if I recall the date correctly), is nearly over.
I did, in fact, use the metaphor of birth in the podcast recording. I joked about the packed bag in the hall, which is a phenomenon familiar to many expectant parents, having been picked up. Our political economy is now moving to the point where the new has to be born because, just as the unborn foetus inevitably cannot remain in the mother, so the new politics we need cannot be deferred. In some form or another, it simply has to arrive.
That being said, Farage might just be suffering the unluckiest (or, from my point of view, fortunate) of timing because he might have peaked too soon:
- His councils are not delivering.
- His racism, or at least the accusations regarding it, are beginning to stick.
- He is clearly on the defensive.
- And he is beginning to realise that with the potential prospect of power in sight, he can no longer talk the absolute nonsense that he has done in the past and retain any credibility.
If that is the case, the hollowness of his offering will become painfully apparent.
In fact, it might just be that by the time we get to 2029 – and I suggest we will probably have to wait that long for an election, because although Labour will ditch Keir Starmer and Rachel Reeves long before then, their successors will hang on to the bitter end as all failing governments do – there will have been, as a consequence, a two-year-plus period where:
- a melting pot of new ideas might be created,
- real policy alternatives might be generated,
- new and very real political alliances could emerge, and even
- new politicians might become familiar faces.
I was not foolish enough to suggest I know what will happen.
Nor am I pretending that the threat from the far right is disappearing: I am acutely aware of the reality of the presence of neo-fascists within our political spectrum at present, whether in Reform or the Tories, who are not far behind.
But I am also profoundly encouraged by the evidence that people in Scotland and Wales realise that they have independent voices, and are willing to support them. I hope that continues.
In England, three things are encouraging.
The first is the rise of the Greens. I am aware of the burden this places on Zack Polanski, and I can only hope he can withstand the pressure. I knew Caroline Lucas throughout the entire period when that pressure fell on her. It was a heavy load to carry. Let's not pretend otherwise. But something is happening with the Greens that is very good news, even if not everything in their economic policies is as I would wish as yet.
Secondly, whilst I have never been a Lib Dem by conviction, they not only now have a significant presence in Parliament, which looks like it will be sustained because support for them in some parts of England does look to be very strong, but they have also developed a critical voice, focused around several people within their leadership, many of them are women, which is very good to see. Right now, I think that there is very little prospect of their support declining in the seats they already hold because people who have already given up voting for Labour or the Tories are not going back there, and Reform will not persuade people who have voted for the Liberal Democrats to ever vote for the far-right.
Third, and I regret having to say this, the attempt to form an alternative left-wing party by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana is very obviously failing, as the total chaos of this weekend has proved. I think this is, to some degree, unfortunate, but it means that the likelihood of a serious alternative left-of-Labour party undermining any position that Greens can promote at the upcoming election is very low. If we had proportional representation, I might regret that. But when we have first-past-the-post, this may be an unfortunate, but nonetheless simultaneously beneficial outcome.
So, what battles are to be had?
Firstly, everyone needs to battle fascism, whether that be from the Reform Party, the Tories, or the likely merged party that may be created out of the two of them. This country cannot afford a politics of hate.
Secondly, everyone should ignore Labour. Governments are never voted out of office. They always implode, and from the position where Labour is now, there is no chance of it retaining power. Their credibility is shot, especially when the alternative leaders look as though they might be drawn from the ranks of the current incompetent Cabinet, many of whom have marginal seats.
In Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, the answer is straightforward: voters need to support the party that is most likely to support independence. That party may not be the one that you would ideally support, but that is not the point. The message now is that these parties are the hope for these countries.
That then leaves the other parties in England. By other parties, I now mean the Greens and the Liberal Democrats, although there could still be another party that emerges, but unless it does, the country has a realistic choice between the Liberal Democrats and the Greens. Younger, more radical voters may look to the Greens. However, as I have noted, the LibDems have good reason to think they will keep the seats they have. These two could, then, be running neck and neck, but not competing against each other very much because their strengths might be in different seats.
That said, I am most definitely not suggesting that the Greens and the Liberal Democrats should, as yet, be considering any form of electoral alliance. We do not need that at this moment. What we need is a debate about what must be done to deliver outcomes for the best interests of the people of this country. Those need to focus on:
- Breaking the stranglehold of the City
- Delivering homes for young people, in particular
- Protecting those in need
- Creating sustainable climate change policy
- Investing in failing infrastructure
- Addressing inequality, and
- Rebuilding a Union, whether Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland are in it, or not.
Can these parties do that? I hope so: we might well depend upon them doing so.
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.
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!
Yes, Richard, all of this. I agree, any anti fascist vote is the best option. Round here our local mp, excellent libdem BTW, will be the only credible option. I am a natural green voter, but have to think priority being beating reform, they have a threatening but minor presence. I hope the surge in green party membership helps in wider campaigning. We need a better politics.
My Lib Dem MP won in 2024 because a) Reform split the right-wing vote which for 100 years has always gone to the Tories b) non-Tory/Reform voters managed to coalesce behind the most likely non-right candidate, which happened to be the Lib Dem. Ironically, the Green surge (which I support and hope will continue) could lead to more votes being siphoned off not just the local Labour Party – which I’m pretty sure is now dead as a dodo around here – but also the Lib Dems, thus increasing the chance that the right will retake the seat at the next General Election. Especially so if the Tories/Reform agree some sort of pact so they’re not splitting the fascist vote. If Andy Burnham (or whoever the next Labour leader is) doesn’t implement PR by 2029, avoiding this outcome around here therefore relies once again on smart tactical voting by anyone with a progressive bent. So local Green supporters will have to swallow their renewed enthusiasm and vote Lib Dem.
I have also been hoping that Reform might have peaked too soon.
Next year’s council elections will be crucial, I feel.
I had been a Labour voter all my life, even through the Blair years, and I voted for them again last year without any confidence. My pencil hovered over the Green candidate, who I had never met, despite knowing my three Green local councillors quite well, and I also thought about voting for the pro-Palestinian Independent, who came very close to taking the seat from Labour.
I have never voted Liberal Democrat, but would do so to keep Reform out.
Graham, I agree with you. My voting history and inclinations seem to have been very similar. As a resident of Reform-run Kent, the performance of Reform has been a disaster so far and there is no sign of that changing. Voting tactically to keep Reform out is essential. If they cannot even run competently a county council how on Earth will they run the country. I am hoping that Zack Polanski keeps making progress so that voting tactically won’t force me to having to cast my vote for LINO. Like Richard I have been reading a number of leftish news outlets and however you dress it up the Your Party conference was, shall I put it, less than ideal and does not fill me with any confidence that it will be able to avoid inter- party factional infighting. So far it reminds me too much of Labour who would rather spend time on arguing amongst itself and no time in looking after the country’s interests. Plus ca change, plus ce meme chose.
Is the UK not stuck in a fairground roundabout situation where at general election time a lot of voters are hopping onto a different horse wishfully thinking this one will do the trick for better governing? I say wishfully because economically and monetarily they have no idea whether any horse is actually capable of doing the business of better governing. For example, hardly any one who hopped onto the Labour horse at the last general election realised it would continue the “Fully-Funded Rule” which creates the “Squeezed Middle” effect and ultimately a return to the fairground roundabout to pick yet another horse.
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2025/nov/30/labour-squeezed-middle-class-budget-families-voters
There might be a slight glimmer that the Green Party under Zach Polanski’s leadership stops the “roundabout politics” by resisting those in the party pushing nonsense such as the economically illiterate “Fully-Funded Rule” and Britain isn’t ready to give up going it alone, two such policies that have led to stagnant growth.
Much to feel positive about.
We must not however under estimate fascist political technology. I have been introduced by Tim Snyder to a most poisonous individual from history – one Ivan Ilyin. Ilyin – you should read up on him. He makes Carl Schmitt look like a birthday present. He has been brought back from the dead by Vladimir Putin, and we are living in his world now, as Russia takes its revenge on the West. I kid you not. And it is not just Russians under Ilyin’s sway – it is also Trump and his entourage and Farage, plus Blue Labour over here.
We are living in extremely dangerous times. This is because the scales placed there by Neo-liberalism are falling from our eyes but there are huge vested interests who want to prevent any epiphany. ‘They’ are scared and that means anything I’m afraid is possible.
Be vigilant, hold your head up, back straight and keep looking around you.
Accepted, and you are right.
Richard
It seems to me that there is an obvious opportunity to try and influence the Lib Dems
Looking at what happened with Labour who were and still are totally unprepared the Lib Dems should be making plans for if not being The Government at least being a partner in it
Heartening prediction about Reform peaking too soon.
Beware of believing everything that was said about the Your Party conference. It was nowhere near as bad as you’ve suggested. And although there clearly were factions on the hall, trying to disrupt and hijack what was going on, the votes, from the whole membership, not just those in the hall, went in a pretty sensible direction.
Was it sensible to admit the SWP?
Sorry, but I am not convinced.
I am interested in politics that delivers real change for people. For the second time I have had to reluctantly admit Jeremey Corbyn has not a hope of doing that. Last time we got Starmer as a result. This time I hope it is not worse.
No, it wasn’t sensible to admit the SWP. As I kept saying to those I met – you already have your own party, where has that got?
At one point I sat with my head in my hands, thinking, if this is how it’s going to be, I’m not going to be here long. But, as I said, there were 22,000+ member eligible to vote, around 40% of them did, and mostly in ways which the SWP did not want – i.e. to have power vested in the members, rather than simply branches or people at the top.
I’d like to see it move further this way, along the lines of DIEM 25, which seems to work well. And in fact I can’t see the need for a conference at all. Celebratory get-togethers, yes, but not for deciding stuff – that can all be done more democratically online.
The countervailing force to the SWP is going to be local assemblies of ordinary people, as many as we can attract – if necessary. That is never going to happen in any of the other parties, it might be possible in this new one. But you have to be in it to do that.
Thanks.
I admire your optimism, genuinely.
Your Taxing Wealth Report and Alternative Budget are marvellous and well supported by your readership.
There was a National Emergency Briefing on Climate and Nature in Westminster (www nebriefing.org) last week (though it was largely largely ignored by both press and television)
Humanity is heading for disaster but serious remedial action has not been taken.
Ice on Greenland is melting because the Gulfstream/ Atlantic Meridional Overturning Circulation (AMOC) is changing and weakening. Sea level rise of up to one metre is possible.
This current will cease to bring so much warmth to Europe. London could be frozen in winter; Britain will be too dry for growing most crops in the summer. Our agriculture will be unable to support the current levels of population.
Speakers, such as Professor Kevin Anderson of the Tyndall Centre for Climate Change Research in Manchester, assert that Britain has done very little to curb carbon dioxide emissions. This will be devastating for our children unless we act decisively. Most of our political leaders appear to ignore the seriousness of the problem.
Dramatic steps are called for. No new runways. Flying-for-pleasure must be curtailed – holidays, tourism and sport. Motor racing or speed boating are not essential. They could be stopped!
When the USA joined WW2 in 1943, a national maximum speed limit of 35 mph was imposed. Most journeys to schools, work and for shopping would not be seriously hindered by a speed limit of 20 mph. Does every adult in every family need to own a car – many of them unnecessarily large?
Much of our housing stock is in urgent need of being draught-proofed and insulated. Flats over shops – mostly under-used at present – could be restored for homes.
In the UK during WW2, there was rationing of food, clothing, petrol and much else. There were standards of ‘utility’ for clothes and furniture. We could learn something from this. Too many ‘must have’ luxuries end up in landfill.
Nothing is more important than our children’s welfare. Dare we confront the financial pressures that will try to persuade us otherwise?
Thanks
We’re you alive during thetenyear after the war. I’m owgovwrments make out that people had healthy diets, but many big cities had many suffering from malnutrition. It was not a good time to be alive, I was a bleak,grey period, what ever those wearing rosy tinted glasses say. Your post seems to be advocating austerity on steroids.
Joe was alive then, I know.
Clare Shepherd: You asked (1st December) was I alive in the ten years after the war? Yes. First in one northern town and then another. Rationing etc enabled people to survive; it recognised that something could be done to address the most glaring inequality during horrendous deprivation … such as is now occurring in so many other countries.
Within the last week: “Sri Lanka’s capital hit by floods as cyclone death toll nears 200. Hundreds of people still missing after heavy rain and mudslides in country’s deadliest natural disaster for years.” “Death toll from Indonesia floods passes 700 as 1 million evacuated. About 3.2 million people on Sumatra island have been affected, 2,600 have been injured and 504 are missing” Guardian 30 Nov 2025
Note the next comment:
“Global heating and other human activity are making Asia’s floods more lethal. … Much improved response systems are struggling to cope with ever more powerful and destructive storms …” “Global heating” has been – and is being – caused by wealthy nations including ours. Yet it is predominantly poor nations that suffer the most. Even so, wealthy people in wealthy states continue to ignore their role in accelerating climate catastrophes.
I don’t advocate ‘austerity’ as you suggest. I urge constraint for the most extravagant people who have ever lived. ‘Heartless’ – in that we mostly manage to pretend ‘not to know’. (Do you think ‘extravagant’ includes most of the readers of this blog?)
It’s not ‘austerity on steroids’, as you call it, to require some of the most highly privileged people who have ever lived to stop flying for fun. Sport is entertaining. Fashionable clothes are nice. Owning and drive cars is comfortable – but it’s costing lives and livlihoods abroad now – and will do the same here *soon* if we continue our patterns of wasteful existence. Maybe much, much less if we can bare to drive slowly and live moe simply.
Thanks, Joe.
Were you alive during the ten year period after the war? I’m aware governments make out that people had healthy diets, but many big cities had many suffering from malnutrition. It was not a good time to be alive, I was a bleak, grey period, what ever those wearing rosy tinted glasses say. Your post seems to be advocating austerity on steroids.
Sorry to post again but I have just spent an interesting half hour listening to Owen Jones’s podcast from the Your Party conference at the weekend. It was very interesting but it left me ( and I suspect most listeners) with the distinct feeling that Your Party is already dead in the water. Whilst the general election is some years away, I cannot see how it will be able to get its house in order, organise funding, identify future candidates and devise attractive and workable policies. It saddens me because I was one who signed up at the outset to declare an interest in a new party but I did not (and now will not) join. It would be funny if the situation were not so serious.
Much as I admire Grace Blakeley’s writing I do not see her expounding any practical way in which she could achieve what she campaigns for. I find her class war analysis, dare I say, so 19th century. As Robert Reich said in 2013 “no economy can continue to function when the vast middle class and everybody else don’t have enough purchasing power to buy what the economy is capable of producing without going deeper and deeper into debt”. The reality is that, unless you are one of the tiny wealthy elite, the rest of us who all depend on selling our labour are all working class. In 2025 it’s the elite versus everybody else.
Much to agree with
Two key elements required for a new politics to emerge. 1. Strategic Progressive Alliances to blunt the impact of FPTPand process can do politics differently. 2. Young voters mobilising. Your Party was over before it begin for this group. Polanski appear to have caught that wave, and more*. The current system is penalising the young (Job, housing, student loan repayments tax, pension age increases). This cohort is growing year on year and will vote for change to better their life chances. Will they coordinate? That remains to be seen.
*I’m aware of local Green Party Groups who have seen membership grow 300% since Zach was voted as leader. These members are possibly more red/green that traditional members are a good many inclined to activism. Ground campaigns can turn wards. Those extra Green feet could prove decisive the local elections next May.
Richard, what encouragement are you having from the devolved governments in following your thinking? Are you concerned that, if independence is achieved, they will still follow the failed system we currently endure.
Right now, i have no regular contact with them. I am not worried by PC. I am by the SNP.
Unfortunately, I think the next government will be a Reform/Conservative coalition.
You have no idea if that is true, or not.
It’s possible. But a long way from certain.
I am sorry to hear you dismiss Your Party as a non-starter but I think that you have only taken into account what happened on Saturday, which was corrected by Conference on Sunday. Zarah Sultana over-reacted to the expulsion of delegates who were also members of the Socialist Workers Party. At that point, Your Party rules (arrived at by who knows who) excluded from membership anyone who was also a member of another party. On Sunday this rule was changed by a resolution approved by Conference that allowed dual party membership. So, I’m afraid Zarah Sultana would have been better advised to hold her horses. Also, on Sunday, Conference voted against a single person leader in favour of a collective, yet to be elected, thus eliminating a leadership election. Please bear in mind these are the birth pangs of a totally new party, with the working class at its centre and a radically democratic structure. It also has a large membership who are passionately committed to making it a success.
I have asked most I know of varying ages on the left what they think of what happened. Most think it was a disaster, as I do. And all have allowed for media distrotion. I give ‘Your Party’ as much electoral chance as the SWP which is now permitted to take it over.
It is so easy to criticize. I believe that you are wrong. I guess only time will tell.
Hi Richard, I agree with your point that under our awful voting system, a strong Your Party would have been a problem as much as a something to celebrate, but I am interested in your characterisation of the conference as chaotic.
I personally thought this was the moment that something positive can finally be allowed to coalesce, and now that we have strong member led democracy enshrined, this should be the opportunity to get good people into place rather than the independent group, who have done such harm by being unable to keep their disagreements in private. I still hold out hope.
The behaviour of the most high profile member, Zarah Sultana, certainly muddied the waters. But it might even have led some people to vote for the collective leadership model. This is, after all, a party that is going to be formed “bottom up”. It is going to be interesting to see how it works out. The backlash of the “usual suspects” to the formation of this party was to be expected. They can’t envision a party structured like this and so they say it can’t succeed. I beg to differ.
Richard,
Some suggestions possible amendments:
Breaking the stranglehold of the City. Can’t see this happening but frontal assault. Imo a deal is needed that ring fences the UK society from the Global Casino nearer the GE. This to some extent is already happening as London is losing out to New York eg IPOs eg Equities inv by pension funds.
Delivering homes for young people, in particular. Local Demand Plans needed here not central govt targets. Let local people take care of their own and their own economy.
Protecting those in need.
Creating sustainable climate change policy that includes energy independence, feeding ourselves and serious flood defences where needed.
Investing in failing infrastructure.
Addressing inequality through reform of the tax code and getting people into some kind of work rather than hiking benefits and wage rates in line with CPI. Tackling cost of living issues with fiscal policies eg Mobile phone contracts.
Rebuilding a Union, whether Wales, Scotland or Northern Ireland are in it, or not.
Can the Greens look credible with our older mainstream media attacking them each day? I doubt it. The media knows how to manipulate public opinion only too well.
However I do think in a broader alliance they might challenge for some seats. This ideally would produce a hung parliament in 2029 perhaps the best that can be hoped for at the moment.
Reform/Tories/Labour/LibDems/SNP are the parties of neoliberalism that have brought us to where we are. What is the point in voting for any of them?
Why the SNP? bevause the Scottish agenda is different. They deserve to be ditched after independence.
Tbh, I put SNP in the list of parties that exist because of their adherence to the economic status quo not independece itself.
I have read the term “neoliberalism with a heart”.
My sense is SNP is committed to:
Free Markets/Pro Business
Fiscal Prudence/Austerity
https://scottishleftreview.scot/the-snp-neo-liberalism-with-a-heart/#:~:text=Consequently%2C%20the%20SNP%20can%20best,a%20hallmark%20of%20social%20democracy.
They have done some good things too btw.
I am a big critic of the SNP for all those reasons
I would still vote for it in Scotland right now