In this morning's video I argue that Labour was built on the basis of a proud left-of-centre tradition that was based on support for working people and a belief in the power of the state to build well-being for everyone, and not just a few. But that's gone. Just like the Tories, it is now dedicated to the cult of the individual and is opposed to the state and all it can do for us. The question is, what can we do about this?
The audio version is available here:
The transcript is here:
Labour is a neoliberal political party.
I keep on criticising the current incarnation of Labour. Or rather, the one that has existed since sometime in the 1990s, but which seems to be getting worse now. And the reason why I criticise it is that I cannot identify any of the true Labour sentiments that were the basis for the foundation of the party over a century ago within its current leadership.
Labour was founded to represent the working person. It was always on the side of the underdog. It fought capital to make sure that workers would be fairly paid, have holidays, have sick pay, and a pension: those basic rights that transformed the way in which the UK economy worked and made the lives of people better.
It also believed that it had the role of intervening in the economy to correct market failures so that people would have what they needed to live well. Most particularly, a good state education, a free at-the-point-of-delivery NHS, which was state-controlled to make sure that nobody could exploit it, and social housing that made sure that people could live well and securely for the long term in a place where their family could flourish without fear of being thrown out.
Those were the foundations on which Labour was built. The concern for the ordinary person, the person who I call the woman on the Mile End omnibus, that's what Labour was all about. But that's not what Labour is about now. Labour as a neoliberal party focuses on something very, very different.
Let me explain what neoliberalism is because it's a term that is often bandied around but which is rarely explained in detail.
Neoliberalism focuses on a number of quite straightforward, quite simple, and all fundamentally wrong ideas.
The first is that free markets exist, and that they can allocate resources efficiently within society. We don't have free markets in the UK or anywhere else in the world, to be totally honest, because free markets presume that everybody who competes in the marketplace is of roughly equal size, all of them are price takers, none of them are able to exert power over the marketplace by setting prices independent of what the consumer is willing to pay, and, as a result, it might, in theory operate fairly in the sense that the consumer has the power.
But we know that isn't true. We know that large companies dominate the market. We know that there are monopolies. We only have to look at the tech companies. We only have to look at our supermarkets. We only have to look at the limited number of car manufacturers and realise that there is simply no such thing as a free market anymore.
There are monopolies. regulated and controlled markets, but there are certainly not free markets, and yet the whole basis of Labour Party policy is now founded on the principle that free markets can deliver better for society than anything government can do. It's a completely false idea, but it's what Labour believes because it is what is taught at Oxford University to those politicians who seem to go on to populate the Labour cabinet.
And then there's a belief in deregulation. This, of course, follows from the idea that free markets are good because deregulation says, “let the market decide.” We don't need to control for things like the vapes that harm society, or the sugar in ultra-processed food that harms society, or the carbon emissions that happen to be creating global warming, or anything else.
No, let's deregulate because those benevolent businesspeople will deliver for our well-being if only we give them the chance to do so without interference from the state.
Adam Smith knew this wasn't true in 1776, and he said so. He said that whenever a group of businesspeople came together, they would conspire against the common good. And that remains as true now as it was then. And yet, Labour believes in deregulation to let the market abuse us. You couldn't make it up, but that's what they do.
And then there is privatisation, because if the state is not able to do anything, and that is the belief that Labour holds, because it thinks that the market does things better than the government ever can, the obvious next step is to privatise everything that is possible.
Way back in 1979, before Margaret Thatcher introduced the neoliberal concept into government in the UK, we had a state-owned post office, and we had a state-owned telephone system, plus, of course, state-owned energy companies and water companies, and so on. None of those things are now owned by the state.
Have we got better off as a result? Have we been exploited as a result? Well, I think it's very likely that we have been. We now have water companies demanding price increases of over 50 per cent because they say they can't make the deregulated market work in their favour. Is that to our benefit? No. But Labour believes that privatisation still works.
Then note that the whole logic of neoliberalism is opposed to big government. Not because it can find anything particularly wrong with it, because, actually, that's really difficult. When we look at the last 14 years of Tory party rule by a party that is neoliberal to its very core, it failed to constrain the size of the state because every time there was a minister in office, they realised that what the government was doing was important. That, though, has not prevented Politicians, Tory and Labour, saying that we must constrain the size of the state because there must be the opportunity for the market to flourish as if the two can't be compatible with each other, when in fact they can. What they want to do then is deliver austerity, not because we need austerity, but because they want to limit what the state will provide.
They want to force us to fend for ourselves. The whole logic of austerity is not really about economics, it's about politics. Neoliberalism believes in the power of the individual, and the obligation of the person to provide for themselves. The logic of austerity is that if the state does not provide, the individual is forced to, and supposedly that produces a better outcome.
And so the logic is they will not provide a decent NHS so that you, those of you at least who have the means to do so, will go and buy from the private sector. And that's what they want you to do.
And, they will not provide a decent postal service, because you will then be forced to go and buy from the private sector. And that is what they want you to do, whether the outcome is any better or not, or cheaper or not. That's what austerity is meant to deliver.
So, there is this combination between austerity and the cult of individualisation that is implicit within neoliberalism and is what is called the agenda of choice, so beloved of politicians, particularly, it seems, Labour politicians, that dominates so much of their thinking.
And finally, there is a belief in globalisation of free trade. You wouldn't believe this from the Tories, of course, because they took us out of the European Union. And to some extent, you wouldn't believe this from Keir Starmer, because he's so dedicated to keeping us out of the European Union. And yet, what we know is that the EU regulated trade so that it was possible, but that isn't what the neoliberal believes in. They don't want regulated trade. They want unregulated trade because that's what they believe in.
So, they are opposed to the EU, they are opposed to the regulation that it comes with because they don't believe that works, even though the evidence is overwhelmingly clear that that is what is necessary for trade to properly function.
Labour believes in those six core tenets of neoliberalism: that we really do have to have free markets, and deregulation, and privatisation, and austerity, and the power of the individual, and globalisation and free trade. That makes them an enemy of logic, an enemy of good economics, and an enemy of what is good for the people of this country.
We have now two major political parties in the UK - the Tories and Labour - who both believe in those things, even though it's very clear that those things undermine our well-being. And that is the crisis at the heart of UK politics.
That crisis was always there when the Tories believed in this stuff.
It's being made very much worse now that Labour does so very clearly as well.
How do we get rid of the single party that we effectively have that is dedicated to the delivery of one political ideology, which is neoliberalism, whether in Labour or Tory flavours?
That is the question that has to be resolved if we are to revive the UK, restore its democracy, and deliver well-being for the people of this country, as well as tackle all those fundamental issues, from housing, to education, to healthcare, to social care, to justice, to climate change, that must be addressed.
Labour is failing us. It cannot do otherwise. Neoliberalism is a failed concept, based upon the cult of the individual and self-interest and every wisdom tradition throughout history has said that such ideas will fail.
Labour will, but that is the issue that we have to address if we are to deal with the problems that neoliberalism will leave for us to solve.
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!
A well argued case. What I find annoying to say the least is that a number of people who obviously voted Labour at the last election are still pretending that Labour is a left of centre, progressive party. Many are accepting the policies that are being announced and excusing them. If Jeremy Hunt were still Chancellor and said that now back in power the Conservatives were going to means test the Winter Fuel Allowance and come up with up with other painful measures in the budget there would (rightly) be howls of outrage with comments about Tory austerity. Now Labour supporters meekly accept and excuse these policy choices.
Very worrying.
The BBC has also fallen into the trap with Evan Davis on PM asking people for ideas to reduce the ‘black hole’. No mention of whether there is one or not!
I find after 50 plus years of being interested in politics that we are going backwards every day.
We are doing just that….
I posted this in reply to your twitter post:
Really agree 100%
Free markets can not exist. The government creates the market, and must…MUST regulate to ensure market actors can fairly trade. Remove the government, then competition is lost, monopolies form, prices hike. In fact we move away from ‘Capitalism’, or at least what people associate capitalism is.
It is not big-government the neoliberals are scared of. Its a *democratically elected* big-government. Oh yes, they still want big-government, but that government should take the form of a small amount of rich, powerful companies who can then decide the direction of the country.
But think about what this is movement fundementally represents:
– Removing of competition
– Removing of democracy
– Removing of a fair procurement process (for example, smaller companies who could produce Covid ventilators a few years back, were excluded from supply, simply because they were not part of ‘the family’).
– Allowing powerful actors to control politics, and centrally plan the direction of the economy / country.
This reminds me of what many would associate with a communist dictatorship, hidden under the prose of free markets.
Appears that Starmer and the are not keen on democracy and those uppity people who try to exert it.
https://www.thecanary.co/uk/analysis/2024/06/02/starmer-trilateral-commission/
There is also the deeply divisive and harmful impact on society and community that stems from the individual mindset which can be characterised by the belief that “I can do whatever I want whenever I want”
Which of the minor parties would provide the required relevant opposition? I just don’t know at the moment. But, I do know that disaffection with the political system is growing, whilst, at the same time, freedoms seem to be being eaten away. As a result some, turn to a more extreme politics – not something I welcome. So where is there a political home for me? Only in places like this, perhaps.
But, there are parts of the world doing things differently apparently….
“Which of the minor parties would provide the required relevant opposition?”
The Greens intend to challenge Labour’s “arbitrary” (in their words) fiscal rules to allow for more spending.
They also recognise the inherent fallacy of “growth” and seem to have a few genuine left liberal members already (including myself).
But the Green’s economic policy is still based on a monetary fallacy.
Labour First
Progress
and now Labour Together
So called ‘moderates’ whom have sought to divorce Labour from it’s roots.
Who have accepted donations from the likes of Lord Sainsbury which have paid for people to root out genuine Labour supporters by any means necessary.
I recall one case where a member was suspended for using the word ‘Tory’ in a tweet. They were referring to their sister, Victoria.
Countless members, all traditional Labour supporters, have faced disciplinary action for sharing social media posts by the Green Party.
And then there were the AS smears.
The capitalists, in absolute contempt for democracy have paid their way and abused the Labour rule book to ensure Labour can never represent and work on behalf of the majority of people again.
And should the left ever organise and provide a genuine alternative to Labour, I am fairly certain now it would end up proscribed on a false pretext.
If not that, it would be undermined using the same tactics that have undermined Labour today.
We don’t have anything approaching democracy.
What do you think of the OBR paper (https://obr.uk/docs/dlm_uploads/Public-investment-and-potential-output_August-2024.pdf) referred to in Torsten Bell’s article in today’s Observer – `If you build hospitals, roads and railways, growth will follow’. Is this a chink of light through the neoliberal blanket?
I am going to be out today
I have read the paper
I will write about it
Spoiler alert: it is very confused
It has been said that Labour owed more to Methodism than Marx.
Irrespective of your faith or non faith position my suggestion has to be that both the major and probably some or all of the minor parties have lost any form of moral compass.
If they were to be asking ‘is this the right thing to do’ in the way the Atlee administration did or Governments from then up to 1979 did I suggest that the Country would be in a much better state than it is now
Agreed
Thank you for a most important article!
« Neoliberalism undermines state education and public expectations and values. It deliberately confuses education with controlled, limited training, It treats knowledge as a centrally managed product, promoting what is marketed as knowledge despite its being an artificially fixed entity and not an open, reasonably genuine, exploration of learning. It enforces the attitudes that view schools as plazas or dispensaries of « official » knowledge. It treats students as consumers, teachers as marionettes and initiatives and innovations as poisons. »
(From Henry Giroux)
Neoliberalism is incoherent, and utterly disingenuous. Individualism is a pernicious and false idea, since all life on earth is completely interdependent. Every single day, each of us depend on so many others and we barely even acknowledge it. We go to a shop and barely consider all the people involved in everything available, or the roads and pavements that we travelled on to get there, and all those others involved who ensure that what we buy conforms to a sufficient standard. And then there’s everyone who educated us, or cared for us when we were ill, and so on and on. The money we have also tells us we’re not individuals, and the more we have the more we depend upon others. It’s striking that neoliberals tend to depend upon others the most, since they tend to be wealthier and exploit others’ labour either directly as employers, or indirectly as rentiers. And the hypocrisy of the neoliberal political party is next level – in electoral systems, politicians rely on votes, their election to power is the very antithesis of individualism. Because neoliberalism, as you clearly illustrate, is a set of ideas inconsistent with reality, its effects are toxic. The mental health effects of neoliberalism are increasingly being identified and their underlying cause acknowledged. Neoliberal societies, and people who hold neoliberal beliefs and live accordingly, are more miserable, anxious, lonely, mistrustful, and so on. The imposition of neoliberalism truly counts as a tragedy.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8145185/#:~:text=Neoliberalism%20also%20encourages%20consumerism%20and,esteem%20(James%2C%202008).
There is another way that demonstrates there is not a free market; a stealthy and pernicious one that has grown like the many-headed hydra in recent decades: intellectual property law. Intellectual property rights are promoted as if they were there solely to protect unread authors, or obscure musicians. In reality it is the servant of corporations, as its real purpose is to establish monopoly power far into the future. Richard, you are quite right about Labour; it metamorphosed into the Single Transferable Party long ago and exists to defend the FPTP Westminster parliamentary system that makes the STP possible, and work towards a single immovable government that discourages voting, reduces general election turnouts below 50%, and only needs the support of under 20% of those who vote to stay in office forever.
The absurdity of copyright is that there are dead authors, actors, musicians and artists who are paid more than most people alive. When a legal system protects the interests of the dead at the expense of the living, it shows we’re in an insane world.
Wow, way to get so much wrong about neoliberalism. I’ll just pick the one as it’s one of the big issues of the day “or the carbon emissions that happen to be creating global warming, or anything else.”
Neoliberalism literally says that you set a carbon tax at the social cost of the emissions and then let people free to adjust their behaviours, and businesses to change their products to use less carbon. Very little else is needed in the way of intervention.
The current Labour government however are effectively banning new oil and gas in the UK. If a British person invented a cheaper way of extracting gas that lowered the cost by four-fifths, it could not be done here. But if a foreign person invented such a process to extract and refine gas then we could import it. That’s not neoliberalism, it’s self-punishing idiocy.
Wow. How to make my case for me. If gas was cheaper we should use it more ignoring the environment and the consequences. Thanks for proving how stupid neoliberalism is.
Neoliberalism is just a particularly vicious strain of Capitalism and it is Capitalism that has caused the mass ecological destruction.
Even if global warming is “solved” the other problems (biodiversity loss, water scarcity, pollution, resource depletion, to name but a few) will force the end of both Capitalism and Modernity as we know it in relatively short order. Enjoy it while you can.
I think that is overly simplistic unless you define capitalism incredibly narrowly, which does not help anyone.
No Dr Tol, the “social” cost doesn’t come into it. It is a market price, although the ‘market’ most typically is not “free” but distorted, as all real markets are generally distorted, badly regulated, fudged or rigged. Monopoly or cartel power is exerted everywhere, and even in the US, anti-trust law works too slowly to stop pernicious price-gouging.
For a prime example of the damage done by neoliberalism and its hostility to anything that might jeopardise the primacy of individual profit as the goal of all endeavours, I recommend Rowan Moore’s article, “The Grenfell inquiry is exposing a culture of contempt that has run deep in Britain for decades” in today’s Observer. (The Guardian group really should read some of its own articles: as a whole it has steadfastly supported neoliberalism for decades and actively aided the destruction of Labour as an alternative to the Conservatives.)
I still wonder what would have happened should John Smith not have died so sadly and suddenly, allowing Blair to lead ‘New labour.’ I can’t help thinking ‘things would have got better’.
Labour(ed) has learnt that flying the flag of Neo-liberalism will get it into power and help keep it there.
So it’s problem now is how to balance retaining power with the inconvenient hoi polloi empowering process of the GE and their expectations and Labour’s change ‘rhetoric’ with that of its Establishment paymasters. Who do you think will win out? Well, who has the most money folks?
My view is that Labour faces an almost impossible task. And this struggle – Labour’s internal struggle with itself – is what is going to dominate their term, like (say) BREXIT rendered the Tory party essentially useless halfway through their terms – and woe betide us.
It is really disappointing since the real Labour party was a project created by working people and good old fashioned Liberals.
Those old fashioned Liberals were those who like Atticus Finch (a central character in Harper Lee’s ‘ To Kill a Mockingbird’) who could “understand a person by considering things from his point of view … climbing into his skin and walking around in it.”
Thus that sort of ‘old’ Liberalism had the capacity – the imagination – to conceive of other lives, other than the one that they lived.
Neo-liberalism has almost killed this capacity for ‘otherness’ and has planted people’s feet firmly into their OWN skins – and this is the extreme, hyper-individualised liberalism we see today, boosted by the failed promise of social media (apparently all they did was want to bring people together without thinking of the darker side of what people are – typical Unicorn thinking from people who are NOT from the left).
John Gray – whose book ‘The New Leviathans: Thoughts after Liberalism’ (2023) – an absolutely essential read for our times in my view – is quite right when he points out that Liberalism can only save itself – and humanity – by re-discovering within humanity its capacity for self sacrifice (p.156) instead of the absurd self-destructive death-wish that we are being pushed along by at the moment.
And this self-sacrifice – we could call it compromise too – is what can lead to ‘peaceful co-existence’ between the different parts of society and nations. But do we find that Neo-liberals listen as they make their own reality at our expense?
Again, politician’s words come back to haunt them – Blair’s ‘ Being tough on crime and being tough on the causes of crime’ at time when we’ve had right wing flavoured violence in the streets resonates. Sure – Stymied (Starmer) will bang up the rioters.
But what is he going to do about the causes? The increasing inequality? Failing public services? Unchallenged fascism in our politics and media? Increased isolationism via BREXIT?
The only way Labour can really change is to renounce the hyper-indiviualism inherent in the political credo it shares with the Tories.
Because all I see on the cards at the moment is Stymied Starmer helping to turn the UK into a larger version of the Isle of Man or any number of off-shore jurisdictions – a paradise for the world’s rich, with a government and legal system built around their needs.
I personally think this is the direction Laboured are on – infact British politics in general.
There can’t be any argument against the conclusion of this blog, Richard. And consequently, anyone who argues that Labour is a ‘left of centre’ party is seriously deluded.
That said, the counter argument (which I hear on a regular basis) is that in the ‘real world’ there’s no alternative to the neoliberal paradigm with regard to social and economic relations (I should add here that of course there are, but what’s meant by this claim is that those entities that really have the power would not allow an alternative). Therefore what we’re looking for in parties that still retain the (now defunct) Labour, or Social Democratic, label is a party that can ‘manage’ neoliberalism in a slightly less ‘red in tooth and claw’ way than those on the right would like it to be. In short, a slightly more caring and compassionate neoliberalism. And this is exactly what we see Starmer and co trying to do, just as Blair and New Labour did from 1997.
Of course, by so doing none of the fundamental issues with neoliberalism are ever confronted – and why would they be if the belief is that they are set in stone. And so we get the many, many, and ongoing, policy failures that you document here and elsewhere on a regular basis.
Here’s one example from personal experience that impacts many thousands of rail users every week. Back in the mid 1970s I worked as a guard for British Rail operating out of “Four Shed” in Derby (for the interest of rail buffs, having started as a shunter in a goods yard in Ipswich). As such I could operate as a guard on any train running on any of the lines I’d been signed off on (i.e had learnt the layout, signals, etc). For me that covered lines from Derby to Birmingham, Leicester, Stoke on Trent and Sheffield. This meant that if a guard on a service to any of those destinations didn’t turn in to work and I was still on shift, or prepared to do overtime, the train controller in Derby could ask me to cover that service. The same happened if, for example, I was guard on a train to Birmingham and when I arrived there the train controller was short of a guard to operate a train coming back to Derby (or going through Derby to another destination). Exactly the same situation applied to train drivers. And I can say from personal experience that there were a good deal of times when this kind of flexibility necessary.
Since rail privatisation this type of entirely sensible, effective and efficient operation has been impossible, of course, because train crews are employed by a variety of operating companies, rather than all employed by one company, thus benefiting from economies of scope and scale a unified service delivers. And there are multiple other costs and inefficiencies associated with the neoliberal model of rail operation we have in England and Wales. The same applies to all the other natural monopolies (e.g.water, energy supply, etc) that have been fragmented and fucked over in the name of neoliberal orthodoxy. And yet, Starmer’s Labour will not and cannot make these things right. Tinkering to make them slightly better is all we can expect and is all we’re going to get, so let’s not delude ourselves by imagining anything else.
That said, in the US things could be going in a much more catastrophic direction. Many of the readers of this blog will no doubt be aware of Project 2025 in the US. This is neoliberalism on steroids, and as much of Richard’s blog concerns the general topic of what was once called public administration it’s worth watching this clip from the MSNBC current affairs show, ‘All in with Chris Hayes.’ https://www.msnbc.com/all
Who would have guessed that public servants do such valuable work!
Thanks, Ivan
And apologies for delay – there was a gathering of the extended family today
I’m a member of an occasional walking group of former Labour members, all lefties. Yesterday, on our dogs & ice-cream amble, many comments were made about excellent current members, including councillors, who say they are focusing on local affairs, the ‘grass roots’ of support. This is now by order of Evans, as the democratic routes to influence national policy are severed. If you ask about any national or international policy, you get a deflection, Gaza being the most prominent no-go topic. You cannot have a rational discussion anymore, and attempts to agenda any such items have been ruled ‘not competent business’ by Evans.
Richard asks – ” How do we get rid of the single party that we effectively have that is dedicated to the delivery of one political ideology, which is neoliberalism, whether in Labour or Tory flavours?”
Just questioning or even ridiculing Reeves ” I had no choice but to end pensioners heating support …….” won’t do it – – its will still leave the discussion within their neolib narrative window
The message has to be succinct – and startling – if it is to cut-through enough to change people’s perspective.
I still can’t think of anything better than Keynes’ ‘anything we can actually do we can afford’.
That is so absurd in neolib terms that it might have a chance of launching a debate.
Labour’s crisis – could be coming even more quickly than we anticipated – the odd back bench MP is already raising his/her head.
Sorry if this is slightly off topic but it is about the Chancellor and her reaction to the ‘Black Hole’ in UK finances.
In her article in today’s Observer, Rachel Reeves says:
“That first month, it was made clear to me that unless I acted urgently, market confidence in the UK’s fiscal position could be seriously undermined. That would have meant higher debt, higher mortgages and higher prices in the shops. I was not prepared to let that happen.”
What is ‘market confidence in the UK’s fiscal position’ and would it being undermined have the effects Reeves suggests? Does she mean that there would be a run on the pound causing its value against other currencies to fall?
I suppose I’m really trying to understand how much power financial markets have in upsetting the economy of a country with a fiat currency.
I am too tired to do this tonight
But, in summary, this is bullish*t.
Great reading. Agree with much of it. Thankyou
But I am not sure globalisation falls into the same camp as neoliberalism and both do.
As I see it personally.
Globalisation is just trade – bananas , tea, coffee along with industrial goods made where they most efficiently and yes cheaply produced. Often with the natural resources close to hand. With trade without tariffs etc.
That globalisation has been under constant attack by the Economic neolib/con Collective Waste uniparties – yes they are the exact same across all the western nations. We aren’t special in the U.K. the same forces have been deployed nkeashed across all ‘advanced’ countries now.
The unprecedented levels of sanctions applied by Collective West Imperious Rules made up as they go along – is a major elephant in the room of imaginary Free Trade.
Including the degradation of major international treaties. Eventhe WTO!
Billions of people are daily badly affected by such curtailments in real free trade. Deprived of medications and foods and energy.
It’s just that we are joining their ranks because the People who have control don’t need to keep us fooled anymore- we can be controlled through lawfare and technology.
The same big global western corporations tend to define the national interests in every country through political patronage. They own the majority of mainstream media too, so easily deliver the propaganda that keeps electing the puppets they control.
There is only one one word to describe it – Fascism – in all its
forms.
We are not safer in all aspects of daily life.
This from yesterday by Kim Dotcom says it succinctly better than I can, for me.
‘ @KimDotcom
Aug 31
The deep state tyrants justified mass surveillance, facial recognition, total control over mass media, censorship and the criminalization of free speech as necessary to make you safer.
Take a look at the world today.
Do you feel any safer?
Aug 31, 2024 · 1:03 PM UTC ‘
David Byrne says:
Richard, congratulations to you for today’s blog and the Owen Jones “interview” with David G Blanchflower.
Together you and your friend could author a significant political/economic tome that would expose austerity, neoliberal (greed) politics in the UK 2024. 200 pages max. please.
I, also, applaud many of the learned and perceptive responses from your contributors.
Please don’t forget to ‘out’ the Oxford University, entitled PPE mafia for what they worth-precisely, zero points on the Eurovision Song Contest scale!
Please get together and just do it. In the words of Del Boy Trotter, “You know it makes sense”.
David
We are in discussion with publishers
There is a plan in existence…
Your wishes may be granted
Richard
The choir is in agreement (I also agree) but these debates whilst offering some policy suggestions do not address the big structural problem we face with any practical suggestions. I find it harder and harder to remain optimistic.
The big problem is this; How do we break the strangle hold of conventional thinking and the inertia built into the system? All those good ideas a just wishful thinking without an approach to address it.
Labour is not recognisable any more as the parliamentary wing of organised labour – its union funding is now less than half of its overall funding, many unions are unaffiliated (disclosure I am a member of ACORN). Unions concentrate simply on getting the best deal they can but remain weak. MPs are often ex SPADs and interns who dont know the world of work. Discipline is enforcesd in a way Lenin would approve off (although I think in theory democratic centralism pretended there could be debate first!)
Compass works for cross party cooperation amongst progressives (disclosure I am a non-party member) – the chances of this having any success have been wiped out by the gaming of the system which engineered a majority of seats with even less vote than last time. Tactical voting to get rid of the tories – yes on wide scale – effectively subverted.
Having more independents (an approach with some merit) looked impossible, then Gaza and 4 elected. However the numbers are small. There is brand pollution caused by disgraced MP’s being treated as independents. Jeremy Corby is trying to get the independents organised in parliament which might include a few suspended labour rebels
XR has switched to less confrontational tactics (disclosure I am a supporter/member) but there seems to be conspiracy of silence about its current campaigns.
There is little debate about the underlying causes of the summer riots from the labour governments politicians – especially the long term corrosive effect of the hostile environment and highlighting immigration without having a process. Thankfully the the numbers were actually low and relatively easily faced down – actualy by large counter demonstrations as a much as the policing. But they were orchestrated and the Beer Hall Putch was also small and easily put down.
In an influential book in the JK Galbraith described the Culture of Contentment; inertia caused by the fact that most people do ok and manage to rub along. Thatcher’s “genius” was to realise that 1/3 of the population can be ignored and marginalised and the other 2/3 will just carry on. Perhaps the deep impacts of climate crises (droughts and extreme weather exacerbating war, migration, competition for resource with consequent supply failures) will make thing uncomfortable enough to shake people up. BUT thats going to result in conflict. It’s a bit like treating Climate as Bader Meinhof treated terrorism; create a crisis and the ensuing repression will start the revolution. Nothing good comes out of the vast majority of revolutions. The ones that succeed need massive public support on the streets together with a clear idea of what is to be done by those in leading positions – nothing like that is currently sitting in the wings for when climate driven breakdown starts to bite.
We went through a period of flux roughly from 2001-16, say from the twin towers through the 2008 crash to Brexit/Trump, when change seemed possible. This period decisively ended the triumphalism surrounding the end of communism 1989-92. Events have now locked down again – into a dismal resurgence of power block competition with nuclear powers (other than us) normalising war under a nuclear umbrella – and US policy using Isreal and Saudi as tools against Iran. We don’t like it but the war in Sudan goes unremarked, we don’t do investment and development in a way that helps anyone other than us, our massive hypocrisy is evident to the global south, Europe and the US are just one block (soon to be 2) blocs amongst many.
To come back to Labour, they seem to have forgotten that you need to do Relief, Recovery and Reform (FDR) – they were in that order for a reason. With labour there no relief in sight, and precious little sign of meaningfully reform.
So what ideas do you have, are we frogs in gradually boiling water or as Jared Diamond says is collapse a choice?
This was my first idea in 2019, are there any better ideas?
https://brianfishhope.com/part-3-consider/what-can-be-done
And
https://brianfishhope.com/part-4-act