I recorded a podcast with Tony Groves and Martin McMahon from the Echo Chamber Podcast in Ireland yesterday, which I do every few weeks or so. This is now published, but only for subscribers.
These discussions often centre on the state of UK politics and what might be done about it. This time we got to asking the question, given the state of what they call the uniparty in Ireland, and we call the single transferable party on this blog, what is it that any party actually needs to do to succeed?
That was not asked in the narrow sense of what is required to get elected on the back of slick marketing. Instead, it was about how to build a genuine, sustainable political consensus that actually improves lives by delivering policy intended to meet the needs of real people.
The aim would be to rediscover politics that actually engages people by breaking the total disconnection between politics as seen in both Dublin and Westminster, which in both places is currently all about power games that are unrelated to real lives, and which people know to be fabrications in which they have no interest
What we recognised was that after decades of neoliberal politics, the very idea that the state should actively deliver for people seems to have been lost. Yet that connection is precisely what is essential for any party to secure durable support now. In that case, let me explain what I think is required.
First, politics must put people at its heart. This sounds obvious. It should be. However, it has not been the case for years. Instead, we have endured governments obsessed with markets, debt ratios, bond yields, and a grotesque managerialism that treats citizens as units to be administered, not people to be cared for. Any successful political movement must reverse this. People are the point of politics.
Second, a decent society meets people's needs from cradle to grave. That should, I think, start with education. In saying so, this is not about perpetuating a marketplace of fragmented academies competing for advantage or saddling young people with debt; it should instead be about providing education that is free, excellent, and accessible to all, especially when young, but throughout life as well. We invest in children not just because it's fair, but because it is the only route to a productive, creative, and confident society. Any politician who actually believes in the long-term well-being of their community would put this at the heart of their policy.
Third, though, this makes no sense without a policy to deliver affordable, secure, and safe housing for all. Housing should be a human right. The market will never deliver this on its own. It has instead delivered rentierism, insecurity, mould, overcrowding, and homelessness. A successful political programme must embrace public intervention, massive investment in social housing, rent regulation, and quality standards that guarantee dignity. Only if people know that they have the security of living in a community amongst people they can get to know and trust, and where a family can live without the fear of eviction, through no fault of their own, can they really prosper. That is why housing policy is essential: there is no society without it.
Fourth, it means health care for all, truly free at the point of need and without profit interests distorting what care is available. This should not be controversial. Yet we see creeping privatisation and the erosion of services due to underfunding. A civilised society ensures that nobody fears falling ill because they cannot afford treatment, or waits in pain because the system is broken, but that is what we are getting used to, which is an insidious policy to create acceptance of privatisation by stealth. This has to end..
Fifth, it means ensuring that work pays enough to support a decent standard of living. That means a minimum wage that is genuinely sufficient for people to live on with security and dignity, and not just scraping by. It also means a benefits system designed to do the same, rather than one rigged to punish, degrade, and drive people into desperation.
Sixth, it means guaranteeing people's security in old age. It is no good guaranteeing people the right to sufficient to live on during their working lives if they face an old age blighted by poverty, as far too many do now. A state pension that is actually enough to live on should be non-negotiable. It is remarkable that in one of the richest countries on earth, we have pensioners choosing between heat and food. That is not the hallmark of a prosperous or decent society.
Seventh, it means providing social care for all who need it. We have known this for decades, yet governments of all stripes have ducked the responsibility, outsourcing misery to families and low-paid care workers. A proper social care system is essential if we are to offer freedom from fear and dignity to the elderly and vulnerable.
Of course, more than this is essential, but without these building blocks, nothing else - including prosperity for anyone - can be created. This is what I see as political reality, although almost every existing politician promotes the claim that we must build prosperity first and only then can we afford such things. To be blunt, they have the cart and horse the wrong way round, which shows how little they know about driving the real economy.
In summary, a successful political party will be one that makes people feel secure or as Nye Bevan would have put it, free from fear. That is the common thread running through all these essentials. Security from cradle to grave. Security in knowing that your children will be educated, that you will have a roof over your head, that you will be cared for if ill, that your work will support you, that old age will not mean poverty, that you will be looked after if you become frail. In short, that you can live without fear.
So what does this demand of our politics?
It demands abandoning the neoliberal obsession with shrinking the state.
It requires recognising that only collective provision — through the state, funded by its own money creation, supported by fair taxation — can deliver these guarantees.
It means rejecting the idea that we can marketise or privatise our way to security.
It also requires ending the absurd fiscal rules that treat balanced budgets as more important than balanced lives.
And it demands honesty with the electorate. We can afford these things. We can have the resources to deliver all that we need, even if some might take a while to create, meaning that this cannot happen overnight. What we lack is the political will and the imagination to break free of failed orthodoxies.
In conclusion, if any political party wishes to truly succeed — not just scrape by, but build lasting loyalty and transform this country — it must make the promise that it will put people first, meet their needs from cradle to grave, and offer them freedom from fear.
That is the standard by which they should be appraised. It is also, I suspect, the standard by which most people would wish to appraise them, if only someone were brave enough to offer it.
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!
I like the phrase “balanced lives not balance budgets”!
Perhaps you should share this blog with Jeremy Corbyn & Zarah Sultana as part of the political building blocks for their new progressive political party?
They know where I am
Richard, couldn’t agree more.
It is as close to the kind of manifesto that I would vote for that I have seen in a long time.
I do recognise that it takes a massive shift in political thinking and courage, e.g., as previously commented with regards to Tim White’s article on properties being owned by, and thus, made unaffordable for many people, by financial institutions.
Sadly, I don’t see that courage or interest in putting people at the heart of a manifesto being present in our current UK government. They don’t even have the courage to nationalise Thames Water! And worse, they seem to be actively targeting those least ‘well-off’ in society…pensioners, the disabled, long-term ill, etc., and, the most unconscionable of all, children afflicted by poverty.
Thanks
This, from the Guardian, illustrates how successive parties in government are transforming lives:
“Children in England are living in “almost Dickensian levels of poverty” where deprivation has become normalised, the children’s commissioner has said, as she insisted the two-child benefit limit must be scrapped.
Young people said they had experienced not having enough water to shower, rats biting through their walls, and mouldy bedrooms, among a number of examples in a report on the “crisis of hardship” gripping the country.”
And
“Children shared harrowing accounts of hardship, with some in almost Dickensian levels of poverty,” she said. “They don’t talk about ‘poverty’ as an abstract concept but about not having the things that most people would consider basic: a safe home that isn’t mouldy or full or rats, with a bed big enough to stretch out in, ‘luxury’ food like bacon, a place to do homework, heating, privacy in the bathroom and being able to wash, having their friends over, and not having to travel hours to school.”
Meanwhile, LINO’s wealthy friends and benefactors are doing just fine – so that’s alright.
Liberal Democrat constitution begins by saying:
“The Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity.”
There’s more at https://www.libdems.org.uk/values
It seems like a good starting point. It would be nice to see politicians exercise those values in government.
Education is perhaps one area where significant savings could be made while providing less debt burden to students.
Not everyone needs a university campus setting to learn. Socially, it’s great, but for building a high skill economy it’s somewhat non-essential.
More support should be offered for part time and distance learning routes where suitable for courses. Change needs to accept these, too – for example ending most medical degree courses simply not accepting Access To Higher Education Diplomas.
That would improve full access to qualification by those with disabilities or care commitments, too.
The government would do well to realise the best savings are not ones where it cuts and hopes the collateral damage isn’t too high, but instead where it uses technologies and both new and existing systems to improve the system while also saving money.
Why would you end medical degrees? That is a very weird suggestion undermining what else you say.
“Change needs to accept these, too – for example ending most medical degree courses simply not accepting Access To Higher Education Diplomas.”
I read that sentence differently, I think. To paraphrase David’s sentence into how I interpreted it:
Access To Higher Education Diplomas are simply not accepted for admission to medical degree courses, and that exclusion should end. Change is needed for institutions to accept these qualifications.
I hope that’s a reasonable take on what David was saying.
Ah….
Given that many got elected over ‘dog shit’ politics I wonder of the Lib Dems might manage to take any of this on board?
Interesting thread here on ‘post school’ education
We need Civilian employers who can help their employees achieve the same
https://x.com/RNPedro87/status/1942231775167586528
I joined without GCSEs. I’m leaving just shy of becoming a Doctor. Chartered Engineer. First Sealord’s Fellow. Decorated by IET and IMechE. MSc, BEng and a PhD in AI and autonomy—earned while using that same kit on operations in the Middle East.
Congratulations, and so much to agree with.
Richard all of this is possible but is there anyone brave enough to take on fight for the better good. I have been reading about the glorious middle ages with tolerable taxes, no state debt and no interest to pay. England enjoyed an unparalleled growth and prosperity. On average a labourer worked only 14 weeks a year (imagine) and enjoyed 160-180 days holiday. They could provide for all the necessities for their family. they were well clothed and had plenty of meat and bread. During their spare hours many volunteered to build many of the magnificent cathedrals in England.
I think my point being ( I am no historian) that there has been many in power who have fought for the poor ,Julius Caeser introduced social reforms and monetary reforms to help the poor but he was murdered for this as did Louis XIV and Napoleon but again neither ended well. When our system is so complicated and not transparent and set up to gain the very wealthy how on earth do we change systems which are historical when the banking system and now our political system is set up not to make the world a better place for the many but for the few wealthy.
William Cobbett 1763-1835 a parliamentarian perceived what was going on and wrote ” I set to read the Act of parliament by which the bank of England was created. The investors knew what they were all about. Their design was to mortgage by degrees the whole country, lands, houses, property, labour. The scheme has produced what the world never saw before – starvation in the midst of abundance.
I have to say that is a rose tinted view of the middle ages
I agree …. But it’s worth fighting for
All of your points above , can be answered with “how are we going to pay for it”.
That is the line that has been rammed into our psyche for at least 40 years, to such an extent, that it is nearly an unshakable belief. Any new politics/politician who wishes to move forward with those suggestions above, must destroy this myth and bury it forever, as a first step. I suggest this because I see it as the dam that is holding back change.
Once the population understands that “we can’t afford it” really means “we don’t want to”, the old ways can finally be swept aside, and new politics can begin.
We pay for it by doing it
It really is that easy
And what do we give up to do it?
We give up rentierism
“Does it make the world a better place to live in?” is my challenge to any politician or ideology.
Sadly, at present, the answer from the corridors of power seems to be “Shut up, and get back to work!”.
For those who want to understand the size and scale of the struggle we face in recreating Government so that its primary goal is to care for people rather than protect financial assets, just have a look at Overseas Aid. Its budget is being slashed from around £15Bn to about £9Bn by 2027. Compare and contrast this with the interest the Government is paying to wealthy overseas holders of UK Gilts. Along with total HMG interest payments, it has risen hugely over the years and I believe is currently running at over £30Bn a year, and it’s tax free. Where is the accountability for this? Where is the democratic oversight?
Thank you for this Richard. It is an accurate and succinct account of what government should be. “Politics must put people at its heart”. “It means abandoning the neoliberal obsession with shrinking the state”.
Just seeing this in print gives me hope just as the rise of Corbynism gave me hope.
I came into this world with the NHS; I don’t want us to go out together.
It is no exaggeration to say I am scared. I hope the new left party being planned seeks out your assistance.
Agreed. We also need politicians that are up to the task. We are cursed with puerile, inexperienced shameless self-promotors or, as someone said in one of your previous blogs I think, mediocre brand managers. We don’t need any more PPE graduates. We need more Nye Bevans.
I could not agree more about a politics that meets need. But will we be allowed to have it?
Meanwhile, I have had my order for Alex Nunn’s book ‘Sabotage!’ (about Corbyn’s tenure as Labour leader) delayed again and indeed one website says publication has been ‘abandoned’.
Does anyone know anything?
It is now listed for January 2026.
Blackwells just told me it has been abandoned and my “pre-order” was therefore cancelled.
Maybe Mr Nunns can tell us what is going on?
Try Amazon! If a book is available, Amazon (at least in the USA) will have it.
I doubt Amazon refuses to sell anything.
Amazon in USA has the book listed as “Out of Print”.
See USA Amazon link below. Hope it works.
https://www.amazon.com/Sabotage-Inside-Brought-Jeremy-Corbyn/dp/1682192881/ref=sr_1_16?dib=eyJ2IjoiMSJ9.X9yZ7Q7Xi0lmZPBV_q7TmX4dpWOUECThopFAyl1tvCUgVokwXt8qi-dOQIxhNJN6-j_-HnjyYVfZKu0nezSbUC2_7NBeug-fUHSpIbBfSuhAJPFm4bAUZHVQJadmLGbkoj5LzIEHD_Sha9PrU2FOPtJsX2cQocjDtGaM6NpjfzSXeax-RCWO6TIWRqL06HRfzUK8DbfTVQzkUNhTGkHhew.kZKmY7BDs81e90C0ab_10Oj65CTfhTS1PZJedHbGuWU&dib_tag=se&qid=1751985416&refinements=p_27%3AAlex+Nunns&s=books&sr=1-16
What a political party actually does is very much determined by how it gets its money. Currently all parties depends on large donors. As Peter Oborne recently said the Labour party under Corbyn existed by the money coming from it’s members. Such a party can therefore develop policies that are not beholding to what large donors wants. This scared the hell out of the Establishment. The destruction of that party after the close election of 2017 became a necessity.
The Labour Party now has gone back to the donor format.
So can a new Party now grow membership wise to be unafraid of its policies and eventually get into government or will it simply exist as a protest party. Many say this is only possible with PR where governments exist with perhaps only even 25% of the vote. (although probably in pacts with other not so radical parties) It’s a big question which perhaps is going to happen soon.unfolding at the moment but how do we get PR
There is a good argument for having the government fund political parties directly.
The amount they receive would be proportional to vote share, although it is hard to work out how it could work for a new party.
All such issues can be overcome. The Electoral Reform society (I am a member) has worked in this.
Nicely put, Richard. Agree 100%.
Might I add something?
It is about stance. The new politics needs a stance of demanding ways of operations with ceilings and floors for the behaviour off all actors. We already have the “if you want to use the money you have to pay tax”.! I suggest for companies something like. “If you are requesting the privilege of selling to the people and making profits, then you are required to participate in ensuring the general good of said people”.
If your business uses ecosystems then you are required to keep them at a healthy level, indeed restore them if not.
If you as a business or consumer use products of wood then you are required, through taxes or surcharges on the product, to contribute to the preservation of the forests from whence they came.
If you have the privilege of selling products to our people then you are required to maintain the life of these product up to best available technique.
Etc etc.
This is a stance so opposite neoliberalism it might galvanize opinion.