I got an interesting insight into the mindset of a surviving Labour Party member yesterday.
My old friend, as that is what the person I was talking to is, might be described as tribally loyal to Labour, come what may.
Starmer is, in his opinion, putting on an impressive display. Given that the election is always held on the middle ground, and the middle ground has moved substantially towards the right over the last 40 years, that is the arena in which Starmer must win, he claimed. But, he assured me, that provided no indication at all of how a Starmer government would behave.
His claim was that once this new government had spent a couple of years following Tory economic policy, as Brown and Blair did from 1997 to 99, then the true spirit of Starmer, which he admitted is akin to that of new Labour, would be unleashed for all to see.
Despite my best efforts, it was very hard to work out what he thought that this true spirit would be, apart from the fact that there would be more spending on the NHS, as there was under Blair and Brown.
There would certainly not be electoral reform, or if there was, it would only allow an alternative vote, which we all know does not produce anything approximating to proportional representation. It was suggested that voters could not handle any greater complexity than that.
When it came to the economy, there was no response to my suggestion that Rachel Reeves is hard-core neoliberal and will follow the Bank of England line and demand austerity.
As for Europe, it was a matter of little by little, and wait and see.
The attitude towards Scotland was that it might, once again, be a useful source of Labour seats in the Commons.
And when it came down to it, everything was about the fact that Labour deserves support even though there was no obvious reason given for anyone to do so.
My suggestion that the current stance that Starmer has adopted is to the right of where Cameron and Osborne were in 2010 (which I think is true) was rejected, subject to the caveat that if this is what the population required, then, sobeit that Labour adopts that approach as a condition of getting elected, which was the only thing that matters.
My reluctance to vote for a party that claims to be socialist when it is now anything but that, let alone the social democratic alternative that I think this country craves, was condemned because I should vote for the idea of what the party was, rather than what it is.
The evidence that people very clearly want more government spending, a better NHS, enhanced education, better social services, an improved justice system, and so on were all dismissed. These things, plus nationalisation of core services, are what people say they want, it was said. But when they face the reality of the ballot box they apparently think something entirely different, and all those aspirations disappear and the austerity required to reinforce financial stability – which counts above all else – is their true desire, I was told.
Old friends, we might be, but we had to agree to differ. Even though my friend agreed that he preferred the 2019 manifesto to anything that Starmer might offer, he was immovable.
In one sense I admire his loyalty.
I, however, have never been able to do politics in the tribal way that he does. I like to look at the facts, which contradict his claims.
We agreed to differ and headed out birdwatching.
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 wonder if this gentlemen sees you in a similar way as you see him.
Not party political tribal, but tribal in the sense that there’s a ‘team’ of ideas we are wedded to and anyone who promotes these ideas becomes one of our team.
Unless they’re Tory.
You nmean he sees me as something other than a neoliberal?
I hope so
The ‘jam tomorrow’ (or after a couple more years of neoliberalism) argument, like the ‘misrepresent now and show your true colours when you’ve won’ argument, are versions of ‘the ends justify the means’ – which, as Camus points out in ‘The Rebel’ is the perpetual justification for tyranny.
Anybody thinking about how or why they should vote in the General Election should read the piece written by long-time environmental campaigner George Monbiot in the Guardian on Friday (15/09/23).
The best piece I have ever read about how Britain got into this mess and the current way we are governed
As the Guardian often does when it is terrified or embarrassed by uncomfortable truths, the article was given a misleading headline (something about Piers Morgan) and readers comments were not allowed.
Since then there has been nothing except the threatening silence of those that rule us and those that serve them.
I’be read it
It came up in conversation
My friend said “I hav not time for Monbiot”
I’m assuming your friend takes his cognitive dissonace straight with no ice. 🙂
Hat tip to Mr Langston – saw the article and skipped past it – due to the title (have zero time for Piers Moron). The Guardian, sinking that bit lower each & every day.
Having no time for someone who presents an intelligent critique of one’s views … hmm. He should have time. Amongst other ideas, GM is promoting that we teach complex systems thinking as a basic tool to children in school. Does your friend really think this is a bad idea? If so, I would be interested to know why. Your friend is pretty much endorsing tribalism over critical thinking and problem solving.
I think it was Tolstoy and Kropotkin, amongst others, who earlier declared the “the means are the ends” in their opposition to Marxist/Leninist authoritarianism.
Following Tory ideology for any period in a Labour administration is then utterly counter productive. Some of their horses really do need scaring.
That alone provides the rationale for questioning that “Labour deserves support”…even though there is/was “no obvious reason … for anyone to do so”.
That the majority then suffers through austerity for ‘jam tomorrow’, on the basis of the fraud that government funding is comparable to a household budget, really does nothing for those who need most help and support and it cannot possibly deliver for the JAMs let alone that struggling bottom 20%.
No party that prioritises relief of poverty should ever follow neoliberal ideology, that being the Tory MO for increasing inequality..
I’d slightly disagree with Joanna’s comments but only inasmuch as I don’t think systems analysis, as espoused by Dana Meadows, is especially complex at all.
I’m sure most primary kids would enjoy pouring water from one container into another through difference sized tubes – and entirely understand the principles involved.
Actually, we did have an emerging problem solving, skills based approach in education at one time – but it was sabotaged by Joseph the didact, and the corpse then also mauled by Gove.
aye, if the offputting ‘opinion’ headline
”
It’s a tragedy of modern plutocratic Britain: if you want to rise, follow the Piers Morgan playbook”
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2023/sep/15/tragedy-modern-britain-piers-morgan-playbook
disguised the main idea of Britains ‘concierge class’,
of a state seemingly designed to serve the oligarchy
Monbiot nails if again.
Monbiot’s article is excellent and accurately nails the centres of power that drive how Britain is governed and hence why we are where we are today. It also illustrates why I object to the continuing use of the word ‘establishment’ as it does not capture the groups involved and means different things to different people. For today’s Tories it means the ‘blob’, academia, civil service, left lawyers, the BBC and so on. One might even argue that the old establishment that might include the civil service of Yes Minister and the landed gentry did at least want to ‘conserve’, unlike today’s ‘Conservatives’ who appear to want to trash everything in their paths.
We can be quite precise about where the malign centres of power are, and how they influence and control how we are governed. It is the ultra wealthy and those who act as their ‘concierges’. Those sections of the City whose focus is only on wealth extraction for the benefit of themselves and their pals. The problem is the City and the Westminster it controls. It is not ‘London’ as is so often lazily asserted, which has levels of poverty and inequality as high as anywhere.
On the mention of executive jets, I live on the flight path out of Farnborough, once a centre of aviation research (no longer) and now the main airport for executive jets. Flight Radar handily lets you know where they are going and what they are. The airport has been canvassing residents in the area as they want to expand the number of flights, the hours of flying and the size of aircraft. All whist claiming that they will be a zero carbon airport! Needless to say, I will be objecting.
See also:
https://theconversation.com/london-is-a-major-reason-for-the-uks-inequality-problem-unfortunately-city-leaders-dont-want-to-talk-about-it-212762
Mr Stafford, The Conversation prmotes it’s association with ‘the biggest philosophy and music festival’; which of course The Conversation advertises as – taking place in London. Of course it is. The Conversation is a precious, twee echo chamber. I rest my case.
My understanding of what your friend is saying is that:
a) 75%+ of people (all people not just Liebore supporters) want more NHS, more renewables, nationalised water/sewage, power, rail,
b) at the ballot box, a transformation occurs and they will vote for a party offering none of the above (in a manifesto) but hope that maybe said party will offer some crumbs at some point in “the future”.
This is treating the Uk electorate as imbeciles/with contempt – safe in the knowledge that the current binary voting structures FPTP) are such as to allow the two parties (let’s face it only two count) to get away with any old rubbish – regardless of what they know the electorate wants. In parallel Liebore, & its acolytes, have been groomed into the tory policy box. Thus we have one party and two wings. This opens political space for the emergence of other parties – but FPTP reduces their impact to noise. At some point, something is going to give. It is possible that something very like national socialism will emerge. & thus Liebore will be the mid-wife for fill blown fascism – Uk-style. I wonder if your friend (& indeed others in what passes for a political party ha!!) understands that.
Personally, I would cut dead any friends that come out with this nonesense. I thus respect your massive tolerance.
We go back 40 years
But I agree, there is an arrognace about bhis position which is hard to accept
I guess your friend would see no need for this, then, except that most tories also want a publicly owned NHS, and Starmer and Streeting don’t.
On the other hand, if he thinks as he says he does, there would be no problem in him signing up to it. Unless, of course, as a still card carrying member of the party he is worried that by signing something like this he will be suspended?
https://weownit.org.uk/act-now/starmer-reinstate-the-nhs-fully-public-service
As the late, great, Jimmy Reid once said, “I didn’t leave the Labour Party, it left me”. And that was many years ago. Dear knows what he would make of it today.
Exactly my position. I remain a MOR Wilson tribute act, wedded to state provision, a socialist philosophy, government for the good if all citizens, sensible moral foreign policy, and trade unionism. This is now ‘hard left’.
The use of the word “tribalism” to describe loyalty to the Labour Party is somewhat unfair, although it is not an unreasonable description of the present divide. It’s a term that has been used by its enemies, and is not used to describe the similar dysfunction at the heart of the present Tory party, so I don’t trust it.
Having said all that, I say it’s unfair, as it underplays the deep commitment to social justice and fairness that has always been at the heart of the Labour movement, united in solidarity and loyalty to a cause.
It is tribal only in the sense that a shared sense of this commitment has united its members and strengthened them through difficult times. The history of the labour movement is a lesson in understanding the powerful class dynamics of our culture, based on the ownership of land, the privileges that flow from that, and the determination of the rich to keep things under their control.
The loyalty to the cause is built on this class recognition, and is deeply important to many in the Labour movement, to the extent that it can result in a blindness to its faults, and resistance to any criticism.
Your friend is dealing with his cognitive dissonance by ignoring it, against all rational evidence.
For many of us, coping with the cognitive dissonance is an ongoing process, that I’m afraid leads only in one direction at the moment, with the current state of the party. I think it is not an exaggeration to describe what some members have felt at the loss of an important part of their identity as grief.
Be gentle with your friend! He has a hard time ahead.
Helen Heenan
“Having said all that, I say it’s unfair, as it underplays the deep commitment to social justice and fairness that has always been at the heart of the Labour movement, united in solidarity and loyalty to a cause.”
Please show me just one tiny piece of evidence that the current Labour party leadership has even the smallest commitment to social justice and fairness.
It isn’t there. Just being called the Labour party is not good enough
@Cyndy Hodgson
“Please show me just one tiny piece of evidence that the current Labour party leadership has even the smallest commitment to social justice and fairness.”
I’m not disagreeing with you. I think you may have misread my comment.
Sounds like society needs a good old fashioned dose of antagonism to me rather than this fake agonism where ‘all ideas are equal’ (but some are more equal than others – clue – especially those ideas that are backed by and support money).
Politics is pure theatre these days – a pretence. Laboured, Stymied and Miss-read are all fantasists clinging to some sort of compromise with the Establishment who are taking us back to a pre-WW1 society where they hope the sacrifices and promises of two world wars will be written out of history.
Laboured’s ‘offering’ is wasted – you cannot argue with extremist money and wealth – it always wants more, even though it already has nearly everything and enough. We are still in the foothills of what can only be a time when people realise perhaps that their lives are being sacrificed on the edifice of greed and there is only one way to deal with that. They have to take back control from wealth, and stopping bloody worshipping it as objective for themselves would be a start.
Some hope.
I think many LP members on the progressive wing of the party are suffering serious cognitive dissonance when faced with what the Labour Party has become – they just can’t handle the fact that Labour is now a party that supports the right-wing, authoritarian neoliberal Establishment consensus. So they shut it out and ignore the evidence that this is so – which is basically everything KS and his team have said and done since he became party leader. The dissonant void is filled with wishful thinking and a desperate – some would say delusional – hope that it’s all just a cunning plan to get past the right wing media gatekeepers, and the next Labour government will show it’s true radical or progressive colours once in office with 5 years to get down to business. But if it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck…..
You nail it…
You and Helen are right.
In some quarters loyalty to the tribe/party is more important than any policy. It helps to minimise anxiety that one can be wrong or that the group is not what one hopes it is.
In the real world things are not just black and white but it is much easier for some to pretend they are.
Facing reality is uncomfortable, even painful but in the long run ‘the truth will make us free.’ You will recognise the quote.
I guess I am “tribally Labour”, too – although there are many policies they espouse that I disagree with. So, for me, the question is “What is the best route to try and achieve the policies I want in the system/country we live in?”.
Route 1.
Leave the Labour Party, join (say) The Green Party and vote Green at the next election.
This is the mirror image of the (successful) UKIP strategy where UKIP, by threatening to split the right wing vote, dragged the Tories to the right. The far right Tories were able to win because the anti-Tory vote remained split. Would that be the case on the left? Possibly – but the risks are that a) Labour refuses to move left and a split progressive vote allows the Tories to win or b) Labour does move left to recapture left wing voters… but loses out in the middle ground (as Corbyn did).
Route 2
This is Polly Toynbee’s “nose peg” solution. Vote Labour for fear of worse. To which I would add – stay a member of the Labour Party and campaign internally for voting reform and a more enlightened approach to policy.
I wish there were a Route 3 – but I don’t see it. Route 1 is too risky for me so I soldier on with Route 2
The mistake here is thinking there is something different about Labour. There isn’t. All Parties are the same; self serving, winning-is-all, soul-for-sale. In British politics Party is tribal and Party is everything. If it wasn’t so the oligarchs, billionaires and kleptocrats wouldn’t waste a moments breath on the whole system. If Party had to reason with voters few billionaires would waste effort or investment on anything so uncertain. Only because Party carries the ballast of tribalism, and the rhetoric of meaningless differences does it attract the investment of oligarchs; the world’s natural monopolists. They deal only in the security of monopoly. Our system offers it – cheap. What kind of people are attracted to institutions? Never, ever the ones broadcast in the mission statement. Rarely the best, and too often the worst. The more power and money involved the worse it will be. Britain’s political system invites the attention of tyrants and oligarchs the world over, less because Britain is an open society; more because it is so easily corrupted.
Thanks’ for posting a link to Monbiot’s article in the Guardian. I do think that political parties outside the two converging wings of the Tory Party can have an influence, if they can manage to make the revelations of this Blog common knowledge. Although I don’t expect to precipitate a mass sign-up of new Richard Murphy followers, I feel compelled to find a way to dispel the ‘austerity is necessary’ myth. As a Green Party member, I will make every effort to gain support for a progressive narrative that would mark a first step in preparing Green Party members for a rethink on our economic policy. I say this in response to an earlier blog post that criticized current Green Party economic policy.
I have tried to put together a few brief statements that could be brought forward as emergency amendments to Green Party economic policy that would merely pave the way for bold, in depth, new reforms at the next Spring Party Conference. These three basic statements are not controversial, or against Green Party ethos, so I think they will succeed at a vote. They should meet the criteria required for urgent amendments to be considered at the Autumn Party Conference due to the current dire state of the cost-of-living crisis. They are urgently needed to combat the dangerous mantra adopted by all other political parties to support a fabricated lack of funds and the potential for forced ramping-up of austerity measures.
I will try and get the following wording included as introductory changes that clearly demonstrate a rejection of neoliberal policy and austerity. The following statements include my own wording that can, of course, be altered or improved upon if necessary. The three statements would say that The Green Party:
1. ……. categorically rejects any need for either temporary or long-term austerity from the government. Since the UK, is a fiat currency with over £6 trillion in private wealth: we cannot possibly have ‘Run Out of Money!’
2. ……. recognizes the urgent need for drastic tax reform to establish the redistribution of wealth. This will be accomplished in consideration of measures proposed by respected economist Richard Murphy, in his Taxing Wealth Report 2024, with objectives designed to fairly rebalance the increasing inequality between taxable income and untaxed wealth in Britian.
3. ……. would use the estimated £170 billion a year in untaxed wealth to invest in a Green New Deal pathway to the secure, well paid, job creation necessary for sustainable rebuilding of our crumbling infrastructure and restoring our decimated NHS and other public services as exclusively publicly owned national assets.
The aim of these statements is to prime the Green Party membership to start researching and thinking proactively about how our fiat currency enables investment in our joint Economic and Climate Crisis priorities. This will hopefully focus attention on dispelling the myth of ‘No money left’ and the false question of ‘How are we going to pay for it?’ My wording is based on the truths Richard has revealed in this blog, but I am sure the wording could be improved to make the basic points a lot more compelling. While this does not establish a major change in Green Party values, if it is voted on by members it will signal broad party support for a long overdue rewrite of Green Party Economic Policy in time for a vote at the next Spring Conference.
Any Green Party members reading this blog who might also be attending Green Party Conference can meet up with me there and I hope I will be able to count on your support in bringing these statements to the floor. I hope that this strategy will meet the approval of other Greens, if not, please let me know; I will be easy to spot at conference tooling around in a bright red electric wheelchair. I would appreciate any corrections and constructive criticism that might add to the impact of the proposed statements before I post them on ‘Green Spaces’. These statements will only be added to Green Party policy if they are voted for at this Autunm Green Party Conference.
Kim, I am a Green Party member and will be attending the autumn conference, so will look out for you there. I endorse your three statements.
On the subject of Labour Party loyalty, as an ex member, I asked a fellow dinner party guest last night about his continued membership of the party and he said it was out of loyalty to the people he has campaigned for and canvassed with over the years. He is under no illusions about the direction of travel of Labour, and doesn’t seem to think it is a necessary pretence that will drop away once elected. I couldn’t really understand where he is coming from, but guess it’s hard to change the loyalties of a lifetime.
What about those who can’t stay in the party because they have been expelled from it for spurious reasons? What about Jews who have been expelled for being anti-semitic?
Do you really expect them to vote labour at the next election?
I don’t….
Sorry, that question was directed at Clive.
The internal party warfare is dreadful and I do sometimes despair. Indeed, I am open to expulsion for admitting in this blog that I prefer many Green policies and have (and will, again) vote Lib Dem in my constituency.
(Of course, this warfare is almost inevitable under FPTP that virtually guarantees a two party system… which in turn creates factions within each major party who wrestle for control. It is one of the key reasons we need PR.)
I don’t expect those expelled to vote Labour… but if 1/3 of the Labour vote switches to The Green Party we will get a further 5 years of Tory government.
Now, some think that this is preferable to a “Starmer” Labour win as it would “guarantee” a tack left by Labour and a proper left(ish) government in 2030. Possibly, but in 2025 I would prefer Tory-lite with a chance of a tack left to “full fat” Tory-ism with the risk of a descent into fascism.
As I said, I don’t like my choices… but I do have to choose.
Clive, I’ve just put on another thread that someone who says they vote libdem or like Green policies as a member of the labour party is likely to be expelled. You will keep us updated, won’t you?
Clive
You will vote Labour to prevent a Tory return. Why? What real effect do you think it will have? As much as I despise the tories and all they stand for, I would rather they got back than Labour were elected and continued the same policies. If Labour is pushed to the wire and (I hope) just gets in, in a minority government, don’t you think they may actually consider some worthwhile policies?
Separately, I refuse to vote for a party (whether Tory or Labour) whose policies I despise.
I think Clve said he would be voting LD
It strikes me that your friend’s views are those of an old man looking backwards rather than into the future and how our children and grand-children are to cope. Most of the contributors to the debate here are focused on Westminster political issues, but the constitutional issues are equally important, especially if you live in any of the devolved nations.
Richard describes his friend’s attitude towards Scotland “…that it might, once again, be a useful source of Labour seats in the “Commons.” Apart from his ignorance of Scottish opinion (the latest poll shows rising support for independence at 52% once no-votes and won’t-votes are excluded), the inference of your friend is that Scotland’s role in UK politics is simply to be voting fodder for English parties with no policies to engage with Scottish opinion. It’s an attitude which I find deeply offensive, but it doesn’t surprise me: the rightwards drift of Labour has turned it into a Tory-lite party. How widely-known in England are the Scottish Gov’s mitigations of socially-harmful Tory policies and it’s successful negotiations of acceptable pay-rises for public sector workers to avert harmful strikes? Why would we vote for a Labour Party which has pledged to continue these Tory economic and fiscal policies when our own government has demonstrated that it puts our people first? Also how aware are people and politicians in England of the centuries-old Claim of Rights (affirmed in recent years by both Holyrood and Westminster) which recognizes that in Scotland the people are sovereign?
In an article https://bellacaledonia.org.uk/2023/09/10/the-ambivalent-union/ in last week’s Sunday National Mike Small posited that the UK Union may disintegrate simply because of the English electorate’s indifference towards the devolved nations, their politics and their stubborn refusal to let their unique cultures be swamped. Small summed it up thus: “British institutions have been hollowed out and sold off. Westminster has been exposed and ridiculed, the Monarchy has been irretrievably tarnished and Britain’s national assets have been sold-off. Devolution has left the English resentful but unwilling to reform in any meaningful way and we have the dismal prospectus of a Starmer government-in-waiting promising (weekly) ‘No change’.” That says it all really.
The odd thing is, my friend knows Scotland well.
He may know the land well, but does he understand the people?
Good question
Might your friend be exhibiting “System Justification Behaviours” which have helped to keep poor, inequitable leadership/controlship in power over the centuries?
Thank you for your constant, caring, analytic questioning and suggesting!
The psychosis entailed in adopting such a convoluted narrative so as to adapt to the manipulated “choice” between the only two unacceptable alternatives on offer is testament to the way FPTP has embedded itself in our delusion that we have a democratic system in the UK.
Slightly off message – I wonder if you have seen Christopher Olk, Colleen Schneider and Jason Hickel’s “How to pay for saving the world: Modern Monetary Theory for a degrowth transition”?
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0921800923002318
Highlights
• Degrowth and Modern Monetary Theory form a strategic symbiosis for addressing social and ecological crises
• Public spending on social and ecological objectives is not constrained by tax revenues or GDP
• MMT needs to incorporate ecological limits to production and productive capacity
• Targeted fiscal and monetary policies can ensure macroeconomic and price stability during a degrowth transition
• Policy priorities include a job guarantee, credit regulation, price controls, tax reforms, and universal public services
• An MMT-informed degrowth transition requires more democratic control over monetary policy and financial system governance
Much in common with your own work.
I have seen it
I have nor read it as yet
Has the labour membership card changed?
On the back of my card it says
“power, wealth and opportunity are in the hands of the many not the few, where the rights we enjoy reflect the duty we owe, and where we live together, freely, in a spirit of solidarity, tolerance and respect.”
Whatever happened to that under Starmer?
In response to Mr. Parry,
“in 2025 I would prefer Tory-lite with a chance of a tack left to “full fat” Tory-ism with the risk of a descent into fascism.”
You are right to worry about a possible turn to fascism. That is precisely why Labour should be offering a meaningful and significant alternative to never ending austerity that is blighting millions of lives. It is precisely this lack of meaningful choice that will open up the space for fascism to enter mainstream political discourse.
You express my concern