Larry Elliott, who has been economics editor of the Guardian for twenty-eight years, retires this week. Today saw his last column posted in that role - although he will be continuing as a commentator.
As he says (and I have edited out bits for the sake of respecting Guardian copyright whilst wanting to give a fair shout to my friend because that is what Larry and I are), there are lessons to be learned based on that experience:
Lesson No 1 is that the free-market experiment has failed, as some of us said it would all along. Wealth did not trickle down. Financial speculation ran rife. Warnings of trouble ahead were ignored until the world's banking system came close to collapse in the global financial crisis of 2008.
Lesson No 2 is that ideas matter. The near-death of the banks provided an opportunity to forge a new progressive approach to the economy in the shape of a Green New Deal, but it was not taken. In part, that was because various parts of the left – the Keynesians, the greens, the Marxists – all had differing views on what needed to be done. In part it was because the rich and powerful used their money and influence to stymie any hope of real change. In part, it was because of the timidity of parties of the left.
The upshot is that there has been no equivalent of the Thatcher-Reagan revolution of the 1980s, even though the crisis of neoliberalism in 2008 was just as profound as the collapse of social democracy in the 1970s. A form of zombie capitalism has staggered on for a decade and a half.
[And then there's] lesson No 3: populism will continue to flourish until the left comes up with a credible and deliverable economic plan.
I stress I have edited it, but I hope it is fair.
I stress lessons two and three. I very strongly agree with them.
As Larry has often said to me, we did not mean to write the plan for the next era of the world economy when we wrote the Green New Deal, of which he and I were co-authors, but in reality, we did so. The trouble was that the world preferred zombie capitalism.
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.
Zombie capitalism or green New Deal; the lesson is, you have to take people with you. That means you have to listen to people if you wish to achieve anything. Being in office is not being in power; but zombie capitalism can live off sullen acquiescence and political spin, because in office it allows the Right to deliver the quiet reduction of the economy to monopoly rentierism (aka ‘neoliberalism’). Nevertheless, however imperfect democracy is in the West; if you don’t take people with you, you simply don’t achieve anything for them. Taking people with you requires compromise; and that is as big a problem for the Left as the Right (I have said often enough, Left and Right are dead ends; all that should matter is what works). The failure to compromise applies to both Left and Right; but most people who are struggling today do not like being piously lectured by the moral certainties of the self-appointed priesthood of the left (with no demonstrable track record of success in Government since at least 1951 – and the electorate dumped them); about the sacrifices they are being demanded to make now, for the public good, by people they have no good reason to trust (all stick and no carrot).
John,
when you say: “……most people who are struggling today do not like being piously lectured by the moral certainties of the self-appointed priesthood of the left”. Who exactly are you referring to as this “priesthood”? I’m afraid I don’t recognize your vision of a left that won’t compromise. It seems to me that the reason that the voting public seems to prefer zombie capitalism is that the centre ground has shifted so far in the last 50 years, that what passes now for a centre-left party of government (one that’s very fond of phrases such as “grown-up” and “prudent”) is more or less in the same position economically as Thatcher’s governments were in ’79 to ’87.
In other words we vote for change and for a loosening of the neoliberal grip, then find out we’ve bought the same policies, with the same results. If that’s not some sort of compromise, then I don’t know what is. If being lectured on moral certainties means means having it pointed out that almost all of us are getting poorer, while a tiny handful are getting richer and that the world is about to burn up and destroy us, then I think it’s the fault of the media and politics that we don’t seem to be listening.
“….. we vote for change and for a loosening of the neoliberal grip, then find out we’ve bought the same policies, with the same results”.
Time, after time, after time. To whom do I refer? May I rephrase? To whom do I not refer? Offer me one, because I can’t think of one. The electorate voting for the implausible Left, meanwhile are the gullible, feasting at the feet of the insincere; or worse. And for the record (and I realise this may raise a deluge of criticism here), the idea that Corbyn was the answer to the problem was, to me, always quite preposterous. He voted against the EEC in 1975, and since then has been either vaguely pro-Brexit or opted for ambiguous dithering. Perhaps we should ask him where to find £90Bn+ per annum we urgently need – now?
I require to add here that my stance on Brexit is desperate for a compromise; but “compromise” requires content (in spite of the fact that I believe Brexit was insane; both from an economic perspective, and because the EU is primarily a peace project – and Brexit was a political gateway to bullying for Putin – even he could not have believed we could be quite so irresponsible). The Brexit would not have dismissed out a customs union option, or single market membership. It has been relentlessly uncompromising: and has led Britain into ‘splendid isolation’ (but this time, with no Empire to back it up).
I don’t think it can be denied that Corbyn at one time was seen as a viable alternative to many voters who detect something wrong with their politics. For me, it was mostly younger people in their 20’s to early 40’s whom I noted were particularly in favour of him. It is a decent indicator that he met an unmet need in politics at the time that remains unmet.
The perceived viability of Corbyn can also be seen in the way that he was taken down both within and without the Labour party. It was hatchet job for sure – very dirty, and when things are that dirty, it is also desperate in my opinion. Someone is scared of the possibilities. The 2017 result and all that.
I’ve watched ‘Nye’ – it is a warm hearted affair and also sentimental. But the NHS that Bevan presided over still did not really sort out how disabled and unemployed people paid for the NHS; and why did they call it ‘national insurance’ when all the wage deduction really is is a qualifying payment so that you can use it? Something else for the Right to abuse.
What I’m saying is that Bevan made his own mistakes, like Corbyn, maybe compromised too much and left the NHS fundamentally weak. What does that say about the Left in general? We know what it says about the venal Right
Now that the Labour seems to no longer wish to rip itself apart about this sad episode we might learn more about what really happened – I think we might be studying the Corbyn episode for some time because whether ‘Left’ or something else, Neo-liberal has an Alien like face-hugging grip on our society that it seems is almost impossible to detach and replace with alternatives.
How we got to way we are today is because of political compromises that have been made in my name. Whether I disagreed or agreed with them was irrelevant. They were made anyway. We have a parliamentary process and members make compromises between each other and form parties and appoint leaders. The problem has been that the 2 large parties in many western democracies that were called the left and the right are as of 2024 virtually identical. Our governments have become highly technocratic. Political compromise is no longer a participatory act of citizens but a collective dictate that cries “there is no alternative”.
Part of why we are here is because our political leaders are poor. Britain had a good run of leaders for about 100 years. That has come to an end. There is nothing wrong complaining about the failings of our leaders. To some it would look like I am taking the moral high road and taking directions from a high priest. I disagree. As a citizen, it is my political duty to point it out. I share a collective responsibility.
Thinking about the film ‘Nye’, I was surprised by how much Aneurin Bevan had to compromise in order to see his vision through. Some of them must have been galling , but in the end…..
With regard to 2008, I was a bankster lobbyist, largely on capital and liquidity, but some conduct risk matters, too, from July 2007 – June 2016 (and since November 2023) and attest to all three lessons. With regard to the first lesson, this is from working in banking since the mid 1990s.
It’s not just timidity. I reckon many on the left are not prepared to learn political economy, call out plain and simple corruption, and be more assertive lobbyists. It’s infuriating how few, if any, on the left have no stock answer to “how are we gonna pay for it” and don’t think there should be one. So often, insider sympathisers* tipped off, provided briefings etc., but leftists, especially trade unionists, were just not interested. Is it too much hard work? *There are many more Gary Stevensons, Kathleen Tysons and Colonel Smithers out there.
@ Richard: I met Larry at the Grauniad in 1995. He helped with my masters on central bank independence. I have his books co-written with Dan Atkinson, who if memory serves is married to another journalist, Sarah Whitebloom. Please give Larry my best wishes and many thanks. One hopes Larry and you will fight the good fight together and be able to enjoy a pint, too.
“The trouble was that the world preferred zombie capitalism” to the Green New Deal. No, Richard, I don’t believe that’s true.
As poster Richard Lindlay said above, ‘the word’ is not the Trilateral Commission/WEF/Davos elites. THEY rejected your co-authored GND simply because at that time they were not able to profit from your prescription. In short, the elites, those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half-century had not yet engineered stuff to make sure that they themselves became the main beneficiaries of your GND. COP26, King Charles’ royal decree to instruct BoE to ensure some of the dirtiest banks in the Rothschild-City of London web devise “green financial instruments” /Green Bonds etc. to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects that benefit the same beneficiaries as non-trickle-down Globalisation.
Grannie/suck eggs time, but if I’d played even a small part in co-authoring the GND, I’d champion it till the day I die and I’d critique every abuse of it by self-serving investors lining it up to be nothing more than a personal/group-interest gravy train.
Hilarious coverage of the smart meter fiasco on BBC Radio Scotland. Basically, smart meters may not work properly (and cost the user a fortune), the further north you live. A domestic smart meter user, trying to use energy efficiently for his electric car finds he is spending a fortune because the smart meter doesn’t work, and his supplier has no solution. nobody is fixing it, he can’t do anything, and when the fact that he lives in the wrong part of Britain for a working service, he said this: “I thought we were supposed to be one United Kingdom”.
Well it is, as long as you are content not to examine closely exactly what it is doing to you, and accept political, rhetorical wallpaper as a substitute for usable policies. And with the price of Brexit at £90Bn+ each and every year, it is only going to become worse.
This morning on BBC Radio Scotland GMS this morning a deeply ignorant and ill-informed BBC interviewer failed to explore a point raised by the Scottish Government spokeswoman at COP29, who unexpectedly raised the important matter of de-coupling gas and electricity prices (a British monopoly market scam); but the hapless interviewer was keen to raise official car use, or badly researched politicised criticisms, to reduce a surprisingly interesting opportunity for discussion, to utter politicised banality. And then at lunchtime, David Porter, BBC journalist cannot being himself to use the post-Brexit word that actually fits British policy (from the experience of everyone in the mess we find ourselves): Isolationism. Asked whether Brexit led to Isolationism, Porter said, it may do for opponents of Brexit, but for supporters it allowed Britain to “go along its own path”, and is “better for the UK”. If it sounds like a duck…………
“the free-market experiment has failed”……..the free market in what – exactly?
Free market in roller-races is working fine, wind turbines – fine, PV panels – cut throat = fine etc etc. I am guessing that the argument applies to “natural” monopolies (or those where it makes sense to have one operator – e.g. rail) water. elec, telecomms (trunk) as well as those where large-scale provision and complex demands means that gov provision makes sense e.g. health (chuck in prisons as well). He cites the closure of factories in the North of England, this was littel to do with “markets” & a great deal to do with the Thatcher/Howe experiment with interest rates – cos as we all know – high interests rates are great for “fighting” inflation (irony alert)).
Neolibtardism has been like an acid – gradually eroding societal structures, it also confuses short-term efficiency with effectiveness – whilst simultaneously failing to recognise that one can, efficienctly do, the wrong thing. The application of some common sense can avoid this. Also the emphasis that “the left” needs to get its act together shows how degraded discussions have become – MacMillan criticised Thatcher for “selling the family silver” – was he left wing? (oh & he built loads of public housing – left wing?). We need to regain control of labels & the narrative.
I think the free-market experiment has been a tremendous success, for those it was supposed to work for: the very wealthy.
Everything else was a distraction.
Trickle-down: just a soundbite.
“Free” markets: just a marketing ploy
Land of opportunity and freedom: for 1% of the rich.
I think more people are starting to catch one, but there is a long way to go.
I had a smart meter installed some years ago. It never worked and the energy co were no use whatsoever in attempting to sort it out. I ‘moved’ to a different energy provider (continuing to receive my electricity and gas through same cables/pipes with energy sourced from the same power stations/interconnectors of course) and enquired about getting the energy meter to work correctly. But no, though it had only been installed a few months earlier it wasn’t compatible with, well, anything seemingly. They also told me that they couldn’t install a new meter at that point. Who knows why?
I have to admit that I simply gave up at that point.
That tells you all you need to know about the privatisation of the energy sector.
And now, here I am at the office, expecting the phone to ring at any point with somebody from the Indian subcontinent at the other end of the line, asking if we have updated our energy contracts yet. We did so several months ago, yet still these multiple companies phone over and over and over (and over) again. What a shambles of a ‘system’.
He ends by saying Brexit and Trump was a revolt against the elites and demand for change.
To an extent but in neither case was it answer to the real problems. IMHO it was largely an opportunist attempt to deflect from the effects of neo-liberalism and concentrating wealth.
My hope is that when it fails, there be an opportunity for a viable alternative.
I’ve been reading some very interesting work by Mary Parker Follett (written 100 years ago), that says ‘compromise’ is absolutely not what’s needed. What’s needed is ‘creative integration’ – coming up – together- with something better than what every party says they want. It takes participation and effort, but can be done.
“What’s needed is ‘creative integration’ – coming up – together- with something better than what every party says they want. It takes participation and effort, but can be done.”
A perfectly reasonable point, but it also points to the problem this approach glosses. “Participation” requires close, active interaction. There is nothing in our system of government or politics that acknowledges, addresses, still less meets your proposition, at more than a rhetorical level. Compromise is the first step in what will be a long, difficult process, but I do not think ‘creative integration’ is the first step, or even the second step. I consider it a thoughtful idea for development, once there is a usable political foundation for real public engagement; but in the predicament we are in, what you propose is close to ‘Utopian’; a very British leap to an ‘end-game,’ without establishing how we begin, or expressing how we work through the long hard yards to arrive there when there is nothing in our system to accommodate it, and little initiative or precedent to embrace it.
This is what I suddenly see everywhere; everyone rewriting everything. Rewriting is not delivering.
I am all in for Utopia. Nothing less is going to do.
Yes Richard, I’d much rather have evolution instead of revolution but I’m afraid that ship has sailed. It’s going to be revolution in some form, hopefully non-violent (although, internationally, violence is obvious by now even for the most ignorant), but in order to effect the changes needed on many levels we need the utopian view to counter business as usual. This can then, pragmatically if you wish, counter whatever we have now.
My experience is most people simply ignore the tangible outcomes of their own actions, let alone busy themselves with a meta view.
This time I am going to have to disagree with your headline. Most of “the world” had no say in this.
I struggle to agree with ‘the world preferred’ – the very vast majority have never been consulted – it is/has been, an imposition.
It is only necessary to see how, now that we live in a post-industrial economy, actual physical growth in the economy came to a brick wall long ago – and so ‘Zombie Capitalism’ is a construct. The way to ensure the Freeman, Chicago model of Globalisation always wins , and profits forever grow (in the exact form of a cancer, on a finite planet) is achieved by the application of unregulated greed. Literally, the planets’capacity to support life, will be destroyed first, before environmental prudence ever gets a chance. PB
Our Website uses cookies to improve your experience. Please visit our Private: Data Protection & Cookie Policy page for more information about cookies and how we use them.
Buy me a coffee!
Very fair in my view.
A fitting epitaph to his career and perhaps humanity itself.
Zombie capitalism or green New Deal; the lesson is, you have to take people with you. That means you have to listen to people if you wish to achieve anything. Being in office is not being in power; but zombie capitalism can live off sullen acquiescence and political spin, because in office it allows the Right to deliver the quiet reduction of the economy to monopoly rentierism (aka ‘neoliberalism’). Nevertheless, however imperfect democracy is in the West; if you don’t take people with you, you simply don’t achieve anything for them. Taking people with you requires compromise; and that is as big a problem for the Left as the Right (I have said often enough, Left and Right are dead ends; all that should matter is what works). The failure to compromise applies to both Left and Right; but most people who are struggling today do not like being piously lectured by the moral certainties of the self-appointed priesthood of the left (with no demonstrable track record of success in Government since at least 1951 – and the electorate dumped them); about the sacrifices they are being demanded to make now, for the public good, by people they have no good reason to trust (all stick and no carrot).
John,
when you say: “……most people who are struggling today do not like being piously lectured by the moral certainties of the self-appointed priesthood of the left”. Who exactly are you referring to as this “priesthood”? I’m afraid I don’t recognize your vision of a left that won’t compromise. It seems to me that the reason that the voting public seems to prefer zombie capitalism is that the centre ground has shifted so far in the last 50 years, that what passes now for a centre-left party of government (one that’s very fond of phrases such as “grown-up” and “prudent”) is more or less in the same position economically as Thatcher’s governments were in ’79 to ’87.
In other words we vote for change and for a loosening of the neoliberal grip, then find out we’ve bought the same policies, with the same results. If that’s not some sort of compromise, then I don’t know what is. If being lectured on moral certainties means means having it pointed out that almost all of us are getting poorer, while a tiny handful are getting richer and that the world is about to burn up and destroy us, then I think it’s the fault of the media and politics that we don’t seem to be listening.
“….. we vote for change and for a loosening of the neoliberal grip, then find out we’ve bought the same policies, with the same results”.
Time, after time, after time. To whom do I refer? May I rephrase? To whom do I not refer? Offer me one, because I can’t think of one. The electorate voting for the implausible Left, meanwhile are the gullible, feasting at the feet of the insincere; or worse. And for the record (and I realise this may raise a deluge of criticism here), the idea that Corbyn was the answer to the problem was, to me, always quite preposterous. He voted against the EEC in 1975, and since then has been either vaguely pro-Brexit or opted for ambiguous dithering. Perhaps we should ask him where to find £90Bn+ per annum we urgently need – now?
I require to add here that my stance on Brexit is desperate for a compromise; but “compromise” requires content (in spite of the fact that I believe Brexit was insane; both from an economic perspective, and because the EU is primarily a peace project – and Brexit was a political gateway to bullying for Putin – even he could not have believed we could be quite so irresponsible). The Brexit would not have dismissed out a customs union option, or single market membership. It has been relentlessly uncompromising: and has led Britain into ‘splendid isolation’ (but this time, with no Empire to back it up).
‘Deluge of criticism’ – not really.
I don’t think it can be denied that Corbyn at one time was seen as a viable alternative to many voters who detect something wrong with their politics. For me, it was mostly younger people in their 20’s to early 40’s whom I noted were particularly in favour of him. It is a decent indicator that he met an unmet need in politics at the time that remains unmet.
The perceived viability of Corbyn can also be seen in the way that he was taken down both within and without the Labour party. It was hatchet job for sure – very dirty, and when things are that dirty, it is also desperate in my opinion. Someone is scared of the possibilities. The 2017 result and all that.
I’ve watched ‘Nye’ – it is a warm hearted affair and also sentimental. But the NHS that Bevan presided over still did not really sort out how disabled and unemployed people paid for the NHS; and why did they call it ‘national insurance’ when all the wage deduction really is is a qualifying payment so that you can use it? Something else for the Right to abuse.
What I’m saying is that Bevan made his own mistakes, like Corbyn, maybe compromised too much and left the NHS fundamentally weak. What does that say about the Left in general? We know what it says about the venal Right
Now that the Labour seems to no longer wish to rip itself apart about this sad episode we might learn more about what really happened – I think we might be studying the Corbyn episode for some time because whether ‘Left’ or something else, Neo-liberal has an Alien like face-hugging grip on our society that it seems is almost impossible to detach and replace with alternatives.
How we got to way we are today is because of political compromises that have been made in my name. Whether I disagreed or agreed with them was irrelevant. They were made anyway. We have a parliamentary process and members make compromises between each other and form parties and appoint leaders. The problem has been that the 2 large parties in many western democracies that were called the left and the right are as of 2024 virtually identical. Our governments have become highly technocratic. Political compromise is no longer a participatory act of citizens but a collective dictate that cries “there is no alternative”.
Part of why we are here is because our political leaders are poor. Britain had a good run of leaders for about 100 years. That has come to an end. There is nothing wrong complaining about the failings of our leaders. To some it would look like I am taking the moral high road and taking directions from a high priest. I disagree. As a citizen, it is my political duty to point it out. I share a collective responsibility.
Thinking about the film ‘Nye’, I was surprised by how much Aneurin Bevan had to compromise in order to see his vision through. Some of them must have been galling , but in the end…..
In the end it worked
And now you know why I say I am a pragmatist
My negotiating experience says it is required
Thank you and well said, Richard and John S.
With regard to 2008, I was a bankster lobbyist, largely on capital and liquidity, but some conduct risk matters, too, from July 2007 – June 2016 (and since November 2023) and attest to all three lessons. With regard to the first lesson, this is from working in banking since the mid 1990s.
It’s not just timidity. I reckon many on the left are not prepared to learn political economy, call out plain and simple corruption, and be more assertive lobbyists. It’s infuriating how few, if any, on the left have no stock answer to “how are we gonna pay for it” and don’t think there should be one. So often, insider sympathisers* tipped off, provided briefings etc., but leftists, especially trade unionists, were just not interested. Is it too much hard work? *There are many more Gary Stevensons, Kathleen Tysons and Colonel Smithers out there.
@ Richard: I met Larry at the Grauniad in 1995. He helped with my masters on central bank independence. I have his books co-written with Dan Atkinson, who if memory serves is married to another journalist, Sarah Whitebloom. Please give Larry my best wishes and many thanks. One hopes Larry and you will fight the good fight together and be able to enjoy a pint, too.
I am at Larry’s farwell drinks on Wednesday. I will pass on thanks.
I thinj it very unlikely we will end our regualra meet-ups
I have asked if he is interested in appearing in a podcast…
Thank you, Richard. Enjoy.
Not sure “the world preferred it”. The wealthy elites did but the world is another matter.
Quite. My thoughts entirely.
“The trouble was that the world preferred zombie capitalism” to the Green New Deal. No, Richard, I don’t believe that’s true.
As poster Richard Lindlay said above, ‘the word’ is not the Trilateral Commission/WEF/Davos elites. THEY rejected your co-authored GND simply because at that time they were not able to profit from your prescription. In short, the elites, those same forces that have run havoc upon the world for the past half-century had not yet engineered stuff to make sure that they themselves became the main beneficiaries of your GND. COP26, King Charles’ royal decree to instruct BoE to ensure some of the dirtiest banks in the Rothschild-City of London web devise “green financial instruments” /Green Bonds etc. to redirect pension plans and mutual funds towards green projects that benefit the same beneficiaries as non-trickle-down Globalisation.
Grannie/suck eggs time, but if I’d played even a small part in co-authoring the GND, I’d champion it till the day I die and I’d critique every abuse of it by self-serving investors lining it up to be nothing more than a personal/group-interest gravy train.
Not immediately relevant – but Davdi McWilliams reading his history of money on Radio 4 this week.
Hilarious coverage of the smart meter fiasco on BBC Radio Scotland. Basically, smart meters may not work properly (and cost the user a fortune), the further north you live. A domestic smart meter user, trying to use energy efficiently for his electric car finds he is spending a fortune because the smart meter doesn’t work, and his supplier has no solution. nobody is fixing it, he can’t do anything, and when the fact that he lives in the wrong part of Britain for a working service, he said this: “I thought we were supposed to be one United Kingdom”.
Well it is, as long as you are content not to examine closely exactly what it is doing to you, and accept political, rhetorical wallpaper as a substitute for usable policies. And with the price of Brexit at £90Bn+ each and every year, it is only going to become worse.
This morning on BBC Radio Scotland GMS this morning a deeply ignorant and ill-informed BBC interviewer failed to explore a point raised by the Scottish Government spokeswoman at COP29, who unexpectedly raised the important matter of de-coupling gas and electricity prices (a British monopoly market scam); but the hapless interviewer was keen to raise official car use, or badly researched politicised criticisms, to reduce a surprisingly interesting opportunity for discussion, to utter politicised banality. And then at lunchtime, David Porter, BBC journalist cannot being himself to use the post-Brexit word that actually fits British policy (from the experience of everyone in the mess we find ourselves): Isolationism. Asked whether Brexit led to Isolationism, Porter said, it may do for opponents of Brexit, but for supporters it allowed Britain to “go along its own path”, and is “better for the UK”. If it sounds like a duck…………
This is absurd
“the free-market experiment has failed”……..the free market in what – exactly?
Free market in roller-races is working fine, wind turbines – fine, PV panels – cut throat = fine etc etc. I am guessing that the argument applies to “natural” monopolies (or those where it makes sense to have one operator – e.g. rail) water. elec, telecomms (trunk) as well as those where large-scale provision and complex demands means that gov provision makes sense e.g. health (chuck in prisons as well). He cites the closure of factories in the North of England, this was littel to do with “markets” & a great deal to do with the Thatcher/Howe experiment with interest rates – cos as we all know – high interests rates are great for “fighting” inflation (irony alert)).
Neolibtardism has been like an acid – gradually eroding societal structures, it also confuses short-term efficiency with effectiveness – whilst simultaneously failing to recognise that one can, efficienctly do, the wrong thing. The application of some common sense can avoid this. Also the emphasis that “the left” needs to get its act together shows how degraded discussions have become – MacMillan criticised Thatcher for “selling the family silver” – was he left wing? (oh & he built loads of public housing – left wing?). We need to regain control of labels & the narrative.
I think the free-market experiment has been a tremendous success, for those it was supposed to work for: the very wealthy.
Everything else was a distraction.
Trickle-down: just a soundbite.
“Free” markets: just a marketing ploy
Land of opportunity and freedom: for 1% of the rich.
I think more people are starting to catch one, but there is a long way to go.
I had a smart meter installed some years ago. It never worked and the energy co were no use whatsoever in attempting to sort it out. I ‘moved’ to a different energy provider (continuing to receive my electricity and gas through same cables/pipes with energy sourced from the same power stations/interconnectors of course) and enquired about getting the energy meter to work correctly. But no, though it had only been installed a few months earlier it wasn’t compatible with, well, anything seemingly. They also told me that they couldn’t install a new meter at that point. Who knows why?
I have to admit that I simply gave up at that point.
That tells you all you need to know about the privatisation of the energy sector.
And now, here I am at the office, expecting the phone to ring at any point with somebody from the Indian subcontinent at the other end of the line, asking if we have updated our energy contracts yet. We did so several months ago, yet still these multiple companies phone over and over and over (and over) again. What a shambles of a ‘system’.
He ends by saying Brexit and Trump was a revolt against the elites and demand for change.
To an extent but in neither case was it answer to the real problems. IMHO it was largely an opportunist attempt to deflect from the effects of neo-liberalism and concentrating wealth.
My hope is that when it fails, there be an opportunity for a viable alternative.
I think he ends by saying we need a new narrative.
“Taking people with you requires compromise”
I’ve been reading some very interesting work by Mary Parker Follett (written 100 years ago), that says ‘compromise’ is absolutely not what’s needed. What’s needed is ‘creative integration’ – coming up – together- with something better than what every party says they want. It takes participation and effort, but can be done.
https://www.newsfromnowhere.co.uk/page/detail/Creative-Experience/?K=BDZ0043686822
https://www.newsfromnowhere.co.uk/page/detail/The-New-State/?ISB=9780343586003
https://www.newsfromnowhere.co.uk/page/detail/Dynamic-Administration/?k=BDZ0022164144
She was writing about systems thinking before the words were there to describe it.
Ideas worth exploring and I would think of interest to readers of this blog.
Thanks
“What’s needed is ‘creative integration’ – coming up – together- with something better than what every party says they want. It takes participation and effort, but can be done.”
A perfectly reasonable point, but it also points to the problem this approach glosses. “Participation” requires close, active interaction. There is nothing in our system of government or politics that acknowledges, addresses, still less meets your proposition, at more than a rhetorical level. Compromise is the first step in what will be a long, difficult process, but I do not think ‘creative integration’ is the first step, or even the second step. I consider it a thoughtful idea for development, once there is a usable political foundation for real public engagement; but in the predicament we are in, what you propose is close to ‘Utopian’; a very British leap to an ‘end-game,’ without establishing how we begin, or expressing how we work through the long hard yards to arrive there when there is nothing in our system to accommodate it, and little initiative or precedent to embrace it.
This is what I suddenly see everywhere; everyone rewriting everything. Rewriting is not delivering.
True
I am all in for Utopia. Nothing less is going to do.
Yes Richard, I’d much rather have evolution instead of revolution but I’m afraid that ship has sailed. It’s going to be revolution in some form, hopefully non-violent (although, internationally, violence is obvious by now even for the most ignorant), but in order to effect the changes needed on many levels we need the utopian view to counter business as usual. This can then, pragmatically if you wish, counter whatever we have now.
My experience is most people simply ignore the tangible outcomes of their own actions, let alone busy themselves with a meta view.
This time I am going to have to disagree with your headline. Most of “the world” had no say in this.
I struggle to agree with ‘the world preferred’ – the very vast majority have never been consulted – it is/has been, an imposition.
It is only necessary to see how, now that we live in a post-industrial economy, actual physical growth in the economy came to a brick wall long ago – and so ‘Zombie Capitalism’ is a construct. The way to ensure the Freeman, Chicago model of Globalisation always wins , and profits forever grow (in the exact form of a cancer, on a finite planet) is achieved by the application of unregulated greed. Literally, the planets’capacity to support life, will be destroyed first, before environmental prudence ever gets a chance. PB