As is apparent from yesterday‘s posts, I took a relatively quiet day with regard to the blog because I wanted to think and reflect on where we are politically. Given the total collapse of any identifiable Tory ideology, excepting something heading in the direction of racist neofascism, and Starmer's creation of a totally ethics-free Labour Party, embracing policy positions that can, apparently, overlap with those of the far-right of the Conservatives, this reflection seemed entirely appropriate.
As I noted on Saturday, it is entirely fair to suggest that this situation is the result of the adoption of neoliberal thinking by both these parties. As a result of this they presume that morality, ethics, and even political opinion have no role to play in the creation of their policy programmes. Instead, finance is the only decision criterion that they recognise, with self-imposed constraints on state finances being the only conditions that apply when considering those issues.
This led to the obvious question as to what this shared platform that both these parties now wish to present to the British people might be. I say shared, because it is apparent that there is almost no identifiable difference between them when it comes to this chosen ethical void excepting the degrees of apparent detachment from reality with which the resulting policies are pursued by them.
What became clear is that the argument that these neoliberal politicians are presenting is that we can no longer afford government. Their claim would seem to be that whilst we might have been able to do so once upon a time, now that we are supposedly richer than we have ever been, the collective desire that we live in a jurisdiction where we can put our faith in institutions over which we can exercise some degree of choice as to their composition in the hope that they might act in our collective best interests, sharing our resources in common for mutual benefit, is now, apparently, impossible. What they are saying as a result is that we must, therefore, now learn to live without the safety net of government that we once, when collectively worse off, enjoyed.
I do not, of course, accept this argument. That is because it is a very obviously carefully fabricated deceit. Those politicians making this claim do so on the basis of the support of those who have been best rewarded by more than four decades of neoliberalism. Whether those providing that support be the wealthiest people in the country, or the largest corporations that operate within it, these politicians seemingly exist to support the claim made by the wealthy that those with the greatest capacity to contribute to the common good should not bear the burden of responsibility for doing so.
This is because, it is argued, we would not even have the option of having a government if the wealth of these people were constrained by a requirement that they contribute in a way that even vaguely approached the demand made upon the majority of the population. That is because requiring this would, apparently, so suppress the entrepreneurial spirit of those with wealth that there would be insufficient resources left in society for anything even approximating to affordable government. Where, however, this entrepreneurial spirit is to be seen within a society that has already provided the wealthy with so many opportunities for it to flow free, I do not know, because I am certainly not a witness to it.
This argument is, as a result, obviously false. The argument is that those possessed of wealth, who think themselves the creators of it as a consequence (irrespective of its actual sources), cannot be required to pay for government because if that demand were made, there would be no wealth to fund it. They have set up the ultimate political paradox as a consequence, which both the Tories and Labour buy into, hook, line and sinker, which is that we cannot have sufficient government without wealth, but if we have sufficient government, we would not have wealth, meaning that wealth must go untouched by government.
What, however, the wealthy require as a result is that people be elected who support this claim. As a result they have funded politicians willing to subscribe to this view. The consequence is that the possibility of beneficial government is now denied by the political assumptions made about the necessary structures of wealth and its preservation within the society in which such a government should operate that have been created by those who do not wish that such a government exist.
As a result, we live in an increasingly lawless state. Our judicial system is ceasing to function. So too, as I noticed yesterday, has company law. This is also true with regard to much of divorce law, where most people get by without legal assistance, laws to protect children, employment law, law to protect those with disabilities, and so much else. The denial of rights and the denial of the means to access the legal system that might afford those rights is now so normal that those who do not wish effective government to operate have guaranteed that it cannot. Whatever the law might dictate, the means to enforce it is now largely non-existent for most people.
Simultaneously, public services of almost all sorts are failing. Those who do not wish government to operate and who think (whether rightly or wrongly) that they can afford to buy themselves out of the system of services that the government provides are not just indifferent to this outcome; they welcome it because they think this provides them with greater opportunity to exploit society at large, which exploitation is the true source of much of their wealth.
Meanwhile, the existential threats to society, from climate change, community breakdown, and so much more, are growing, but those who think that we do not really need government seemingly also think that stresses with regard to these issues can be constrained, no doubt with the use of a little judicial or even physical violence, which is why so many human rights have been abused in recent years both by their cancellation in law and increasingly unfettered police action.
Put all this together, and this idea that we cannot afford government is the common implicit but unstated theme that both Labour and the Tories will present to us during the course of the election that we will have this year. The real choice between the two, excepting the degree of mania on display, is insignificant. Instead, the conspiracy between the two is glaringly apparent. They are in obvious agreement that whatever it was that we could once afford to deliver government is no longer possible, whether that is true or not, and therefore they will make no attempt to deliver it.
What we are, therefore, faced with are politicians seeking office with one common objective, which is to destroy the very institutions that they seek to control, and all to serve the interests of wealth to which both parties have made themselves completely subservient.
For how long can this madness last? Or, to put it another way, for how long do we have to put up with a political duopoly that now asks for us to vote for them even though they are collectively saying that they do not believe that they can deliver whatever it is that we need, let alone want?
And, why is it that they can still presume that we might find this prospect appealing?
Is it that the conspiracy of first-past-the-post has simply been captured, like so much else, with the goal of denying us anything approaching the form of government that we really need? Or is the malaise deeper than that so that it infects even those parties supporting the replacement of that profoundly corrupt system of voting? That is open to debate.
The reality that we face a political conspiracy to deny us the chance of lives well lived supported by benign government intended to promote universal well-being is beyond debate. This is a fact. The question is, now that Labour under Starmer has gone so far out of its way to make this clear, what do we do about it?
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:
Although there are a few who are contrary, it is not just both major political parties that are spouting that “we can no longer afford government”, but the mainstream media is going along with it, suggesting complicity.
Agreed
Thank you and well said, both.
There are two senior BBC presenters*, both Tory activists at university and married to Tory activists, who have weekly shows and are complicit. The spouse of one was seconded from a leading management consultancy to the Cabinet Office during the Cameron years and advised on, ahem, public sector reform and efficiency*. The spouse of the other runs a PR firm that advises Tory HQ.
*This one returned to the BBC in 2012, having been business editor (sic) at a rival channel, and is fond of asking how public goods will be paid for. It has never been pointed out that such a sensitive appointment could constitute a conflict of interest.
I can only think that -as history seems to show- we have to keep building bottom-up institutions, processes and alternatives (for is that not what unions are meant to be, or -historically- mutual aid,;workers’ education institutions … penny banks … libraries … co-ops … municipal socialism). It’s bloody hard work and long-term. Sometimes there are big ‘wins’
If there’s a silver bullet I hope the comments will share the wisdom. I’m thinking that now we need to consider how to expand alternative media and news-telling as one key move …
Might the concept of “Political Guérilla Warfare” help?
1) Keep confidently opposing predatory government/governance.
2) Keep on keeping on being better informed on prosocial and antisocial economics aka. Greed.
3) Keep on keeping on developing and using the confidence and resilience to oppose greedonomics, ignorantonomics, passivity and promote micro, if not macro, better informed pro-whole society bloodymindedness.
P.S. Thank you for your outstanding work to oppose “manipulate the herd” politics.
Thanks
Thank you, both.
Steve said: “Thank you for your outstanding work to oppose “manipulate the herd” politics.” I echo that and more.
Yesterday, I watched British and French news and was struck by the persistent reporting, amplified by the likes of Andrew Neil, that Israel’s song, sung by a settler soon to join the IOF, won the popular vote and shows how Europeans support Israel. French TV, especially oligarch owned C News and LCI, are the equivalent of Fox, not that the National Assembly is much better.
I was born and have lived here most of my life here. My parents have spent most of their lives here. For the first time, I wondered whether below the surface, there’s a sham and whether the likes of me belong here.
I have never felt like that before, even when Theresa May was promoting her “hostile environment”, and, adding yesterday’s reporting to Starmer’s welcome of someone who advocated the French and British authorities shoot migrants in the Channel and is against trade unions and other employee rights, it makes me wonder.
That is worrying…
A very fine post – covers the main points of the neo-liberal “utopia for the rich” project.
For a more detailed demolition of the UK’s “neo-liberal experiment” (with UK citizens as the lab rats) “Late Soviet Britain” Abby Innes.
Over here in Belgium, there is PR, sadly it does not stop political families developping, which in turn prevents citizens from meaningful participation.
As for what to do about the UK, those that want to stand as independent candidates or become supporters, contact me, Richard has my details. We are organising.
Thank you, both.
@ Mike: Your phrase political families resonates with me. From working as a bankster lobbyist in / with Brussels, I noticed. I have also come across in Germany. France is even worse and probably as bad as here.
I will contact Richard for your details and have thought of another platform to publicise your efforts, Naked Capitalism, which often features Richard. NC has many British based readers, some likely to help.
Richard has kindly provided Mike’s details.
Your offer is most kind and I look forward to working with you & others (actually we already have a few others!).
Mike
Jamie Driscoll stood as an independent mayoral candidiate in the North East. He was previously the Labour mayor of North Tyneside but was not allowed to stand in this election as he had shared a platform with Ken Loach to discuss his films. He came second to Labour, with 126,000 votes to her 185,000. He has now announced that he plans to organise independents to stand against labour at the GE. You may want to contact him.
I have but time, enthusiasm and a little understanding to contribute. If the new movement needs foot-soldiers then I happy to offer my services.
Mike,
I applaud most of your contributions but you wrote: “As for what to do about the UK, those that want to stand as independent candidates or become supporters, contact me, Richard has my details.” I sympathise with your frustration.
However, first, some of your ‘independents’ will be fake Tory or LINO.
Second, as you have slender chances of sufficient mainstream media support, the consequence of your intervention will be that your candidates will split the Green support so that your candidates are likely to let in a Tory or LINO.
Third, I am too old to stand myself but I am a member of the Green Party and whole-heartedly support both local and national candidates. Though your initiative indicates that you do not approve of ALL Green policies, that is *inevitable* and *will be with your creation* however well-intentioned its creators will be.
Our Party meetings in Dorset inspire me: sensible discussions based on practical research and logical argument supported by huge amounts of dedicated work by thoughtful, committed people.
Why not join the Greens, build on our just-achieved successes and argue for some cracking good, well articulated measures?
Mike,
I’d certainly be interested in learning more about your movement. Could you perhaps write something openly about it on here, rather than this slightly “Chinese whispers” approach?
I’m aware of various other alternative/progressive parties and organisations gearing up for the election, from George Galloway’s Worker’s Party (for which Craig Murray is standing) through to Gina Miller’s True and Fair Party, via OCISA (who are putting up Andrew Feinstein against Keir Starmer in Holborn & St Pancras) and JSO’s Assemble. And of course not forgetting the Green Party. Like Joe Burlington, I fear that there’s a risk of splitting the progressive vote, but hopefully you’re all talking to each other and planning how to avoid this!
All true, sadly.
What do we do about it?
I’m afraid there are still many people who believe the false rhetoric of neoliberalism; I heard some on the radio this morning. I think there are fewer now. It takes a very long time for people to realise they are being duped. I’m afraid things may get worse before they get better.
We need to vote, collectively, to do as much political damage to the Conservative party as possible. This may enable them to restructure around more reasonable, centrist (i.e. left wing in today’s distorted view) policies. The Conservative party used to be less extreme.
We can do this by voting, tactically, for whichever party will defeat the Conservatives in each constituency. This will mean Labour in many constituencies. I would hold my nose and do so even though I detest the Labour party. I am “fortunate” because in my constituency the challenger is LibDem. I shall vote for them to oust the sitting Conservative, even though I strongly dislike them too. I’m hopeful that the Reform party will take many votes from the Conservatives; I doubt Boris would have won a significant majority had the Brexit party not stood down.
If we’re “lucky” the result will be an eviscerated Conservative party, a Labour government, but hopefully with some larger minority parties.
Then, I’m afraid, we can only sit back and wait while Labour fail. During which time many people will be hurt. I don’t like this. I don’t see an alternative.
I think we have one more electoral cycle left, during which things will get worse, until sufficient proportion of the population realise there is a better way.
In the mean time keep talking and educating.
The massive hole in the Neoliberal arguments is the Christine Desan one that you cannot have capitalism without the anchor of government being able to create money. Add to that government can create sufficient money for public purpose provided that it ensures the taxation system it needs to create it is equitable. Clearly where the nation is not self-sufficient in real resources it needs to concentrate on exports but again government plays a role in this through its spending in a multitude of ways given the deficiencies of market capitalism.
The Andrew Rawnsley article about Labour and Natalie Elphicke in yesterday’s Observer I thought good in that he argued that power without any “pillars of principle” was a recipe for disfunction if not disaster. What he failed to add and make clear was so is not understanding how your country’s monetary system works.
Rawnsley didn’t mention how the country’s monetary system works because I don’t think he has a clue how it works.
Most definitely he isn’t which beggars belief given he’s the Observer’s chief political commentator! Headless chickens come to mind strutting around pontificating about this and that but on one of the most fundamental aspects of how we transact with each just a black hole of ignorance!
We cannot afford to not have government; because the alternatives are anarchy or tyranny.
The problem remains of how to persuade those who would benefit by absence of government that the rewards of a stable government far outweigh the risks of living in a broken society; and how to persuade others (who have been convinced by people with vested interests that no-government is freedom) that their interests would be best served by a democratically elected government with the ability to spend, tax and borrow as required that is representative of all people.
“In the beginning was the deed.”
Politics is an act by those who are weak to survive from those who are strong and those in power. As Bernard Williams suggests, the strong have no need for protection from tyranny or anarchy. They have no real concern for climate change either. It is a mere inconvenience that would be greatly dwarfed by any kind of active state. They can’t be convinced by the weak that they have a need for politics.
I think it is better to point out this obvious fact. The strong and powerful don’t need or want a government or a government being interrupted by politics. They are quite content to see others suffer. “Suffering should be tolerated,” is their moto.
Clearly sitting by the river gave you time to ponder! A brilliant post. Thank you.
Compelling narrative Richard….
‘Neoliberal …. we can no longer afford government. although we are supposedly richer than we have ever been’
‘ they do not believe that they can deliver whatever it is that we need, let alone want?’
Your 1984-type picture of the neoliberal ideology being utterly dominant across politics and media and imposing the false consciousness – ‘we cant afford government’ across society is highly pertinent and highly depressing .
‘Labour has gone so far ….. what do we do about it?’
The monopoly idea that ‘we can’t afford it’ – although apparently all pervasive – maybe more fragile than it looks.
You don’t have to be a fully fledged Marxist to suggest that when Labour comes to power and is faced with its own self imposed choice of having to further destroy the NHS, further increase waiting lists and deaths from late diagnosis and late treatment, and facing resistance from nurses and doctors and other public sector workers whose salaries are not being restored, and from the the millions suffering destitution, it may conclude its only possible means of survival is to blow the fiscal rules out of the water.
Difficult to imagine – but the desperation to cling on to on power may outweigh the dedication to the ideology.
Its a terribly dangerous situation – the system collapsing under its own internal contradictions – could easily lead to a quasi fascism – as you have said Richard- but such a crisis could also lead to a more positive future.
You are right …. It could lead to either
Bloody hell, lad. You’ve written a great post! A foundation text for a new Opposition!
Thank you
Now, the challenge is to get that onto You Tube, and well done if you manage to get it to work.
I am sure some of us could give a hand if required
It is being planned
I don’t think it matters much anymore. The last chance we had to redeem the post war social covenants that the State could and would look after its citizens and other needy around the world was blown away with the last two sham general elections. Both launched as hit and run ‘snap’ plebiscites to catch the voters and campaigners unawares, with minimum time. Further disrupted by Terrorism and sensationalism, mid election and the mid winter Christmas preparations for most. When early darkness cold and rain would reduce turnout and increase massively postal votes instead – which Laura Kuensberg breathlessly announced using her phone camera had won the day for her soft focus produced candidate Bozo the Brexit clown.
That was the death mail (sic) election as far as I am concerned.
What followed was the greatest rip off ever as government funded lockstepping in the Collective West over first Covid spending and then the long planned war spending – hundreds of billions , trillions now.
We are not an isolated nation which just controls our own countries tens of millions fate, are we?
We are part and parcel of the neoliberal unipolar Rules based world order representing 15% of humanity that aims to control the 85% of the rest and all humanity’s future.
An order that is coming to an end, just like the Roman Empire did, just like the British and every other Empire since has done .. but instead of taking centuries and decades this like everything in modern life has a moving faster.
The multipolar geopolitical seismic plates are on the move – it means economic earth quakes and tsunamis that washes away all the little and great neoliberal Atlantis’s that we believe are solid and unsinkable. Including our delusional little island ‘democracy’ which at the last time of looking is now well underway to becoming dozens of fragmented tax free zones !
So much for the one nation common purpose and a moral government – impossible now without upheaval.
Rachel Reeves will seek to assure global finance chiefs (at Davos) that the Labour Party “is now the party of wealth creation”.
Labour are not even trying to hide what they mean by ‘wealth creation’. They are just another ‘wealth extraction’ gang siphoning wealth upwards to the already wealthy.
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/labour-labour-party-jonathan-reynolds-cameron-davos-b2479149.html
Even politically naive people sense something wrong with the idea that we just can’t afford things we could afford 40 and 50 years ago. In the absence of coherent mainstream explanations, they jump to the easiest one – too many immigrants and scroungers – and govt too “woke” to admit it.
I’m afraid things have to get worse before they get better and people start looking around for better explanations. Meanwhile, keep up the good work.
A highly persuasive analysis, Richard, thank you. As you conclude – what to do?
To echo DunGroanin above, we are approaching the end of the Anglo-American Empire that has dominated human affairs for the past quarter-Millenium.
The last, increasingly intense 40 years of neoliberal pursuit of Money Money Money, squeezing every last drop of energy and wealth from the majority of the (global) population. This at the cost of anything that resembles humanity, or at any rate the best of humanity. This truly is a growing horror-show to be living through.
The Empire’s death throes won’t be pretty for any of us on the planet. Yet, before we are led to that point, there will sadly only be more deceit, damage, democratic deficit and wanton destruction.
Our best efforts in opposing its worst effects – aside from voting carefully and tactically, while we still can – will probably rest in acting locally within the communities in which we all live. The Empire will surely not accept larger insurgencies – see, e.g. J. Assange.
In my area, not so far from Richard in Sheffield, we are exploring that through a just transition approach, working collaboratively with other groups in our area. For September, we are organising a Community Wealth Building Conference, to examine and test ways of local economic development that will retain wealth in the area and focus on social outcomes – jobs, sustainability, health.
However I fear that, sadly, in the long view of 30+ years (my remaining life-span), we shall all, in the main, merely bear witness to the end of civilisation as it was known.
I can live with the end of that civilisation
My hope is for the birth of the new one that will replace it
And I can happily agree with that sentiment
I had a discussion with my partner this evening where I think I was trying to express something similar but ultimately got quite frustrated.
We were talking about recycling as we put the bin out and he was frustrated that companies have no incentive to package things in recyclable material. He suggested pushing companies to do this via regulation changes. I pointed out that this would just increase costs to the end consumer on items required to live i.e. food, sanitary products etc. So then we talked about increasing business tax to pay for processing plants that could deal with plastics rather than “recycle with bags at supermarkets” that is the most common one we take issue with.
Every way we cut it, I just kept coming back to the fact that consumers aren’t the real customers of the big businesses doing humans the most harm. They answer to shareholders and prioritise dividends and ensuring a stable and ideally increasing corporate valuation…
Talking about that, it struck me that the issue is ultimately the fact that people have large amounts of spare/accrued money to invest in the first place.
People just shouldn’t be able to make more money just because they have it without reason.
My dad was old school conservative and had his own business, but he was aware of his responsibility and it was obvious that he only benefited when his employees thrived. There was a direct connection, and it bruised him massively to have to lay people off in the 80s.
I just feel like encouraging people not to hoard wealth is the answer. Landlords in the way we know them just shouldn’t exist. They contribute nothing, but profit. I am all for self made people, but why do we see a multi-property landlord the same as a small business owner generating a livelihood and sustaining employees? And who pays more tax? So frustrating to me, sorry.
I meant ‘who is ultimately a net positive for the economy’, rather than ‘who pays more tax?’, to clarify
Isn’t the UK now the land of nodding donkeys with its acceptance of greed based Neoliberalism? The British used to be imaginative people as the Industrial Revolution showed based on a banking revolution, all that has largely gone. The Natalie Elphicke affair last week was the opposite sad comedy based on a lack of ability to think things through just as few understand how money works not recognising its critical role. Perhaps the Natalie Elpicke affair is a turning point with voters now realising the rotting hulk of the Labour Party offers no hope and we must start over.
I agree Labour offer too little with Keir as leader but I think they are still a better prospect than Tory. Starmer will at least drop the Rwanda policy and improve employment laws.
There are at least 30 leftwing socialists in Labour and if Labour are elected the Unions can influence policy. There will be Independant socialists in some constituencies including Keir Starmer’s.
Meanwhile we have to educate people as Richard does.
There are still thousands of supporters of the last two Labour manifestos out there with their hearts in the right place.
Can we all share info and explanations on our own media please?
Thank you, Richard, more than I can say, for your work. I tell everyone I know about this website.
Thank you to all your contributors too.
Please could you ask Mike Parr to write a clear summary of what he is up to? I have a feeling I’d like to help (stuff envelopes etc or maybe more) but I need to know more. Or he could ask me direct.
Good birds here (West Somerset) – bitterns! Whirling whirring flocks of dunlins! Come and visit.
Thank you, and all good wishes
Eliza