The Funding the Future team had what you might call an “awayday” yesterday, except that it did not last all day, and we only went as far as Cambridge to consume a lot of coffee and refreshments in the calm atmosphere of the Michaelhouse Church café.
Our agenda was quite straightforward. It was to consider how we can take our work forward in 2026, to build on an undoubtedly successful 2025, despite the fact that during that year we only concentrated on output through two channels, which were this blog and long-form YouTube videos.
Before answering that question, there was, however, an obvious issue to resolve, which was to create clarity on just what it is that we think we are doing. If, after all, we all had different understandings of that, then the likelihood of progress would be significantly reduced.
We discussed this in the context of a number of recent blog posts here, and some of the very useful responses people have offered about what they think we're doing, whether those comments were deliberately framed that way or otherwise.
We also looked at this, taking into account how we, as a team, tend to think and how we all want to work. Thankfully, there is a fairly high degree of agreement on those issues between us, perhaps because we share family traits.
The conclusion was that our primary focus in 2026 will be to discuss the creation of a politics of care and the necessary economic underpinning for this programme. Everything else is ancillary to that.
What we all then agreed was that we do not have all the answers on how to achieve this goal and that it is not necessarily our job to provide them. That said, we do think that the work we have been undertaking can provide a basis and stimulus for the development of ideas on this issue.
As a result, we agreed that our work is to create opportunities for coordination and cooperation around the development of ideas for a politics of care that encourages free thinking while allowing anti-neoliberal ideas to accumulate and exert real political pressure.
The comments on this blog are a perfect example of that free thinking, enabled by the work we do.
Why reach this conclusion? In the context of a political environment where we believe that so many people feel alienated by the consequences of 45 years of antisocial neoliberalism, we think the politics of care, based as it is on a concern for each and every person in the community, whoever they might be, wherever they might come from, whatever they might believe, and however they might wish to contribute, has to be our priority. We also recognise the essential role of explaining the economics that make this policy possible.
This does not mean that we want to give up discussion of current issues, political development, economic thinking, and related issues that help us contextualise why this work is relevant. They are the starting point from which ideas develop.
The follow-up is that we will now, in various ways, work on developing ideas that flow from this conclusion. What I am interested in now is whether you, as a reader of this blog, think we have reached the right point in defining our work for the coming year. Please let us know.
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!
Yep you’re on the right track because in my view caring is embedded in the universe as a duality – caring for self and caring for others and they will clash unless you understand they need to be balanced for all through systems of democratic accountability, in short the Rule of Law.
Thanks
Now that the Climate Catastrophe is unfixable (30years too late!) working towards a caring and mutually supportive society is the only way forward to take the sting out of the future.
I am lucky enough to be able to afford solar panels and an electric car. I am under no illusion that this fixes nothing but may slow down the curve to give us more time to restructure society in an ordered way.
I think the title of Andrew Boyd’s book “I want a better catastrophe” says it all!
Agree Richard. Laying the ground work and providing a vision and basket of policies for what comes next as neoliberalism collapses, is vital.
Thanks
“Politics of care” and the economics to underpin it, sounds good to me.
Working with those who will listen, sounds good to me – especially as stopping Reform UK Ltd., if we can, may involve a progressive coalition, so we need these ideas filtering into more than one party agenda, even those that might win only 5-10 seats. How?
How to get more dialogue with politicians in Greens, in NE (Progress, Jamie Driscoll), NW & Midlands, (all those Reform omnibus passengers) and any sentient human MPs hidden inside Labour.
How to communicate with younger voters? Anyone under 40 here?
Here’s to a growing clamour for the politics of care in 2026, because it’s not just essential, it’s POSSIBLE.
Thanks
It is vital that you continue to hammer home the importance of explaining government spending and counterring the arguments about “how are you going to pay for it?” and nonsense about “taxpayers money” etc. Also demystifying the working of banking and finance. Vital too are the questions of inequality and the crisis of climate . Carrying on the politics of care within this framework you wont go wrong and will be a huge contribution to creating a better world.
Agreed
They will not disappear, I can assure you.
Yes please, and in particular the ‘How’ aspect, showing how the politics of care is perfectly feasible and achievable, especially in the teeth of all the neoliberal lackeys bent on convincing everone that it isn’t. Thank you for hammering away at it.
That is in the plan
‘The politics of care’ is good, but no doubt it will be distorted by the usual suspects as meaning ‘wanting everyone to be on welfare’. Others might say it implies people are passive and need to be cared for or patronised . ‘The politics of sharing’ might be a phrase – conveying that we are all in some way dependent on each other – that we are individuals in a community of individuals.
It would be nice to incorporate something about creativity and mutual self expression, but probably not possible within a handy catchphrase – ‘the politics of creating and sharing’? Maybe not.
Although it cuts across your thinking on this, I still like ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’ – as a phrase which will bring people up short – and offers an immediate challenge to conventional ‘there is no money to do anything ‘ thinking.
All noted
Yes – while I appreciate and am stimulated and educated by the offerings here and in your videos, it makes sense to make the main aim, the leafing out of the Politics of Care tree, and the practical side of how it is rooted economically.
With the input and energy of FTF team and others, notably some of your commenters here, that will flourish, rooted in meticulous Murphy practicality, and a forest can grow. Like any forest, it will develop in its own way, but with the FTF team and supporters, the observation, analysis and thinking will never stop helping it to adapt and flourish. A growing forest attracts attention, and those who feel comfortable in that habitat, and they will protect it.
Simple concrete analogies I know, but this is for everyone, and after 45 years of antisocial economics, it will be hard to overcome the fairytale aspect for many people who have never heard of les trent glorieuses or are pickled in the vinegar of the neoliberal environment and its media machine. I find it hard to wash the odour from myself at times!
I do not underetsimate the challenge.
It was what neoliberals faced in 1947.
We can do it faster now.
YAY! I’m persuading myself…I know you know what the antisocial wall is like. Lots of people on here thinking of ways around, through, under and over.
🙂
Yes. On developing ‘The Politics of Care and on adopting an open approach. The challenges are enormous but there will be an army of allies with experience and expertise that can help provide depth and breath and build momentum.
“Tyranny cannot defeat the power of ideas.” Helen Keller
Thanks
Richard, you tirelessly moderate every comment to your blog and block those who disagree with you – or in your words dont add to the debate. There is nothing wrong with having a moderated blog, your place your rules. But this doesnt match with your statement “The comments on this blog are a perfect example of that free thinking”.
It cant be both. Am i missing something?
Yes. What you are missing are several things.
First, that some poeple abuse.
Second, that some people time waste.
Third, that some people have nothing to say, and so do not add to debate.
Fourth, there is editorial freedom. Maybe you do not know about it?
Fifth, some people are just stupid. Maybe you need to look in the mirror. Did I really need to point all this out?
Sixth, I will protect others from abuse.
Seventh, I am responsible for this site. I will not let people promote abuse.
I miss the specific individual discussions on Housing challenges and efficient Healthcare Delivery as these are global problems with some countries doing better than others.
I feel that some threads have become too much of a theory or system overview and do not present a conclusion of how a theory or system can be applied to solve a specific problem such has Housing shortages and efficient Healthcare Delivery
They will be included.
Most “free thinking” on this site doesn’t make it past moderation.
You did.
To make a very silly and utterly untrue point.
I thought I would show that you are wrong.
Now, don’t call again because you clearly have nothing to say that is of any interest – which is the actual only reason why someone does not make it here.
“Fifth, some people are just stupid. Maybe you need to look in the mirror.”
You said that to me – if thats not abuse then i’m not sure what is, you abused me.. I asked a reasonable question, in the spirit of free comments.
How does this fit with either “First, that some poeple abuse.” or “Sixth, I will protect others from abuse.”
Or indeed the politics of care?
I did not believe you came here in good faith.
No one who has ever asked a question of the sort you did has ever done so.
You were the absuer, in my opinion. I excercised editorial judgement and favoured you with an answer.
I won’t again.
All I wish to bring to your attention is the age old problem of the fact that many of us who are progressive still need to get our heads around the technical feasibility of being progressive. Progressives have to move from being seen as ‘woke’ or just decent people to actually a group that not only know what needs doing but knowing that it can be done at all and ‘up yours’ to Neo-liberalism. Take the Politics of Care.
The technical feasibility of it is based in the reality of MMT; the technical viability and sustainability is based in your concept of resource accounting.
The Politics of Care is already out there – it seems to be part of the modern feminism movement (Wendy Harcourt and others). Does Wendy Harcourt know how to make her ideas real and lasting? This is the ‘joining forces’ I look forward to seeing that in the future and I think that you are heading in the right direction to create a movement for momentous change.
I hope this answers your question.
Thanks.
I do not underestimate the challenghes ahead. I also know I ma finite. This will require a range of talents.