My short video this morning argues that to govern is to do things. Labour is going to have to work out what it's about very soon, or we're all in deep trouble.
The transcript is:
It's still incredibly difficult to work out what the Labour Party is talking about during this election campaign.
Frankly, they're turning talking about nothing into an art form. And that's deeply frustrating.
They say that's because they're just putting down their initial promises and we will learn more in due course.
I have no idea whether that's true or not.
But I do know that Keir Starmer has a choice. He can carry on saying and doing nothing, which is what has characterised this election campaign, or he can do something.
But actually, he hasn't got a choice. Because Starmer is desperate for power, and if he wants to keep power, he has to decide that he's going to do something or face the biggest electoral crash of all time in 2029.
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:
The late great Adam Smith had this to say on government
Little else is requisite to carry a state to the highest degree of opulence from the lowest barbarism, but peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice; all the rest being brought about by the natural course of things. All governments which thwart this natural course, which force things into another channel, or which endeavour to arrest the progress of society at a particular point, are unnatural, and to support themselves are obliged to be oppressive and tyrannical.
That is brilliant and moral philosophy for the ages.
Err… no…. this is very much of its time and is anything but an appropriate guide for 21stC government if we are to resolve man’s existential crises.
This misinterpreted plea for 18/19thC small state, laissez faire is actually highly qualified and needs to be seen in the context of Smith’s writings on morality and ethics, which required a society that included reciprocity in social and economic relationships.
We just do not have that foundation.
“peace, easy taxes, and a tolerable administration of justice” simply don’t exist, nor is there a “natural course of things” or any generally agreed “progress of society”.
The presumption that capitalist societies are ‘natural’ is hugely misplaced, as anyone who has read Polanyi would know.
The forced transition to an industrial society which is utterly dominated by transactional relationships was immensely damaging throughout the 19thC.
Life expectancies actually fell during much of this period.
Smith’s own hatred of both rentiers and monopolists was very strongly stated and the current 21stC situation of an increasingly financialised economy which is utterly dominated by corporate and oligopolistic interests has only emerged and consolidated due to the lack of effective regulation by government. Far too much ‘handsoff”.
Nor was Smith writing at a time of global environmental crises brought about by 200 years of the ‘externalities’ of chemical and atmospheric pollution.
Adam Smith also had this to say:
“Wherever there is great property there is great inequality. For one very rich man there must be at least five hundred poor, and the affluence of the few supposes the indigence of the many. The affluence of the rich excites the indignation of the poor, who are often both driven by want, and prompted by envy, to invade his possessions. It is only under the shelter of the civil magistrate that the owner of that valuable property, which is acquired by the labour of many years, or perhaps of many successive generations, can sleep a single night in security. He is at all times surrounded by unknown enemies, whom, though he never provoked, he can never appease, and from whose injustice he can be protected only by the powerful arm of the civil magistrate continually held up to chastise it. The acquisition of valuable and extensive property, therefore, necessarily requires the establishment of civil government.”
Here he seems to be taking great inequality as one of the things brought about by “the natural course of things”, in which case the government should not “thwart this course.” I, on the other hand would say that thwarting – i.e. redistribution – is precisely what a government should be doing in this situation. It is the right thing to do and not merely a way of dealing with civil unrest.
Smith’s solution to the problem of inequality is to suppress any civil unrest that it might lead to. I can’t see how he can consistently be of this opinion unless he sees the actions of the one rich man as natural but those of the 500 poor as unnatural, which is quite bizarre.
Yes, Labour spokespeople have indeed made an art form out of parroting the PR script which says little or nothing – except ‘iron clad’ or ‘fully funded’, but I do sense that some of them are thinking about how the Greens are saying they would raise money – and maybe your TW report.
“saying and doing nothing, which is what has characterised this election campaign, or he can do something”
To do something would require knowledge & outside of making sure that, whilst DPP draconian sentences were handed down (whilst cutting the ability of the CPS to erm, you know – prosecute) he has no experience. What does he know of life outside London, zlich.
But we do know, thanks to a G’ article (kindly highlighted by a blog commentator) that con-sultants will be a big element in helping LINO govern. As an experiment, I looked at the role of McKinsey in the Uk from late 1980s onwards. They were heavily involved in every failed privatisation (= everything privatised was a failure). Thus a 100% track record… in failure.
Yet con-sultants will be the knowledge backbone to LINO.
Think the tories were bad? you ain’t seen nothing – the only thing that the Uk political class is good at, is building failure upon failure, upon failure. World champions.
oh god, I’m commenting on by bloody comment.
Saying & doing.
It would appear that Edinburgh have banned grooming, no not the usual sort – rather the sort that causes people to purchase SUVs/4x4s. Yup all adverts for high consumption stuff banned in the city.
Scotland’s capital, Edinburgh, recently became the latest UK city to ban ads for fossil fuels and other high-carbon products — including those from airlines, airports, cruise ships and personal vehicles including SUVs, and petrol- and diesel-powered cars. While the ban only applies to City of Edinburgh Council-owned sites across the city, it covers prominent public spaces such as bus stops and billboards — along with sponsored events and other city partnerships — and is deemed to be world-leading in its approach.
Hat tip to the Scots, leading, as usual. Thank god somebody has some sense.
Labour will use the approach I use for housework. Say they will do it, but not just now.