John Harris is on a good run of form in The Guardian of late. In his column this morning, he talks about the existence of what I might call, but he does not explicitly, ‘Glastonbury England'. He is quite specific about this being an English phenomenon.
I do not wish to overquote from what he wrote, so let me summarise this suggestion. What he is saying is that there is an unrepresented majority within England, at least, at present. They are searching for a decent form of politics which, as he put it, would be somewhere between the opinions of Ed Davey and Caroline Lucas.
In support of this contention, he notes:
Much as opinion polling remains a somewhat dismal and unreliable science, there are plenty of issue-specific statistics that paint the same picture. Even if they are presented as a way of somehow getting people into work, 40% of us are against new limitations on disability benefits. Despite politicians' reluctance to say so, 45% of British adults think Israel's actions in Gaza are genocidal. Forty-nine percent of people “strongly support” a wealth tax. Contrary to the idea that everyone outside London, Manchester and Bristol has an essentially Farage-ist view of human movement, 45% of us think that immigration into the UK should either increase or stay the same. Sixty-one percent of people either strongly or “somewhat” support the government's net zero target, with only 12% ticking the “strongly oppose” box.
He then adds:
Despite Reform UK's apparent monopoly on explanations for our fragmenting party system, all this is central to why everything is in such a massive state of flux. The Lib Dems are now almost neck and neck with the Tories in the polls. The Greens are now steady, on about 10% – a figure that would surely rocket upwards if they improved their dire PR skills. Moreover, adding these parties' share of support with Labour's usually gets you close to 50%, which only highlights how misplaced the popular idea of a seethingly reactionary country irrevocably on the path to a Reform UK government really is.
This majority are not, in other words, in Harris's opinion, possessed of anything like the right-wing opinion that Reform, the Tories, and much of Labour would like to represent us to have. Far from it, in fact, because as Harris notes, based on evidence, at least half of the UK is on the left of centre politically, albeit not radically so.
What people want is not hard to summarise. They want fairness and justice. They think there should be a proper social safety net. They believe in state services. They want a future that those who deny climate change are seeking to deny them. They recognised the importance of coexisting with their neighbours. More than that, they do not wish them to be subject to prejudice. They believe that everyone should contribute in a fair way. They actually believe that contributing is important because what the government does is of value. That is why they wish that it were done well, and that those who work for it are fairly rewarded. They do not have a dogmatic belief in the state versus markets, but they most certainly believe that markets also have a very positive role to play so long as they are appropriately regulated. They cannot be described as neoliberal as a result.
None of this should come as any great surprise to anybody who spends their time walking about and talking to people about what they really believe. John Harris might be right: it might be that Glastonbury happens to bring together such people in a particularly concentrated way, but they exist in every town, city, village, and community in the UK, because to think like this makes sense, and more than that, it is just normal.
I see nothing wrong with normality. As I occasionally have to make clear here, I have an aversion to extremes because extremes tend to be dangerous. At present, our politics is dominated by extremism, and almost wholly from the right wing, who would wish to represent that the normal majority of this country is, somehow, a threat to its well-being. Elon Musk went as far as saying that the empathy that normal people possess is dangerous. It isn't. It is what makes life possible when, as a matter of fact, the vast majority of us have to live in close coexistence with others, unlike Musk and others who can hide themselves away in gated communities.
If I have no time for extremes, it is because I think they threaten us. My problem with Reform and the Tories is that I think they are very extreme. What they propose is alien to the vast majority of people in this country. That is a measure of extremism. And what Labour is doing by copying them is choosing to fail miserably. Labour can never out-Reform Reform. Even in their worst moments, they can never be as out of touch with reality as Robert Jenrick and Kemi Badenoch are. By trying to do those things, Labour is bound to fail, and it seems unable to appreciate this.
All that is happening whilst it is glaringly obvious that there is in UK politics a void on the left, meaning that very large numbers of people - decent, normal, people who care - are being left unrepresented inside the current political set-up in England, at least. No wonder forty per cent of people do not vote in general elections in this country. There is no one trying to represent them. The great need is for a party that does care and which does present policies based on empathic concern for others and those who will follow us.
That party does not need to be extreme. That is why I doubt that a socialist solution will work. You cannot promote care on the basis of division, and at its core socialism is divisive because it is necessarily based upon class division, and the struggle for supremacy of some over others. Ultimately, however, the challenge is not about achieving supremacy. It is instead about finding necessary compromises so that we can find ways of successfully coexisting.
That might sound weak, but it isn't. Those seeking to create an inclusive society that serves all have to be robust about those who will not participate, because society cannot afford them to opt out. Being normal does not, then, permit tolerance of intolerance, including on the part of those who refuse to live in the society in which we exist. Being radically normal requires rejection of the extremes of the right by proving that there is something better, which can and will win the argument for the way in which we wish to live.
That is the challenge we face.
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!
The Green Party’s “dire PR” is in part because they actually tell the public the truth about the polycrisis and in part because their policies are decided through direct democracy (using STV) and so precludes the possibility of policies that are solely designed to attract voters.
Having direct democracy as part of their part structure is what protects the Greens against corporate capture.
It has also permitted some ridiculous economic policies.
Matthew, Sadly the Green Party’s ‘direct democracy’ makes them all-too vulnerable to ‘capture’:
“The Green party conference is the supreme forum of the party where all principal policies are agreed, yet fewer than 2% of members attend conference. It is therefore easy for conference apparatus to be co-opted by the ideologically-driven blocs who are motivated to attend.”
Its even worse for key national committees (e.g. the Standing Orders Committee), which over the last 4 years was elected by an average of 300 of the party’s 50,000 members.
See https://greensinexile.org.uk/good-governance
I tend to agree
I am vaguely aquainted with John Harris and his children go to the same schools as mine.
We both have Autistic children.
So both of us have experienced the trials and tribulations of the SEND system.
Both if us also realise where the blame for that lies.
Anyone brave enough to walk up to my door asking me to vote Labour or Tory isnt in for a fun ride.
But of course there are many who can be made to believe that SEND/Care/Medical Care issues, Potholes etc etc are the fault of (insert group of choice)
That is where the danger lies
And its Public Services that the current Government are not willing to fund
Agreed
I would suggest that the main political parties are not failing, they are doing exactly what they have been tasked to do: privatise Britain in order to funnel as much money as possible to the wealthy. Mainstream media have been captured (BBC will platform Farage for the umpteenth time, despite other parties and MPs having greater representation), and regulatory bodies have also been captured.
The silent coup has already happened. Read:
Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, 3rd Edition (2023) by John Perkins
https://amzn.eu/d/f8sEkAH
@ Ian Tresman I think what you say is absolutely true. The class war never went away. The mainstream media don’t want to acknowledge the country’s 1866 Act of Parliament which sanctioned the UK government creating money from nothing.
https://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2020/12/22/uk-law-has-already-enacted-modern-monetary-theory-and-was-last-updated-to-do-so-in-2000/
The country is therefore in a very deep and dangerous political blackhole.
I read and agreed with John Harris’ article. But my first reaction was that there is a sort of chicken and egg problem here (or worse, a vicious circle: pick your metaphor). The people who are more likely to vote tend to be older; older people tend to be more conservative; policies are generally made to attract voters; if policies are not attractive people tend not to vote. The loop is nourished by the unbalanced nature of the media, which seems to be getting worse and the unbalanced nature of party funding. I have no idea how to break the loop but I suspect a major discontinuity such as an economic crisis or, heaven forbid, war would force change.
For the last 45 years ..”our politics has been dominated by extremism”,
First it was Thatcher/Major then mini-me Thatcher B.Liar (with some tokenism) then back to a male-version of Thatcher etc. The nutters have been in charge. I say nutters in that they refuse to accept the evidence of their own eyes/ears.
The new narrative needs to be the efficient & effective provision of services by the state where that is appropriate (= anything that is a monopoly) and tough regulation of industry with an eye on what is good for the Uk state as a whole (= an industrial strategy). “Socilaism” has been used as a stick by the nutters to beat those that want what is outlined in the previous sentence.
So time to force a change of narrative – which exposes the nutters for what they are: chancers, liars, traitors.
I certainly think that privatisation has to end, at the very least for any service that is about the health and well-being of humans and economy (health, transport, education, etc). My preferred method of provision though is not the state itself – which is actually just state capitalism (see China) – but communities, cooperatives, social enterprises etc. These vehicles exist to allow local people to solve their own problems without being dictated to by the centralised powers that be. Lord Deben (I can’t believe I’m quoting a Tory peer, but there you have it) said in his keynote at Regeneration Earth this year, that every decision and providing should be devolved to the lowest level that it could be made at: all the way down to the individual. The frequent issue with state provision is that it averages everything and provides that, the benefit of the market it is that it allows specialisation, so a hybrid but non-profit version of that is very healthy indeed.
I live in the real world
I did not fully follow your reasoning but.. & taking one example: electricity. It is quite feasible for small to medium sized communities to provide much of the electricity they need through local, possibly community owned, generation. This will work less well with water and sewage. It wouldn’t work at all if you want to keep London or B’ham or… etc going be it elec, gas, water, sewage. The past 30 years has shown that monopoloy suppliers of essentials CANNOT be regulated effectively – due to information asymmetry between regulated – & regulator. This is not an assertion – this is borne out emprically (e.g. highest prices for elec in Europe).
Health, education, transport (buses & rail) are far better provided by a combo of local and national government. Did you know – that BR’s Intercity service in the late 1980s was used as a model by most other European rail operators? I could go on & on & on. Key point this has very little to do with “socilaism” and a lot to do with service provision that is both effective & efficienct. In the areas mentioned, the state, generally, has done a better job. Since the 1990s, the privaet sector has shown that it is rapacious and inefficient (and out of control)
Agreed
Fully lost track of who is arguing / agreeing / disagreeing / one-line brush-offs to whom and what here.
I think that is your problem….
Now I’ve got my head around this concept it makes good sense to me and I can live with John Harris’ analysis. I know people who go to Glasto, and they have the sharpest elbows I can tell you – you need them just to get a ticket these days!!
Glastonbury though is it’s only little country with its own problems – the price of going has rocketed, the litter is shocking. I have to say though, what is normal about Glastonbury? It is a good time rock concert essentially with a side line in the arts and alternative – ahem – medicine. Contrast that with another event – Wimbledon and think about ‘normal’.
I saw a window onto our country on Sunday that got my attention. The Wimbledon winner Jannik Sinner – from Italy – the country that probably created austerity – commented on how expensive the tournament and membership of the ‘All England Club’ was – a champagne cork had landed near the pitch during the match. Why the cork was mentioned – almost celebrated as much as the tennis – completely bemuses me, but tells you something. The BBC cameras scour the audience for celebs and other worthies; a young English prince with a father on an income of £22 million (is it?) sits there with his arms out, looking down as if owns the gaff. Yuck!! Will THAT really rule over my kids?!
Oh dear. Oh dear.
I can’t see this lot giving up anything to the harmless people of Glastonbury.
Au contraire RJM. Contrary to RJM’s assertion that…
“…very large numbers of people – decent, normal, people who care – are being left unrepresented inside the current political set-up in England, at least. No wonder forty per cent of people do not vote in general elections in this country. There is no one trying to represent them. The great need is for a party that does care and which does present policies based on empathic concern for others and those who will follow us.” …
… the Green Party (GPEW) is exactly like the “caring” and “empathetic” party RJM claims is lacking in English politics. (The Scottish Green Party is quite separate.)
So, what RJM claims – and not for the first time in this article – is just not true.
The failure of the Green Party is one of insufficient critical mass in terms of councillors, and therefore control of councils, MPs and even activists.
And it’s true that the Green Party leaders consistently fail to articulate the progressive narrative alternative to neoliberalism and therefore seem trapped within the neoliberal frame of reference within which debates are invariable confined in the MSM.
But that could change with the election of a GP leader who understands the progressive narrative and is not constrained by being an MP.
And it’s also true that some aspects of Green Party policy are naively utopian but in the last year that has begun to change and further efforts are now being made to remove from the party’s program other naïve and impractical policies, so that a coherent program of pragmatic progressivism can be offered to the electorate.
If these two shortcomings were rectified, then I would expect the Green Party’s electoral results to improve significantly.
And on the positive side, proposals from the Taxing Wealth Report 2024 approximating to £48 billion a year, out of the TWR’s estimated savings of £90 billion, were commitments in the Green Party Manifesto 2024.
As a matter of fact, RJM is aware of the changes that have already been made to Green Party policy to remove specific impractical and naïve policies. He is also aware of some of the further such changes that may also be made.
He should give credit where it’s due and acknowledge these changes in favour of the pragmatic progressivism that he advocates as and when they occur.
Ian
I have to disagree.
For many women the attitude of the Greens is difficult, as the party knows only too well, to its cost.
And the economic policy is improving, I know, but it has a way to go.
So, it is not the altternative as yet, and the position on women has to be sorted or it cannot make a breakthrough, whatever some might like to think.
Richard
I read the Harris article this morning and find much to agree with. I particularly agree that a solution to our national woes needs to come from the centre-left, but that can only be done when that sector of the political spectrum has “cleaned up its act”.
To illustrate what I mean, I link these two article:
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2025/07/mcsweeneys-death-rattle
https://tribunemag.co.uk/2025/06/on-national-centrism
No wonder this current Labour government is in the mess it is. ironically, most Reform voters support the policies that a proper Labour government would pursue, those being of a social-democratic kind, as proposed in 2017 and 2019, when Labour polled more votes than 2024.
Thank God for FPTP and Labour putting the “grown-ups” back in charge……..
Those of us of a certain age certainly know what Jim Royle would say to that.
I think that Harris misses the realpolitik. Everybody can see that Conservative and Labour have lost their credibility with the public; to the point that their basic decency is now being openly challenged. The proof is seen in the low and eroding turnout in general elections; down from 85% in 1945, to a squalid +/-60% and falling today. Not much more than 30% of voters produces a big majority in Parliament, and that becomes less than 25% of the registered electorate (1-in-4); and power. You need a lot of money to win power, but fewer and fewer votes, and less and less support. The country slowly falls into private greed and public squalor; but that, after all is the whole point of the exercise.
From the perspective of Conservative-Labour this is ideal; a world where fewer and fewer vote, but Parliamentary majorities grow larger and larger; this is the paradox of FPTP (on which they both rely for survival). The problem for them is the lack of real support in the country underpinning the large Conservative-Labour majorities is harder and harder to hide or ignore; the disconnect with the public that Harris can see, and the growing sense of mistrust and betrayal. It is now undermining the sense of security within the political power status quo of the Parties. They are rotting from the inside-out.
What is Reform for? Reform is exactly what you would come up with if you are the Single Transferable Party (STP) that runs the Conservative-Labour cartel, and begin to see that Conservative and Labour are busted flushes, and you need something new to remain in charge; something that looks different, is populist, able to create confusion and chaos in debate, make radically new proposals that change constantly (will never happen, but provide the ‘narrative’); and is well suited to the media convention and culture that the STP manages, particularly through its selected Press outlets (whose political agenda setting role the regulated broadcast media obediently follows); and a leader in the conventional British form of a ‘charismatic’ nonentity, who speaks in appealing, formulaic but vaguely amusing and homely sound-bites. Reform is the set of new political clothes the STP is quickly developing to ensure that it alone survives a collapse in Labour or Conservative popular support; a lifeboat that ensures nothing will materially change in politics and Government, even when radical change is promised (including and end to FPTP – which is the one thing the STP cannot afford to happen).
Agreed about the STP – but what is even more galling to me is that people don’t see the rich people who get behind these parties as the problem which they are. Society has lost the ability – quite widely – to be critical of what wealth gets up to with their money and ask if such political edifices meet their needs. Farage – rich, Arron Banks – rich, Yusuf – rich.
What more does one need to know?
Well, for too many of us perhaps, quite a lot it seems.
Thank you and well said, Richard.
It’s interesting that you mention Glastonbury, which is much more than a music festival.
Yesterday, the Yorkshire Rose who I’m extremely fond of attended a bakery sale in Nottingham to raise money for Palestine. She sent me photos and videos soon. It was a family day out. Palestinian food and crafts were on sale. There were music and children’s activities, too, Rose has children from a previous relationship.
Last month, Rose attended Glastonbury. She has gone every year since 1997, apart from covid, and, having rekindled my interest in music, would like me to attend in 2027. I’m tempted. Glastonbury is not dissimilar, despite what the MSM portrays.
Readers may be disappointed to hear that the organisers were visited early by the plod and warned they would be under surveillance. A well meaning and humanitarian effort threatened by the silent march of fascism.
A police state in the UK? I am shocked, I tell you, truly shocked. But not very much….not now.
The EU coordinator for opposing antisemitism (one Katharina von Schnurbein) has declared these bakes for Palestine antisemitic, I hear.
Why?
John Harris is one of the Guardian denizens who spent years taking down the left under Corbyn often with fake antisemitism and lying about their policies during and after and has now spent years bleating about the ‘moderate’ Labour he desired.
We already knew the void on the left – and not a radical socialist left but European style social democracy – was there to be filled by the 2017 election result but that had to be destroyed.
I take issue with your recoil from class – this is still the dominant political issue but no one is seriously thinking we’re going to have a revolution. If we had a party that could deliver the 2017/19 Labour manifestos that would be a big step towards lessening inequalities. One result of the Overton window moving to the right is that too many think anything vaguely socialist is now extreme.
Socialism is extreme in many ways
But most people use woolly definitions of socialism. If you use clause IV then it is extrene to most people.
What donyou mean?
This is excellent from the always readable and incisive Mike Small at Bella Caledonia:
https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2025/07/14/late-britain-hyper-normal-island/
Thanks
We have the Green Party as the Opposition on my local council in the West Midlands. The Tories still have control.
The three ward councillors in my ward are all Green.
They are lovely people, very well meaning, but they tend to see themselves as critical friends of the Tory administration, rather than a proper Opposition.
I am wondering if Zack Polanski gets elected as leader they might coalesce in some way with the Corbyn and Sultana group and possibly drive Labour to the left before 2029?
I would point out that enthusiasm for nationalisation of utilities and some services under a real democratic government probably runs between 50 and 85% (water) according to YouGov and others. I’m mindful of my immediate neighbours, lifelong Tories (but not Reform) who would enthusiastically nationalise trains, water and power (in that order).
Agreed
Andvrightly: they are natural monopolies.
The Jeremy Corbyn manifestos were not extreme but advocating a sort of Scandinavian socialist democracy.
The new Zara/ JC promoted party will be based on those manifestos I believe.
What do you see as extreme about that Richard?
Unfortunately no party seems to accept MMT or mention it even.
You often mention the extreme wealth that is growing amongst capitalist owners of business – that’s one class and the other class is those of us that work for them.
You miss the point.
I was talking about socialism.
I did not in any way condemn social democracy – which is not socialist democracy, and never has been in Scandinavia.
I do not call social democracy extreme, and never have. Why you do you think I did?
Yes, to being radically normal! 🙂
Your assertion that ” at its core socialism is divisive because it is necessarily based upon class division” is difficult for me to accept, partly because I consider myself in a broad sense a socialist. So I think you have to define what you mean by socialism. To me socialism is about creating a caring society that serves the needs of the people, whatever they may be. I don’t think of socialism as promoting class division but, it is plain that when it comes to delivering for the poor and disadvantaged, governments place it quite a long way down their list of priorities. I’m in my 75th year and I’ve felt this way for a long time. I am reminded of Tony Benn who gave up his peerage to serve in the House of Commons and how he campaigned tirelessly for a fair society. He was a toff, but, as someone who grew up in poverty, I thought of him as a comrade. It’s a bit more complicated than you suggest in your comment.
I am using Clause 4 of the Labour Party as written in 1917.
“To secure for the workers by hand or by brain the full fruits of their industry and the most equitable distribution thereof that may be possible upon the basis of the common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange, and the best obtainable system of popular administration and control of each industry or service.”
That is a class based, and divisive, politics.
I think you are describing social democracy. I am a social democrat.
I am not sure why that is hard to understand.
I am thinking of socialism more as a philosophy of life rather than a political doctrine. I no longer think of “The Labour Party” as a socialist entity. The current cohort, Kid Starver and his band of opportunists, are only interested in themselves. Thank you for your valuable teaching and insights. I have truly learned a lot from you and I appreciate it. I wonder if I can ask you to do a piece on the economics of the Royal Circus. Is it worth what it costs us?
Hi, and thanks
I might have to look at that
I made several television programmes on it a decade or more ago
Hi Richard,
I looked in the glossary and article topics list but didn’t find an article defining socialism, is there one? I know from Heather Cox Richardson, the American historian, the skewed view of socialism there, but don’t know the difference between socialism and the social democracy you do not equate with it.
For me, your writing is an essential element for a healthy perspective on humanity and I am glad to have found it.
It isn’t there.
I will think about it.
Class division and capitalist control of the economy will exist whether socialists point it out or not. Is it really less divisive to pretend class doesn’t exist and therefore enable continued exploitation and destruction of the environment?
I am genuinely confused as to what your point is.