I am aware that not everyone shares my disenchantment with Labour, its absence of policy and its apparent lack of leadership. Nor do they like my suggestion that it stands for nothing more than continuity of the Tory tradition of neoliberal government, with reduced paranoia and conspiracy theory being the basis of the offer, as Wes Streeting pretty much put it yesterday.
However, for yesterday's Laura Kuennsberg programme the BBC commissioned a poll where people were asked to offer a one-word opinion of what they thought Starmer stood for, and got this:
There is no compelling evidence there that people think any more of him and his party than I do.
The nothing in the middle is staggering. It could be dismissed as chance if so many of the other significant comments were not similar, each scaled to indicate the number saying it. Some thoughts follow.
First, have we reached the end of politics based on ideas?
Second, alternatively, is there now one idea so pervasive that people do not recognise it because politics is now solely about its delivery, and not challenging the system?
Third, does this matter in a first-past-the-post system where alternatives need not be stated to secure an electoral win when the party in office collapses under the weight of its own incompetence?
Fourth, what is politics in the UK about now in that case?
And fifth, how can the idea of ideas be reinjected into it?
I try to do that here. Others do, elsewhere. It is apparent that ideas do exist. But it seems that those with any drive for power reject the whole idea that they matter.
Or has Gove won the argument against expertise? And are we doomed to fail as a result, with politicians endlessly repeating their mistakes until the whole system collapses?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
I think John S Warren hit it on the nail in his comment on your previous post. He basically said that Starmer sees the UK state as supplicant or a “beggar” state dependent on the “largesse” of private enterprise growth for its funding. This is clearly a Thatcherite concept and at rock bottom it’s a mean-spirited one in which only a narrow capital controlling elite are allowed to control well-being in a society.
I’m a big fan of Roger’s and Maslow’s humanistic psychology which hinges around the concept of individuals being helped to self-actualise. This is to recognise they have a survival instinct that works better if they understand they can free themselves from the fetters of how other people believe they should behave and think. To recognise that whilst they are constrained as a highly prosocial being to to take the needs of others as well as their own into account that usually at most points in time they do the best they know how to strike this balance and therefore shouldn’t engage in inordinate blame.
How does this relate to Starmer’s Labour Party? Well if through monetary illiteracy you believe the Thatcherite argument that the state has no money of its own then members of a society can’t view the state as being able to “self-actualise” for the general well-being of all.
Maslow’s self-actualising characteristics are listed in the following Wikipedia article:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-actualization
Much to agree with here.
Politics is now nothing but an exercise in mass distraction because it lacks the courage you yourself identified it lacked long ago.
Containment is now the orthodoxy, by getting people organised into factions along identity lines.
But there is one identity that will dominate: wealth. And it will continue to accrue what makes it so whilst everyone else is falling out with each other and failing to notice.
By design, as Tim Snyder tells us.
Meanwhile, over in Palestine…………………….God help us.
Amen to the last
“Or has Gove won the argument against expertise? And are we doomed to fail as a result, with politicians endlessly repeating their mistakes until the whole system collapses?”
It would seem that the ghastly Gove is correct. This from witless vile-liebore:
https://www.marketscreener.com/quote/stock/NATIONAL-GRID-PLC-34973324/news/Britain-s-Labour-plans-to-rewire-the-country-ease-grid-delays-45015743/
GB Energy would seem to be a … what? generator? network operator? what? Somebody seems to have wired into Reeves a link to ChatGPT (perhaps that is a mandatory feature for those in the vile-libore shadow cabinet). As for Kid Starver, the chart is the end result of Starver rowing back on the promises he made in 2020, these now being clearly lies, 100% lies from a congenital liar (in fairness to Reeves she is far too stupid to lie like Starver)..
Mike, sadly agree with your final para. Reeves is so imbecilic, It is difficult to see what credible role she could possibly play. The fact that Starver appointed her says something about him. Precisely what, I am not sure.
What it says is that she is an orthodox thinker in economic terms ( and perhaps otherwise too).
Ergo: Useless in present circumstances. And perhaps all circumstances. (?)
I am not sure that the UK, with its dismissal of intellectualism in politics, is very good at generating ideas. For two hundred years we had Empire, which promoted a set of ideas, and with its ascendency we didn’t really have to bother – the ‘idea’ was that everyone should become like us. Now we no longer have Empire, we’re not in charge, we can’t indulge in the fantasy of ordering the world in our own image by force and control of global trade – we are subject to external forces, and those in charge have no way of addressing the issues it raises. The Tories are failing because their ideology, mantras, culture, ways of thinking, working, and allocating power and resources are a product of Empire…
So too are Labour still trying to run the UK as an empire.
Look at their attitudes to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I am afraid it all comes back to FPTP – it encourages “negative voting”. Cameron/May/Johnson did not “win”; Brown/Corbyn “lost”. To avoid “losing” you have to avoid saying anything that galvanises your opponents to turn out and vote. As Harold Wilson said, winning elections is all about “differential abstentionism”.
Only when we have PR will we see parties fragment and stand on what they believe.
Wilson was write
A truly intelligent politician
Wilson. Intelligent, but also a pragmatist. He did believe politics was the art of the possible.
In those days there were giants in the land. Did we think so ? Not really; we preferred Mike Yarwood.
I admit to reading your posts this morning while my students were sitting a test. I now feel thoroughly depressed. Either the mediocracy have taken over Labour, or the wilfully mendacious Mark4 (after Johnson, Truss and Sunak). I can’t decide.
BTW I completed the new PREVENT guide for teachers to get my certificate this weekend. It lists extremist ideologies that may lead to terrorism – Islamists for the religion, a selection of neoNazis for the far right, and then has ‘far left and single issues’.
These include animal rights, communism and SOCIALISM.
WTF?
Socialism?
As you say, WTF!
Got a scan of that?
https://www.support-people-vulnerable-to-radicalisation.service.gov.uk/portal#awareness-course
But that does not mention socialism?
I always remember to old maxim, slightly misquoted here;
‘Whoever you vote for ‘they’ always get in’
We live in a time when, whatever the circumstances, whatever the crisis a small number of people and their concierges (Monbiot https://www.monbiot.com/2023/09/20/unspeakable/) do very well indeed. Most of us in return seem happy to accept that the best way to improve the economy is to further enrich the rich, and moreover punish the poor for being poor.
Knowing that why wouldn’t continuity be attractive?
https://www.support-people-vulnerable-to-radicalisation.service.gov.uk/portal#awareness-course
I think the reference to socialism is inferred in Section 5: Terrorism, under “Left-wing, anarchist and single-issue ideologies”
Odd how “right-wing, fascism, nationalism, or populism” isn’t listed there…
What is a single issue ideology?
A belief in climate change?
It is typical Tory/right wing culture war nonsense.
From the glossary (https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/prevent-duty-guidance/glossary-of-terms#terrorist-related-offences):
Left Wing, Anarchist and Single-Issue Terrorism (LASIT)
Encompasses a wide range of ideologies. It includes those from the extreme political left-wing as well as anarchists who seek to use violence to advance their cause in seeking to overthrow the State in all its forms.
Extreme Right-Wing Terrorism (ERWT)
Describes those involved in Extreme Right-Wing activity who use violence in furtherance of their ideology. These ideologies can be broadly characterised as Cultural Nationalism, White Nationalism and White Supremacism. Individuals and groups may subscribe to ideological tenets and ideas from more than one category.
Ideology
A terrorist ‘ideology’ is a set of beliefs, principles, and objectives to which an individual or group purports to adhere and attempts to instil in others to radicalise them towards becoming terrorists or supporting terrorism. There are several concepts or ‘tools’ that often feature in terrorist and extremist ideologies, including: narrative, propaganda, grievances, and conspiracy theory.
Taking a look at the “tools” of terrorist “ideology”, seems unnervingly akin to the Tory party playbook…
Bakunin and Nechayev notwithstanding, (the latter actually being more inspirational to Lenin) there is a consensus amongst more modern anarchists is that it is non-violent – following the notion that ‘the means are the ends”. Tolstoy, Herzen and later Camus, all argued that ‘killing for peace’ didn’t work, and Gandhi almost succeeded in following this mantra.
Nor is anarchism chaotic disorder, unlike the current government, but requires self discipline, and voluntary associations like the syndicalists.
I am not surprised at the ignorance of political philosophies emanating from government, just as ‘household budget’ economic ignorance persists.
I did the training – it is mentioned alongside ‘communism’ in the Section Miss N referred to. You have to do it to see it.
“Left-wing, anarchist and single-issue ideologies are categorised as:
Left-wing
Two broad ideologies: socialism and communism. Each are united by a set of grievance narratives which underline their cause.
Anarchism
Seeks the abolition of the state, rejecting all forms of hierarchal structures and authority. Anarchism is often considered to be one of the more radical political left-wing ideologies, however some anarchist schools of thought fall outside the left-wing spectrum, for example anarcho-capitalism and nihilism. This is why it has been separated out as a distinct strand.
Single issue
Narratives are likely to come from those who seek to change a specific policy or practice, as opposed to replacing the whole economic, political or social system. Examples include, animal rights, anti-abortion or anti-fascism. Single-issue narratives can be politically agnostic, meaning they may be neither right nor left aligned
The first is pretty staggering
But I ssupect Labour could sign up….
“…. Labour could sign up”
The Tories certainly have.
A long time ago……….. Though to be fair it’s not where they started so very long ago when they were a radical alternative to Whig orthodoxy.
The “centre” is what everybody claims politics must fill. The problem is, the “centre” is not a place. It isn’t fixed. It is wherever it is claimed to be, by anyone with an opinion that receives the dominant media attention or coverage. The “centre” moves obediently every time conventional opinion changes; and it changes ‘just like that’. In other words the “centre” is a figment of the political imagination.
The trick is for politicians to control the political news agenda; which is easiest when your press set the agenda; and you can do that most effectively when your vested interests own it. Argument and reason do not matter; constant, widespread public repetition, delivered with authority (fake or real) matters far, far more.
I’ve been watching the interviews that Yanis Varoufakis has recently been giving to various British media outlets: his take on Starmer (and neoliberals in general) has made for some bleak listening.
Great article! Was good to learn about Starmer!
The era of big nations is coming to an end as climate chaos and the waning of fossil fuels forces everything to become more local. Politics will have to become more local, and as it does it will be forced to confront local realities, and the days of bullshit artists in positions of power will be numbered.
Would be interested to know your thoughts on Digital Money , Richard ? i am reading Cloud Money by Brett Scott which is very interesting . Here are a few Reviews ….
If people could see clearly how their money is created, they would rebel – especially now that it is digitised. Brett Scott’s highly readable and topical Cloudmoney is, in this sense, a wonderfully revolutionary text — Yanis Varoufakis
Your head has been deliberately filled with falsehoods and confusion about money. This brilliant book helps you understand how that happened, who profits from our collective financial ignorance, and how we might best fight back. Filled with dazzling insight and admirable clarity, this is a book you’ll soon be recommending far and wide — Raj Patel, author of Stuffed and Starved
Cloudmoney does well to map out how the switch away from cash is being spun as natural progress… Scott has struck an important vein, that is vital in a digital age ― Financial Times
We have digital money
To be candid, we do not really have anything else such are the restrictions on the use of cash now
Do we need a CBDC? Why? I have written on this: use the search facility.
Thanks Richard.