Keir Starmer's descent into the cesspit of right wing economics is continuing. The Guardian has reported that:
Keir Starmer has said he will lead from the centre ground if elected prime minister and declared wealth creation to be his “number one mission”.
As a nation, broadly speaking we're a pretty reasonable, tolerant bunch but we are in the centre ground of politics. People don't like the extremes of the right or the left. They are reasonably tolerant. They want themselves, their families and the country to improve and make progress.
Apparently, this requires that he expel left wing members of his party and move a long way to the political right. And, as they also reported:
Starmer said the ‘“only way our country can go forward” was if people and businesses make money.
His justification was:
I think it's a good thing that people are aspirational. When I say our number one mission is economic growth, you could say our number one mission is wealth creation. Now that's an odd thing for the Labour party to say. It might have been in the past.
As a consequence they note he added when asked whether he was relaxed about people making money:
Very. I'm not just relaxed, I'm relaxed as well as being doggedly determined.
Let's ignore the shades of Peter Mandelson in that comment, who was very relaxed about people getting filthy rich. Let's instead note what is implicit in Starmer's claim.
First, a belief in equality has disappeared. Not everyone can be rich. Starmer is now putting himself on the side of the few.
Second there is a tolerance of inequality. That is the corollary of his claim.
Third, there is an acceptance of the exploitation of some by others that getting rich invariably involves.
Fourth, the use of the words ‘making money', when referring to people and business, is just straightforwardly wrong, and deeply telling.
Businesses do not make money. Only government, and the banks it licences, can make money. Everyone else uses it.
Businesses make profit. Most actual profit, i.e. reward in excess of effort expended, in the modern economy comes from exploitation, whether of natural resources, monopoly power, rents or the exploitation of people, many of whom will require state subsidy to simply make their lives possible as a result. It would seem Starmer either does not know this, or is intensely comfortable with his ignorance, or is in denial of reality.
Fifth, what he is endorsing, at best, is an expansion of the trickle down economics so beloved of the far-right so-called think tanks that have done so much to destroy the well-being of this country.
The role of the state, the public servant, the teacher, the health care worker, the charity worker, the person dedicated to community and not profit and so many others who add extraordinary value to our lives without ever having a profit motive is ignored.
So too, come to that, is the role of the employee who just wants fair reward for their effort.
Even the vast majority of the self employed, who are artisan workers of varying sorts and not profit makers as such, because their reward is for effort, not entrepreneurial risk taking, are also cast aside by this definition of “the way forward”.
That definition does, in fact, seem to have been forged over canapés in his numerous meetings with business executives in the City of London, not one of whom is entrepreneurial as they are all obsessed of exceedingly good pay packets, bonus schemes and pension arrangements that suggest that risk taking is the last thing on their minds. Their aspiration is only to gain at the expense of others, and it is amongst this crowd that Starmer is pitching his supposed middle ground.
On one thing alone Starmer is right. This is a very off thing for a Labour leader to say. Labour has never been on the side of the:
- exploiter
- manipulator
- wealthy
- City of London
- wheeler dealer
- spiv.
Now, however, it apparently is. In fact, not only is it on their side, but thinks that all the rest of us are beholden to them for any crumb that they might happen to let fall from their table.
I thought Labour had been corrupted, but even then I did not know by how much. Now I know that it is a party solely dedicated to the well-being of the rich. Having another such government in office will be disastrous.
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:
This is what you get though:-
A hook, line and sinker comment on an article in today’s Observer.
Westview2
“The problem as ever comes down to funding. The government shifted funding from central government grant to a 2% addition for social care on council tax bills but the tax base for council tax is much smaller than the base for income tax, NI and VAT. Although only 50% pay income tax, many a trivial amount, council tax is levied on a household, often containing several working age occupants and in many areas only a half are paying the full v Council tax bill. So called wealth taxes offer no answer because most people’s wealth in the UK comprises firstly their pension funds, followed by equity in their home, neither of which are liquid meaning that any tax on them is simply a further levy on income but without any reference to ability to pay. The sums are enormous – if 1 million required social care at a modest cost of £1000 per week, that’s over £50bn per annum. Even the labour party is acknowledging that with taxation already at record levels, the cake needs to be much larger if we are to fund these enormous demands.”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/jun/02/the-observer-view-on-the-social-care-crisis-whoever-wins-the-election-it-needs-addressing-urgently#comments
I despair….
Having vehemently disagreed with your previous post (why teach trigonometry), I can say I wholeheartedly agree with this one.
Please keep up the good work of highlighting these issues.
[…] Starmer has now made it clear: he intends to govern on behalf of the rich Funding the Future […]
Starmer and Reeves must know that this is a facile and misleading view of the economy, with an implicit right wing slant:
Daddy [private sector] must “make” the money before the family can afford nice things [decent public services and infrastructure]. Or daddy might leave with his money.
Unfortunately, most voters believe something like it. The party of the right can always turn it to their advantage, but when the party of the (supposed) left tries to, it just says that the other lot were right all along, and people will go back to voting for them as soon as they look sane.
“Trickledown Man” the same as “Piltdown Man” – phoney:-
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piltdown_Man
“The test of our progress is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have too little”. Franklin D. Roosevelt (1882-1945)
True
100% well said Richard, I also despair even though I try not to.
Two crumbs of comfort
(1) Starmers goi no even further than some Blairites feel comfortable with, this is from todays Guaridan
“ Labour has also made clear that it has no plans for a wealth tax, despite pressure from many on the left to adopt one.
The intervention by Diamond, who was on the Blairite right of the party before leaving for academia, is intended to bring some degree of economic realism to the somewhat narrow general election debate on the economy.
Diamond and Murphy write: “Voters, of course, don’t like tax rises. As a result, Labour avoids tax pledges like the plague.
“But while the tax burden on working people is at a historic high, taxes on wealth and capital remain comparatively low.”
Starmer must introduce wealth tax, top Blair aide says
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/article/2024/jun/01/starmer-must-introduce-wealth-tax-after-labour-wins-election-top-blair-aide-says
(2) It ihas been estimated that Labour need a 12% swing to get the same outcomes as Blair and Atlee – those wins were with 7%. People now seem to think it’s certain; who could predict the self harm of the Tories, the collapse of the SNP and the failure of the Lib-Dems to cut through. BUT the poll lead of Labour is soft and it will be less on polling day than it is in the polls and who knows what the Gaza effect will be in Northern towns? ,
So there is still a (slim?) chance Labour will need help to form a government and, that being the case, the other parties may be able to play hardball on PR as the price for cooperation.
These may be slight chances and long shots but tey are also the last straws we have to clutch at right now.