The video that I published this morning of my suggested alternative speech that Keir Starmer should have made at the Labour Party conference is unusually long.
We have never before made a video that is more than 45 minutes long, and I suspect that its length will reduce the number of people who watch it. If so, I admit that this will be a shame because I doubt that I have ever so comprehensively pulled together a range of my ideas in such a coherent way. For that reason, I think that some people might prefer to listen to the audio rather than watch the video. You could put your headphones on whilst doing something else or listen to this on a car journey as a consequence. I hope that the result will be interesting.
That being said, I thought it worth explaining how this came about to provide an insight into the work involved.
As I have already related, I was on holiday in Wales last week, and for me, one of the unfortunate side effects of being on holiday is that after a few days, ideas for new projects bounce around in my head. The idea for this video was one of those. I thought of it last Friday.
I noted some of the ideas shortly before driving home on Saturday, including the five words around which the presentation is organised.
On Sunday, I took part in the Scottish Currency Group's conference, including making an online presentation, and it wasn't until about 4.30 that afternoon that I had a chance to really think about this idea again. Doing so, I went for a walk on my own and, whilst on a 90-minute progression around Ely, dictated the first two-thirds of the content into my phone, pretty much as it is in the video. I then edited that during the evening whilst watching a stunning performance of Mozart's Requiem Mass that is available on the BBC iPlayer. This includes modern dance, and I would strongly recommend it.
Having done that, I realised that references to funding had been omitted from most of that part of the draft, and so on Tuesday morning, I returned the text and dictated the final third of the script whilst on another walk. This was then edited and checked, and on Wednesday morning, Thomas and I sat down to record, actually splitting that recording into four separate sections simply because breaks for water and then coffee were required along the way.
Making the recording we had to decide whether I would read from paper, or a teleprompter. The trouble with the second option is making them work - they really aren't that good at a price we can afford as yet. We went for paper. When it is obvious it is being read, I see no problem with that, but would welcome feedback.
We then bounced around ideas on the video thumbnail and for the logo that is implicit within it.
Whilst I then checked the script for errors (of which there were inevitably a few), Thomas got on with merging the videos together, applying studio sound to it to make sure that we got the best possible audio, and all the other tricks that he seems to know.
It was not until yesterday evening that this video was, as a consequence, ready to upload for publication this morning.
Whilst Thomas focused on doing that, and because this video is longer than usual, I decided that a PDF version of the transcript was also appropriate. This added to the workload because rather than use the version of the text from which I spoke, I decided to use the version as it was recorded, and there are slight differences. I also polished the punctuation after recording for the purposes of putting the transcript on the blog, so using that as the PDF made sense. The result is a text of more than 6,000 words, equivalent to a fair-sized chapter in a book.
As is apparent from the above, there are obviously gaps in the schedule that I describe: quite a lot of other work has also been done this week.
So the question is, why do this? I think that there are three obvious reasons.
The first is to demonstrate that it would have been possible for Keir Starmer to have delivered a compelling narrative outlining change that I think would appeal to the people of this country if that had been his desire. I can only presume that it was not.
Secondly, because I have been very critical of Labour, I wanted to show that my criticism came out of frustration because I knew that it's possible to do better than what it is doing at present.
And, perhaps most obviously, I wanted to bring together a whole range of the ideas that I have been talking about in a way that creates a cohesive policy for change that does, to some degree, update where the Green New Deal Group was many years ago now.
I do not, of course, pretend that something produced in the limited time period that I dedicated to this is the final word on anything, including my own thinking, but I hope that the ideas can stimulate debate. If so, the effort has been worthwhile, and that is precisely why the YouTube channel that I now have exists.
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!
It was brilliant, that pretty much sums it up.
Thanks
Thank you for all of your selfless enlightening hard work Richard. Your homilies are an oasis of common sense and educated hope in a desert of political ignorance,despair and deceit. Long May you persist.
Thanks
well put John
Given your self-imposed constraints and that of the technology it’s an excellent piece of political-economic thinking. But why can’t Parties (and government) with all their highly paid advisors do something similar and break out of their strait jackets?
I wish I knew the answer to that
I don’t believe that there is an honest answer to the question “Why can’t they?” – they most obviously can. They clearly have the money and access to expertise.
The question, therefore, should be “Why don’t they?” – and it is hard not to be extremely cynical when pondering this.
I have been following your blog for a couple of years now and today’s video neatly sums up in 45 minutes what I have gleaned over the last couple of years. The holistic view of your video is sadly lacking in current political parties and particularly the “mainstream meeja”, who in cahoots with the party backers and establishment leaders always maintain a blinkered view within a silo.
I believe that raging inequality is the root cause of most of the issues in the world today and until it is confronted by the people, everything will continue to get worse until survivability will no longer be an option, as an existential population extinction materialises.
Thanks
Thank you and well said, William.
Readers and Richard may be interested in this article from the New Scientist: https://archive.is/X4COm. As I often say, the planet can’t afford the wealthy.
“Jeremy Hunt, the Tory former chancellor, has said that Treasury officials always told him that higher borrowing would lead to interest rates staying higher for longer. He posted this on social media, in response to reports that Rachel Reeves is considering changing the way debt is defined in her fiscal rules to allow more borrowing.”
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/live/2024/sep/26/uk-politics-labour-keir-starmer-un-general-assembly-speech?filterKeyEvents=false&page=with:block-66f55f288f08080b8b3f90c0#block-66f55f288f08080b8b3f90c0
The country’s Treasury full of absolute monetary system illiterates! They needed to be cleared out and fast if the country’s going to maximise its growth and in a sustainable way.
Richard, it was worth the 46 minutes it took me to watch, listen and digest – brilliant! I’ve forwarded this to many friends and colleagues for their enlightenment. I do hope they too will persist and watch and list to the whole piece.
As others have indicated, why can’t the politicians of all parties get this?
Keep going, Richard, you inspire us to also keep going and sharing your work.
BTW, I forwarded your videos about What is MMT and Why MMT is important to Ian Murray the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland, who promised to watch them! With his role now, I’m not sure that he will, but we can only hope!
Many thanks Andy, and I hope he does.
Hi Richard – I have been following your Youtube output for several months but this is my first visit to your blog. This last post has an enormous value in painting a picture or tell the story of how our future might look and how we might get there. There has been a trend for the right wing to dominate the story space and it has shown up the left who up to now have offered very little in this regard. Here, at last, is a start to the building of a more socially aware and considerate way of living and the vision that must precede it.
The theoretical underpinnings are nonetheless important to justify where required the practicality of the vision but I am as certain as I can be that the story comes first. This is what motivates people to think about a different way. It would be a great prize to get to the point where the focus is on how this would be achieved as this would indicate an acceptance that the vision is seen as a real possibility and I can already hear the howls of the majority of press declaring this an impossibility – et voila!
Incidentally, I feel the left/right divide in politics is increasingly redundant and the new axes should materialise around Neo-liberal v. MMT (or some similar reference) and authoritarian v. consultative democracy.
Thanks Richard
And I agree, left v right is redundant
I dont know how you manage to create your outputs so quickly , given all the other things going on..
It’s briliant.
The only thing to disagree with is that I found the modern dancers, although brilliant in their own way, a distraction rather than an enhancement to the Mozart Requiem
Thank you
And we’ll have to disagree on that. I 5houghtbtue interactions brilliant
I watched every minute of it. It was excellent. Terms such as Left and Right will always be used . Old people like me understand the meanings. At 84 it is too late to change. Having lived through the decades after 1945 I benefitted as a child, a teenager and young worker from the democratic socialist policies of the Attlee government . These policies were continued by the Macmillan Tories to their credit. It seems the immediate future must lie with the economics of Maynard Keynes who was ,in my opinion a near genius. Your assertion that the rot began with Margaret Thatcher needed saying. The last 40 odd years have been an enduring bad dream . A slide into despair.
I hope the Labour Party hears what you say and acts upon it. I was a member of the Party for over 6 decades. I believe that the vast majority of members agree with your ideas. The thousands who have left since the elevation of Starmer I am certain do. That does NOT make us Loony Left. Our life’s experience drives us to agree with you.
Thank you
Thank you, Richard, for all the work you put into explaining the potential of economics to make lives better. Under Rachel Reeves it truly is the ‘dismal science’, but as you showed, understanding how the economy really works makes good things possible. But is Labour listening?
I doubt it, I am afraid
“I doubt that I have ever so comprehensively pulled together a range of my ideas in such a coherent way.”
I read the transcript (as I always do) rather than watching the video, and this was exactly my feeling too. Everything clicked, and you showed how all the many things you bang on about* could actually work together as a whole, harmonious system. And I would very much like to live under that system!
*No disrespect intended – your perseverance is admirable
Thank you
Thanks for the insights into HOW you wrote that. You must be one of the most productive and efficient people I know! We have a lot to learn from you just on that. I think I will try and copy the walk and talk to myself thing. People nowadays don’t think you are mad, just on the phone.
The vision you lay down for a Labour strategy ticks all the boxes of being doable in the current context and likely to produce an acceptable standard for the many. Let’s hope the movement around Corbyn listen.
For reasons I don’t understand walking is a really create thing to do.
If I want to discuss ideas with someone, we go for a walk.
If I want to write a first draft, I walk. I’ve been dictating stuff for 40 years though.mi guess that helps. Dictating is not like speaking.
Your inspirational podcasts that I have been listening to have further educated me on macro economics; thank you. I managed to speak with Andy Haldane last Thursday on Nick Ferrari (2:22) into the program, using your inspired talk on leveraging fiat currency. Of course he didn’t answer my question other than saying everywhere is awash with so much money. He’s clearly not aware of what Rachel R is doing. You, along with Prof. Stephanie Kelton and Prof. Mariana Mazzucato should be teaming up; the whole will be greater than the sum of the parts and there really is so much to do to protect the public from these politicians. The media that have reasonable leverage haven’t bothered to understand the basics; all they really know is to ask the politicians ‘how much will that cost?’.
I don’t have an answer to my simple question; what can we, the enlightened do to get the message across to these mindless sycophantic politicians who have the power; I know we have to get the media on side.
Thoughts please.
I doubt right now we can get the media on side
We have to get the public on side first
…..and it’s the media that influence the public opinion. It’s the media that have misinformed the public!