I am bored by politicians who pretend that there are ‘isms' that create political divides in the UK. There aren't. All our political parties are virtually interchangeable. In that case, let's talk about meeting needs, not political point-scoring.
This is the audio version:
This is the transcript:
I don't believe in ‘isms', and I think I need to explain what I mean because nobody talks about ‘isms', but they do talk about socialism, and they do talk about capitalism, and they do talk about other ideologies, and I'm not interested in ideologies in that sense.
Why not? Because I now see them as harmful.
Our politics has become obsessed by binary position-taking. In other words, capitalism is opposed to socialism. But when you look at it, the supposedly capitalist parties in the UK aren't really promoting capitalism to the exclusion of all else because by definition, politicians want to be in government, and therefore they aren't opposed to the existence of government because they want to run and control it. And, as we have seen from decades of Tory party rule, whenever they get into office, they don't shrink the size of government very much because they discover it's really rather useful.
And the same is true of supposed socialists. They don't believe in the ownership and control of all the means of production by the people who work for the organisations in question because, first of all, that would exclude those who don't work, and that wouldn't be fair, and secondly, because there isn't a mechanism to do this that we know about which would be fair because private business clearly has a role to play in our society. Some people don't want to work for others. They do want to work for themselves. They can create ideas. They do create employment opportunities and so on.
And there aren't really, therefore, any socialists in the sense of people who believe in this idea of the ownership and control of all the resources of society by workers in any great number in the UK anymore.
So why do we then have ‘isms'? Well, it's a very good question because as far as I can see this whole mantra of “I'm on the left” and “I'm on the right” and “We're never going to agree on anything” - it's all a complete sham and charade. The reality is that both Labour and Conservatives - and throw into this mix if you wish, the SNP in Scotland, who obviously run a government, and the Lib Dems, who would love to run a government but haven't done so for over a century - and they all basically believe in the same thing - that we have a mixed economy where we find the compromises to make things work.
Therefore, all the ideologies, except perhaps around Scottish independence, that those parties actually pronounce about are really pretty superfluous because they don't actually identify anything. except points on which these politicians like to nitpick with each other.
I don't know about you, but I'm fed up with politicians who nitpick with each other over these ideological points.
I'm bored by the gameplay that goes on when it is claimed that the free market provides solutions when there's no such thing as a free market.
And I'm as bored by those who claim that the free market is the enemy of everything that is good because private enterprise can be of benefit.
I'm not worried about those fights because they're meaningless. What I am worried about is the fact that people are not getting the homes they need, the incomes they need, the jobs that they need, the support for their children that they need, the care that they need, the healthcare that they need, the justice that they need. Those are the things that matter.
Now, in politics, we don't need to worry about the ‘isms', is my point. Those ‘isms' are actually harming the delivery of what we need. The politicians might want to play games around their ideology. But I want to talk about practicality. If we have good housing, good healthcare, good social care, good justice systems, and everything else that I've just mentioned, we can afford the luxury of a discussion about the idealistic, ideological solutions to the purity of the world, which politicians like to debate. They can then go away and play around those issues wherever they wish. But the precondition is that they've solved those other problems. And right now, they'd rather play with the ‘isms' than actually deliver what we need in reality.
And that's why I say I'm not interested in ‘isms' anymore. Because I believe that the truth is that a mixed economy, based upon meeting need is what every political party in the UK is eventually going to be about if we are to actually get what the people of this country want. And therefore, let's stop pretending that we disagree with each other, and instead let's discuss what it is that we need to make our priorities.
I can accept political difference between those who think that net zero is more important than economic growth.
I can accept a difference between those who think that education has a higher priority than healthcare.
Those are points of practical choice which all management systems will require people to decide upon.
But to pretend that ideology actually answers those questions is absurd. Those are practical appraisals of the allocation of resources within a society. And so I'm looking for politicians who understand that we, as 67 million people in the UK, can create enough wealth to sustain ourselves. We don't need to look outside.
We might occasionally need to bring in some people who've got abilities that we don't seem to have in sufficient amount.
We might want to provide the opportunity for people to invest in this country, the same as we might want opportunity to invest elsewhere.
But at the end of the day, we as a country are going to be responsible for our own well-being. And with that many people and the financial resources that this country has, we could make the choices to deliver and meet the real needs of people in this country. But getting waylaid by ideological purity is something that will always prevent that. And therefore, let's concentrate on delivery, on needs, and then enjoy the luxury of having a philosophical debate. But let's make needs come first.
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 sounds as if you are coming round to a mixed European health care system which meets needs and is much less socialist than the English or Scottish one. If so Fuiyoh!
Don’t be stupid. Of course I am not.
It’s a complete misrepresentation to write of a ‘European health care system which is much less socialist than the English’. I live in France and am in the French health system (actually I’m now ‘S1’ so I’m also in the NHS). First, there is no pan-European health care system – each country is significantly different. Second, the French system is very different from the British – most clearly in the fact that it’s ‘the other way up’ – not free at the point of use but all significant costs reimbursed by the state – except that it’s all done electronically so you never actually pay out. The French system I would say is more ‘socialist’ than the NHS in that it offers more comprehensive state cover, especially in areas like dentistry. For example, if I go to my French GP, I pay a small proportion of the cost – but my prescription is state-funded, so it generally costs LESS overall than going to an NHS GP. Many people have ‘top-up’ insurance for the small percentage not covered by the state, and for extras like designer glasses, but this is almost universally provided by good old-fashioned socialist mutuals (as are almost all financial services in France) – and which are also state-backed for people on low incomes, so they pay nothing. And most importantly, all serious or long-term illness is ‘ALD’ – 100% state-funded. It’s a good system – but one that could not work in the UK precisely because the anglo-sphere’s rabid privatisers have gutted its mutual sector – and much of its NHS.
Thanks
I’m currently resident in Germany (but am in the process of moving to France) and am also S1 so get the benefit of very speedy and very high quality healthcare paid for by the NHS. I’ve never had to wait more than 2 days to see a GP or more than 2 weeks to see a consultant or have a scan etc. Yes it’s insurance based but nothing like the American system. It is a statutory requirement to have health insurance and those that are unemployed or are on welfare are automatically covered. The rate for those in employment is 14.6% of gross income and is capped at around gross earnings of €5175 per month. Half is paid by the employer so the actual contribution is 7.3% of gross earnings. Basically it’s a ring fenced tax paid direct to one of the many health insurance companies and not the government. German healthcare spending as a share of GDP 2023 was 12.8% – €5939 (£4945) per head. The UK for the same period was 10.9% and £3268. That’s £1677 (34%) per head less.
“I don’t believe in ‘isms’, ”
What about neoliberalism?
Of course I don’t believe in it
Of course you don’t ‘believe in’ neoliberalism as it is a flawed concept. But you do believe it exists, as it so obviously does.
It mnight exist
But it does not deliver any answers – and nor do the other isms
I am saying I want actions.
Thank you for a most pertinent article!
“Governance success is not a matter of mastering subtle, sophisticated theory but rather of embracing reality based common sense with uncommon levels of unselfish self-discipline, persistence, knowledge and alertness.”
(From Patrick Lancini)
My suggestion is that we need to be thinking much more about ‘outcomes’ when we know what we want, schools, hospitals, public transport etc we then have to decide the best way of providing those services
In practice that will be the mixed economy, the private sector will build the buildings, buses etc and the public sector will run them
in other words, John, what Richard calls political economy. What do we want and then how do we do it?
Even the socialist Atlee government drew on the work of Beveridge and Keynes, both Liberal party supporters.
Such an approach means compromise and negotiation. Ideologues tend not to be good at that. They prefer to posture.
The real heroes, I have found, tend to be quieter.
On the whole I agree with your point which to me is really a failure of Liberal politics, under the faulty flag of ‘egalitarianism’ – that is that each person is assumed to have social equality and equal rights and this means the ideas that come with them as well. But we know the old saying ‘Some are more equal than others’.
This is a blind spot because it ignores power imbalances that are created by money-wealth and pretends that there is equal and fair competition for ideas and that what we have now – the badly functioning society society you mention in this reflective post – is a result of that, that somehow, that’s just how things turned out – naturally of course (like saying that people ‘naturally’ moved away from public transport to the car, when we know what actually happened to public transport).
I’m not saying that Liberalism is necessarily weak or bad; I’m saying that it has propensity to be badly used, awarding moral rights to bad actors and turbo-charging their ideas – the big idea being greed.
Egalitarianism should be as you say – a result, an objective, axiomatic and not just an idea as we seem satisfied for it to exist as such and nothing more, and instead as a reality or as an end result in our hospitals, old people’ homes, prisons towns and cities. But these places are where it really counts.
Your comments on socialism are also noted – an ism that is too concerned perhaps with materialism whereas egalitarianism pretends it does not exist. The material instincts of modern socialism deny its very existence and its potential to unify. The Left’s problems to me are summed up in this exchange between two characters created by John le Carre below.
Roy Bland: You’re an educated sort of a swine. “An artist is a bloke who can hold two fundamentally opposing views and still function.” Who dreamed that one up?
George Smiley: Scott Fitzgerald.
Roy Bland: Well, Fitzgerald knew a thing or two. And I’m definitely functioning. As a good socialist, I’m going where the money is; as a good capitalist, I’m sticking with the revolution, because if you can’t beat it, spy on it! Don’t look like that, George. It’s the name of the game these days. You scratch my conscience, I’ll drive your Jag, right?
But if there is one ‘ism’ Richard that dominates all the others in our time, then it is Cynicism. It seems to be everywhere.
To muse on….
What I’m trying to say is that I understand where you are coming from but also trying assert that the ‘isms’ are still very powerful and still worth talking about. Politics however seems stuck in an intermediate or meso stage of ‘analysis’, without doing a meta or final analysis of what is actually happening. As has been pointed out elsewhere on this blog, a lot of the people behind this have no real connection to real people and are out of touch with reality.
This is because they are rich and are strongly influencing politics with their money and their very narrow field of view. This is why the rich need to be curtailed.
I get your point. But what I see is a focus on ‘isms’. This is not just iun academia, whre little else matters, and realutyt is very largely ignored, but also in the ral world.
I am, of coruse, ethically motivated.
Some might say I subscribe to an ‘sim’, although I cannot say what it is. Farnessism would be my suggestion.
And what I know is that discussing the ‘isms’ solves nothing. It’s all rhetoric and that does not change lives. A commitment to on the ground justice does. That so hapens to require reduce inequality, a fosus on those with least, and delivery for them. That’s what matters.
I remember back in the 60s being told we can’t have equality and equality of opportunity. And even then opportunities were not equal., but they were more equal . I trained as a teacher with no fees and a grant. More people had a chance of further and higgher education than they ever had before. Higher taxation meant fewer mega-rich who have IMO overall, a bad effect on society. Those who had little did have support. I think we have worse poverty , poorer health and less chance of owning a home than we did then.
No society is perfect or could be, but we could do a lot more to protect people from the abuses of power and inequality. That isn’t just about state action such as Keynesian type-distribution and anti-discrimination laws but also a more general sense that we are citizens with responsibilities towards one another.
Whether we call those things liberal vales, or socialist or social democratic ( my preferred term) is less important than what we do.
My whole point is it is what we do that matters.
I broadly agree that we should be wary of those who seek to sow divisions in society, and action in favour of the common good is more important than allegiance to words which divide us. However, I’m not sure ‘what works’ is itself a useful, neutral term. What works for some may be anathema to others, for example, autocracy and kleptocracy seem to ‘work’ for Trump & co. and Tony Blair was fond of ‘what works’, but that was a cover for neoliberalism. Whilst your usage of the term certainly implies ‘what works for the common good’, that isn’t an objective apparently shared by the political classes of many countries, including the UK.
All these ‘isms’ are very old now. How relevant are they to the modern world. We should really be picking ideas that work, with proven outcomes. Every pound spend on rail yields two pounds in economic return, for example, so why don’t we invest more in rail, why is it left to markets? A lot of politicians are ideology based, not evidence based. It seems like they are indoctrinated into ideologies, not evidence based thinking.
One of the criticisms of Stammer is he lacks any political beliefs, for example there are no deeply held values that guide him to acknowledge the two child benefit cap is wrong. Is ideology not just a framework where these beliefs and values hang together in a coherent format. Even with an ideological basis you can still be pragmatic, although I accept many will become too dogmatic about their “Ism”.
Richard you are absolutely right, in the UK no political party is prepared to say we can improve the lot of the UK’s ordinary population and here’s how we will do it.
Instead they only offer “reasons” why it cannot/will not be done.
Doing nothing is likely to result in the further drift rightwards to the strongman/strongwoman ruler.
People like labels, it enables them to impose a pre-defined set of attributes onto others.
For example: I have been in business (software and electronics) for over 40 years – inventing stuff, making it and selling it world-wide.
I have enjoyed the fruits of my labour and I have provided decent employment for hundreds of others round the world. An incredibly low churn of staff would seem to indicate they feel reasonably happy and they know I care about them (without being patronising).
I am slightly weird, I have never borrowed and the business grew by re-investment.
What does that make me – a capitalist?
No. I don’t trust capitalism as far as I can throw it and I don’t store my money in stocks and shares. I have had many, many negotiations with people who think they are the bee’s knees of capitalists (especially in the USA) and, because my eyes have always been wide open and I can understand the way they think, I have always managed to come on top (though I prefer to negotiate for “win, win” where both sides are happy. I want people to be happy.)
I happen to be a fully training International Socialist cadre – from the mid 1970s onwards..
That experience, along with an understanding of the normal distribution from empathy to psychopathy, has been the biggest asset in my business success.
I am a person who believes passionately in fairness – and we live in an unfair society primarily because our governments have never been willing to do anything about our unfair distribution of wealth – which is why I promote Land Value Tax (landvaluetax.co.uk) as first step towards curing many of our social ills.
I am happy with being called a socialist (which, to me, doesn’t mean what you think it means), or capitalist, but essentially I am just a caring human being – and an atheIST, secularIST and humanIST!
So, don’t jump to conclusions about labels and “isms”. It is what people do that counts, not what they claim to believe or what they say. Caring and fairness are what counts!
Mike
My whole point is isms have become an excuse for inaction – and that is the problem with them.
Richard
For many years I have described myself as an anti-ismist.
I like the paradoxical nature of the term and perhaps also of the philosophical position it describes.
One could argue that the current government lacks any “ism”, any vision of how to make our society fairer.
“Conservatism” means what it says – retaining the status quo, changing as little as possible, “Sod you, I’m alright Jack!”
Things do require a high level view of the world and such views do tend to become “isms”. If you don’t have that high level vision, how do you create the specific tasks required to get there?
I find it very hard to get passionate about “growth” and “change” because they mean nothing. I get very passionate about wanting to create a fairer society, a level playing field, equal opportunities for all, an end to silver spoons etc. It’s all on the “Fairness, equality and silver spoons” page of landvaluetax.co.uk.
Your point about “action” is an excellent one – but what does one “do”?
I put a clothes peg on my nose and joined the local Labour Party about six months before Corbyn became leader. I, along with the local “socialist” secretary, tried to “get things done”, to submit policies to national conference (some arrived in the now abandoned 2017 manifesto), to insist on the right to choose our own parliamentary candidate etc. When Starmer came along I, and the secretary, stood up and warned them about what was going to happen – a passion free and policy free zone. We were shouted down. We left.
So, knowing exactly what to “do” is hard., Yes, a new party would be great – but it also requires a new charismatic, media-friendly leader – and there are no candidates!
The current government is neoliberal to its core – denying it has the task of doing anything.
I think your position in regards the welfare of citizens as paramount is ‘socialist’ in the full meaning of prioritising social benefit for all, hence your seeming support for state ownership and control (national or local) of key services (water, health etc). I can understand avoidance of pejorative usage of terms, but you are clearly on the side of provision and regulation for the benefit of all.
Because it works
Hayek championed public planning as a method to create competition. There is no competition among water companies. They plan to prevent competition. So the government must step in.
I would be happy with a “balanced” or “mixed” economy IF the balance leaned firmly to the Left ie. a society in which the major activities/industries/ services were publicly owned and run. ( Choose your own organisational structure. A variety is available and the debate about the role of democratic public control versus control by experts and technocrats could become the basis of stimulating politics of the future.) If the minor role of small businesses is allowed to expand,with a concomitant increase in the wealth available to this small minority of individuals, we could see a steady transition to our current situation where the private wealth of a few dominates the planet and the idea that things might be organised more democratically is regarded as impossibly exotic. After all, isn’t that the story of the post-1945 world? The deliberate shifting of the balance from a form of mixed economy to a different mix with the oligarchs in control.
My main concern is the trend towards Fasc-ism. The outcome being the scrapping of democracy. Democracy is far from perfect but it is all we have got. The world seems to want to recreate the 1930s. Deeply worrying.