Topic: Labour Thread * No Gaza *

[Yorkykopite]

Didn’t we all? When they played him a speech he did in the 80s it was a goosebumps moment

Yes, it said in very powerful words (both rationally and emotionally powerful) why socialism is common sense. It's a gift to be able to describe something like that, off the cuff, to a large crowd of listeners.

[Sangria]

Yes, it said in very powerful words (both rationally and emotionally powerful) why socialism is common sense. It's a gift to be able to describe something like that, off the cuff, to a large crowd of listeners.

That's not all that communication is though. You also have tribalism, where the key isn't what is being said, or the substance behind what is being said, but who is saying it. As long as it's someone in the in group saying it, then that's all that's needed to rally the cause, with anyone saying contrariwise being labelled as the enemy. You saw it with Johnson, and the Tories in general, but you also see it with sections of the left. The substance isn't what's being discussed, but rallying behind the in group. I think the term is Pavlovian.

[cornishscouser92]

Survation 9-10 May -
Lab 44% (=)
Con 24% (-2)
LD 10% (+1)
RFM 8% (-2)
Grn 7% (+3)

TechneUK 8-9 May -
Lab 45% (+1)
Con 21% (-1)
Rfm 12% (-1)
LD  11%  (+1)
Grn 6% (=)

Scottish Westminster VI - 3-8 May
Lab 37% (+2)
SNP 33% (-2)
Con 17% (-2)
LD 7% (+1)

Polls going in the right direction

[PaulF]

Survation 9-10 May -
Lab 44% (=)
Con 24% (-2)
LD 10% (+1)
RFM 8% (-2)
Grn 7% (+3)

TechneUK 8-9 May -
Lab 45% (+1)
Con 21% (-1)
Rfm 12% (-1)
LD  11%  (+1)
Grn 6% (=)

Scottish Westminster VI - 3-8 May
Lab 37% (+2)
SNP 33% (-2)
Con 17% (-2)
LD 7% (+1)

Polls going in the right direction

Is that sufficient to suggest taking Elphick under his wing hasn't harmed Starmer?

[Jiminy Cricket]

Is that sufficient to suggest taking Elphick under his wing hasn't harmed Starmer?

The likes of little Owen Jones will not vote for a Starmer-lead Labour Party anyway. But accepting Elphick is largely irrelevant, but with - I suggest - a slight positive in the round. Elphick will be gone come the election anyway. And it is embarrassing for the Government right now. I am more concerned about the likes of little Owen sticking the knife in wherever possible. Again, marginal stuff, but a slight negative in the round.

[Draex]

Is that sufficient to suggest taking Elphick under his wing hasn't harmed Starmer?

Seems from todays Starmer is using Elphicke to steal the control of the "boats" issue with a strong policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984778

I'd imagine thats one of the reasons he's let a right winger into the party, Dover is frontlines of a hugely debated topic and Elphicke undermining Sunak's weak policies is a huge PR win for Labour.

[killer-heels]

Seems from todays Starmer is using Elphicke to steal the control of the "boats" issue with a strong policy.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68984778

I'd imagine thats one of the reasons he's let a right winger into the party, Dover is frontlines of a hugely debated topic and Elphicke undermining Sunak's weak policies is a huge PR win for Labour.

Yep, looks like its a real toughening up of immigration policy. They have even seemed to have subtly dropped the safe routes and processing immigration status lines which they have been talking about for the past few years.

[filopastry]

Yep, looks like its a real toughening up of immigration policy. They have even seemed to have subtly dropped the safe routes and processing immigration status lines which they have been talking about for the past few years.

To be brutally honest, if you look at what immigration is doing to politics and driving support for the far right across multiple countries, it is an issue that is problematic for parties not in the populist right, to put it mildly

[Kenny's Jacket]

Yep, looks like its a real toughening up of immigration policy. They have even seemed to have subtly dropped the safe routes and processing immigration status lines which they have been talking about for the past few years.

He makes voting Labour really fucking hard

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-10/starmer-vows-hostile-ground-for-smuggling-gangs-and-to-scrap-rwanda-policy

[RedDeadRejection]

The likes of little Owen Jones will not vote for a Starmer-lead Labour Party anyway. But accepting Elphick is largely irrelevant, but with - I suggest - a slight positive in the round. Elphick will be gone come the election anyway. And it is embarrassing for the Government right now. I am more concerned about the likes of little Owen sticking the knife in wherever possible. Again, marginal stuff, but a slight negative in the round.

LBC interview really didn't help. Let's call a spade a spade. Starmer fucked up and deserves fallout on that. The more they pull to the right, the worse it will be for the majority of normal folk. Dissenting voices are healthy. Starmer will be PM by years end, he will have to get used to being pulled both ends.

[cornishscouser92]

Survation 9-10 May -
Lab 44% (=)
Con 24% (-2)
LD 10% (+1)
RFM 8% (-2)
Grn 7% (+3)

TechneUK 8-9 May -
Lab 45% (+1)
Con 21% (-1)
Rfm 12% (-1)
LD  11%  (+1)
Grn 6% (=)

Scottish Westminster VI - 3-8 May
Lab 37% (+2)
SNP 33% (-2)
Con 17% (-2)
LD 7% (+1)

Polls going in the right direction

Redfield & Wilton Scottish Westminster VI 8-9 May

Labour 38% (+5)
SNP 31% (-1)
Conservative 14% (-3)
Lib Dem 8% (–)
Reform 4% (-1)
Green 4% (+2)

Wethink 9-10 May

Lab 47% (+3)
Con 24% (NC)
LD 9% (+1)
Ref 10% (-3)
Green 6% (NC)

[ianburns252]

He makes voting Labour really fucking hard

https://www.itv.com/news/2024-05-10/starmer-vows-hostile-ground-for-smuggling-gangs-and-to-scrap-rwanda-policy

The thing is smuggling gangs should be cracked down on; so called "safe" routes aren't the answer; and immigration policy is not fit for purpose.

These are all reasonable statements as smuggling gangs also traffic human beings for sex work and slavery; safe routes is a plaster over a bigger problem; and its a Tory made immigration policy - of course it is shite.

These statements do not mean he is against those seeking help or against immigrants in general but he needs to back it up with "We are stopping the gangs - but we will work to create UN or EU supported routes with efficient processing so people don't need to turn to them in the first place"; "We are not going to use "safe" routes - that just makes us complicit with people smugglers! Instead we will work with allies and friends around the world to ensure anyone fleeing persecution and tyranny has a safe and legal way out supported by NATO etc"

[PaulF]

The thing is smuggling gangs should be cracked down on; so called "safe" routes aren't the answer; and immigration policy is not fit for purpose.

These are all reasonable statements as smuggling gangs also traffic human beings for sex work and slavery; safe routes is a plaster over a bigger problem; and its a Tory made immigration policy - of course it is shite.

These statements do not mean he is against those seeking help or against immigrants in general but he needs to back it up with "We are stopping the gangs - but we will work to create UN or EU supported routes with efficient processing so people don't need to turn to them in the first place"; "We are not going to use "safe" routes - that just makes us complicit with people smugglers! Instead we will work with allies and friends around the world to ensure anyone fleeing persecution and tyranny has a safe and legal way out supported by NATO etc"

Maybe I need another coffee, but how do safe routes make us complicit with people smugglers?
It would be interesting to see what the estimates are on how many immigrants we could expect if we had nothing in place to stop refugees from fleeing here but reliably tracked and processed them (ie to stop illegal economic migration)*)



* - though the Tories are doing a good job of stopping economic migration by trashing our economy.

[killer-heels]

The thing is smuggling gangs should be cracked down on; so called "safe" routes aren't the answer; and immigration policy is not fit for purpose.

These are all reasonable statements as smuggling gangs also traffic human beings for sex work and slavery; safe routes is a plaster over a bigger problem; and its a Tory made immigration policy - of course it is shite.

These statements do not mean he is against those seeking help or against immigrants in general but he needs to back it up with "We are stopping the gangs - but we will work to create UN or EU supported routes with efficient processing so people don't need to turn to them in the first place"; "We are not going to use "safe" routes - that just makes us complicit with people smugglers! Instead we will work with allies and friends around the world to ensure anyone fleeing persecution and tyranny has a safe and legal way out supported by NATO etc"

The problem is that I dont think Labour has any choice now but to be tough on immigration. Due to the situation in Hong Kong and Ukraine, we have had a massive influx of people into the country and unfortunately lots of other immigrants are getting conflated into the numbers.

Those numbers of almost 3/4 million people will have impact on infrastructure, which I have seen in local schools.

I can see why the processing and the safe and legal line has been dropped by Labour. The issue with processing is that when immigrants are processed, a lot are allowed to stay. You say you will create safe and legal routes, its just another way to get to the country.

Ultimately the public wants to see a reduction in migration, full stop. Numbers need to drop drastically otherwise both political parties will suffer the publics wrath.

[Kenny's Jacket]

The thing is smuggling gangs should be cracked down on; so called "safe" routes aren't the answer; and immigration policy is not fit for purpose.

These are all reasonable statements as smuggling gangs also traffic human beings for sex work and slavery; safe routes is a plaster over a bigger problem; and its a Tory made immigration policy - of course it is shite.

These statements do not mean he is against those seeking help or against immigrants in general but he needs to back it up with "We are stopping the gangs but we will work to create UN or EU supported routes with efficient processing so people don't need to turn to them in the first place"; "We are not going to use "safe" routes - that just makes us complicit with people smugglers! Instead we will work with allies and friends around the world to ensure anyone fleeing persecution and tyranny has a safe and legal way out supported by NATO etc"

but he didnt say that, hence my post, All your doing mate is saying If he does this thing that he hasnt done then its great

They have previously suggested safe routes, but that seems to have changed.
Their previous statement on asylum seekers was pretty good, it wasn't liberal enough for me, but it was pretty good. That seems to have changed.   



-

[Kenny's Jacket]

The problem is that I dont think Labour has any choice now but to be tough on immigration. Due to the situation in Hong Kong and Ukraine, we have had a massive influx of people into the country and unfortunately lots of other immigrants are getting conflated into the numbers.

Those numbers of almost 3/4 million people will have impact on infrastructure, which I have seen in local schools.

I can see why the processing and the safe and legal line has been dropped by Labour. The issue with processing is that when immigrants are processed, a lot are allowed to stay. You say you will create safe and legal routes, its just another way to get to the country.

Ultimately the public wants to see a reduction in migration, full stop. Numbers need to drop drastically otherwise both political parties will suffer the publics wrath.

Im in the public and want us to look after people seeking asylum.

[killer-heels]

but he didnt say that, hence my post, All your doing mate is saying If he does this thing that he hasnt done then its great

They have previously suggested safe routes, but that seems to have changed.
Their previous statement on asylum seekers was pretty good, it wasn't liberal enough for me, but it was pretty good. That seems to have changed.   



-

You mention safe routes and a country that wants immigration to reduce just sees another way people get into the country, particularly as how they will see it, the numbers of legal migration are too high anyway. A lot of people want numbers reduced, how they get here is of little concern whether its legally or through the channel.

[Kenny's Jacket]

You mention safe routes and a country that wants immigration to reduce just sees another way people get into the country, particularly as how they will see it, the numbers of legal migration are too high anyway. A lot of people want numbers reduced, how they get here is of little concern whether its legally or through the channel.

No politician has had the balls to point out that those arriving in small boats is a really small number of those who come here.
Id like Starmer,3 armed with a massive lead against the most despised UK government, to have those balls.

[PaulF]

No politician has had the balls to point out that those arriving in small boats is a really small number of those who come here.
Id like Starmer armed with a massive lead against the most despised UK government to have, those balls.

But if he does that, does he then move the debate toward total immigration. If as Kh says, and I suspect she's right, most bits want less overall migration then he has a headache unless he can redifine our rules on refugee status so we can turn away more people.   It's a thorny problem..  I totally want us to take in as many refugees as we can. But I also understand that if it means we struggle to get gp apts or school places because of refugees then it's a political disaster.  Though, like with EU migration, there probably is a balance. Land and houses is probably more of an issue for the growing population.

*disclaimer, I'm essentially a refugee, so my views are perhaps not aligned with the general public.

[Kenny's Jacket]

But if he does that, does he then move the debate toward total immigration. If as Kh says, and I suspect she's right, most bits want less overall migration then he has a headache unless he can redifine our rules on refugee status so we can turn away more people.   It's a thorny problem..  I totally want us to take in as many refugees as we can. But I also understand that if it means we struggle to get gp apts or school places because of refugees then it's a political disaster.  Though, like with EU migration, there probably is a balance. Land and houses is probably more of an issue for the growing population.

*disclaimer, I'm essentially a refugee, so my views are perhaps not aligned with the general public.

I dont think mine are either mate

Is there any evidence that asylum seekers are causing a strain on services. 
*Disclaimer if there were, we should still open up safe routes. 

[Red-Soldier]

No politician has had the balls to point out that those arriving in small boats is a really small number of those who come here.
Id like Starmer armed with a massive lead against the most despised UK government to have, those balls.

Yep.  The small boat numbers are miniscule, compared to the numbers of legal migrants.  Since Brexit, immigration has greatly increased, mostly from places such as India.

Still waiting for a politician to have an honest conservation about immigration, with the public.

[TSC]

No politician has had the balls to point out that those arriving in small boats is a really small number of those who come here.
Id like Starmer,3 armed with a massive lead against the most despised UK government, to have those balls.

There was a report by Ros Atkins on the beeb early this morning pointing this out.  Was quite good but you’d have to be up with the birds to catch it.

[PaulF]

I dont think mine are either mate

Is there any evidence that asylum seekers are causing a strain on services. 
*Disclaimer if there were, we should still open up safe routes. 

Only anecdotal evidence that I'm aware of. Though it wouldn't be on my radar if there were stats. The kind of thing RAWK is great for, someone will know where to find the stats.
Unfortunately in lieu of any other messaging, the belief will be that it does create pressure because 'it stands to reason don't it'.  I'm sure there are rotten apples coming in too which are highlighted, whereas there will be plenty of refugees coming in, settling and becoming a valuable part of the community.  It is very much a conversation for the adults who can accept that unlimited migration isn't possible and aren't accused of being racist with that view point.
Housing is perhaps the biggest concern, but this is the cherry on the top of a situation where houses are something like 10x salary.

[Red Beret]

Fwiw, I don't think asylum seekers are straining services. Austerity and privatisation is what is straining services. Invest in services and capacity will improve. People who are able to find quality jobs that pay decent money will boost the economy and help towards this investment.

Or am I being too simplistic and or naive?

[PaulF]

Hard to say red Beret.  Cynically I'd say you are bang on and that a laclustre economy is the fault of the government, but rather than fix it they'll blame immigrants.  Where have we heard this story before.

I think Labour have to be careful. Even ignoring the stupid amounts of money wasted by tories, the pandemic cost huge amounts of money. And we had to borrow to save a lot of jobs.   I haven't looked in detail about the  furlough scheme or other support, but we have to pay that off over a long time, and that is going to mean an element of money we can't spend on services. The Ukraine war also hikes up costs which make services more expensive for us all.  But yes it's the small boats!

-- sorry, went a bit ranty. Not aimed at you RB--

[filopastry]

Yep.  The small boat numbers are miniscule, compared to the numbers of legal migrants.  Since Brexit, immigration has greatly increased, mostly from places such as India.

Still waiting for a politician to have an honest conservation about immigration, with the public.

People are less anti immigration to meet economic needs and gaps in the Labour market than you think, views on people arriving in small boats etc are a lot harsher.

My guess is that ignoring the hard nativist nonsense from the usual headbangers, a lot of people are okish with immigration where they view it as meeting the needs of the country and being within the rules that we set to control the borders, a lot less ok with it when it can be portrayed as unauthorised immigration that they view as primarily being to the benefit of the immigrant.

Not my views just where I think a lot of the public is on the issue.

Saw some polling on that a while ago and I was a little surprised, that actually more people weren't just rabidly anti-immigration for the sake of it. No doubt that could change though when the nmedia starts ranting about overall numbers if Labour takes over.

[Sangria]

Fwiw, I don't think asylum seekers are straining services. Austerity and privatisation is what is straining services. Invest in services and capacity will improve. People who are able to find quality jobs that pay decent money will boost the economy and help towards this investment.

Or am I being too simplistic and or naive?

We live in a democracy, ruled by votes from voters. We don't live in a society where numbers are related by accounts. We can only hope that the former can be convinced by the latter. I'm not sure they are.

[west_london_red]

Fwiw, I don't think asylum seekers are straining services. Austerity and privatisation is what is straining services. Invest in services and capacity will improve. People who are able to find quality jobs that pay decent money will boost the economy and help towards this investment.

Or am I being too simplistic and or naive?

I don’t think asylum seekers in themselves are causing the issues, the overall numbers of immigrants in total probably are. We don’t build enough of anything in this country as it is, that’s houses, hospitals, reservoirs, electricity capacity… literally you name it, we don’t have enough of it, and with all the will in the world when you have 600 to 700 thousand people coming a year that’s going to cause issues.

[PaulF]

Was a tory and someone else on the radio earlier. The Tory was trying to refute the idea that it was failed buolding plans that was the problem and that immigration was mostly to blame.  My suspicion is maybe 5% of housing need is by immigrants. Possibly the same percentage as the general population. But that 5% get the spotlight shone on them.

[oldfordie]

Was a tory and someone else on the radio earlier. The Tory was trying to refute the idea that it was failed buolding plans that was the problem and that immigration was mostly to blame.  My suspicion is maybe 5% of housing need is by immigrants. Possibly the same percentage as the general population. But that 5% get the spotlight shone on them.

I thought that was the whole point about leaving the EU. we take back control. it doesn't really matter what the public or Labour think. the Torys have control of immigration so if they thought Immigration was a problem then why didn't they stop it. it doesn't matter what the problem is, it's the governments job to sort it. 14 yrs they've had. 4 1/2 yrs out of the EU and they keep talking as if all these problems had nothing to do with them.

[Red Beret]

First it was about Brexit and how tge EU is the problem when it comes to immigration. Now it's the ECHR.

In both cases, the Tories are using immigration as leverage to undermine safeguards for basic human and workers rights.

[spen71]

Fwiw, I don't think asylum seekers are straining services. Austerity and privatisation is what is straining services. Invest in services and capacity will improve. People who are able to find quality jobs that pay decent money will boost the economy and help towards this investment.

Or am I being too simplistic and or naive?

This is the discussion I’ve had recently.    I’ve read somewhere that migrants are always economically active and pay taxes.

Something I never see discussed is that we have an aging population.   Birth rate is now lower than the death rate.   This phenomenon is not restricted to this country.    So we actually need immigrants!

[west_london_red]

This is the discussion I’ve had recently.    I’ve read somewhere that migrants are always economically active and pay taxes.

Something I never see discussed is that we have an aging population.   Birth rate is now lower than the death rate.   This phenomenon is not restricted to this country.    So we actually need immigrants!

The ageing population gets talked about a fair bit I’d say, the low and declining birth rate, a lot less. But it goes back to the same point, why are people not having kids? Because children are a huge commitment for a person to make, and in this time of high cost of living, stalled wages and most importantly I’d say unaffordable housing in particular as people tend not to have kids if they are still living in their parents home or insecure housing, and having a housing shortage while at the same time having record immigration is asking for trouble not that I think the Tories mind as they quite like pitching the native against the immigrant (“British homes for British people”) and the home owning over 50’s against the avocado on toast eating millennials, but it is still an issue when you build 250,000 homes but have 700,000 net people coming to the country.

[Red Beret]

People are being relentlessly squeezed. They're being priced out of getting married, priced out of owning a home, priced out of having kids; priced out of living.

Many millennials are into their 40s now. Avocado on toast is about the only thing any of them can afford these days.

The Tories have left so many people ill and traumatised that they'll be forcing the poor bastards to work after the next election because the economy is flat lining.

[Circa1892]

The ageing population gets talked about a fair bit I’d say, the low and declining birth rate, a lot less. But it goes back to the same point, why are people not having kids? Because children are a huge commitment for a person to make, and in this time of high cost of living, stalled wages and most importantly I’d say unaffordable housing in particular as people tend not to have kids if they are still living in their parents home or insecure housing, and having a housing shortage while at the same time having record immigration is asking for trouble not that I think the Tories mind as they quite like pitching the native against the immigrant (“British homes for British people”) and the home owning over 50’s against the avocado on toast eating millennials, but it is still an issue when you build 250,000 homes but have 700,000 net people coming to the country.

Childcare remains phenomenally expensive. Stat Paternity leave is 2 weeks.

Unless you’ve got money or parents who can help out it’s not doable.

[west_london_red]

Childcare remains phenomenally expensive. Stat Paternity leave is 2 weeks.

Unless you’ve got money or parents who can help out it’s not doable.

I’d say it’s a symptom of other issues mentioned already rather than a cause. Has childcare got more expensive over the last 10-20 years? No one used to complain about it 20 years ago. I’m guessing it hasn’t become more expensive (but happy to be corrected), the difference is that once upon a time a parent (usually the mother but obviously doesn’t have to be) could afford to give up work for a couple of years or go part time to look after the children and you could run a household on a single wage or one and a half wages, now most people can’t do that, most households need two wages just to keep their heads above water because everything is so damn expensive.

[TheShanklyGates]

People are being relentlessly squeezed. They're being priced out of getting married, priced out of owning a home, priced out of having kids; priced out of living.

Many millennials are into their 40s now. Avocado on toast is about the only thing any of them can afford these days.

The Tories have left so many people ill and traumatised that they'll be forcing the poor bastards to work after the next election because the economy is flat lining.

Why is Britain’s mental health so incredibly poor? It’s because our society is spiralling backwards
George Monbiot

Even as neoliberalism destroys our dreams of a better life, politicians tell us ‘there is no alternative’. But there is.



The news should have stopped us in our tracks. Astonishingly, however, it was scarcely reported here. The latest map of mental wellbeing published by the Global Mind Project reveals that, out of the 71 countries it assessed, the United Kingdom, alongside South Africa, has the highest proportion of people in mental distress – and the second worst overall measure of mental health (we beat only Uzbekistan). Mental wellbeing has plummeted in the UK further than in any comparable nation. How was this not headline news?

More importantly, why has it happened? The Global Mind Project blames smartphones and ultra-processed food. They doubtless play a role, but they’re hardly peculiar to the UK. I think part of the reason is the sense that life here is, visibly and obviously, spiralling backwards.

There was a time when almost everyone in the UK believed the following promises. That a rising economic tide would lift all boats. That everybody would have a good home. That drudge work would diminish and jobs would become more interesting. That we would enjoy greater economic security and more leisure time. That educational attainment would keep rising across all social classes. That our healthcare and health would inexorably improve. That the UK would become ever cleaner and greener. That governance and democratic engagement would get better by the year.

We could easily have had all of these things. A vast amount of money has flushed through this country. Science has advanced by leaps and bounds; health and labour-saving technologies have greatly improved; we know exactly how to build good homes, treat sewage and improve democracy.

Instead (literally, in the case of our rivers) almost everything has gone to shit. The five giant evils identified in 1942 by William Beveridge, who helped design the welfare state, have returned with a vengeance. He called them “want, disease, ignorance, squalor and idleness”. His paternalistic language translates today into poverty, morbidity, educational exclusion, wretched housing and crumbling infrastructure, and bad employment or an inability to work.

As they come thundering back, the five evil giants have brought some friends to the party: environmental chaos, extreme political dysfunction and misrule, impunity for the powerful and performative cruelty towards the powerless, and state-sponsored culture wars to distract us from the rest of the horror show.

There is a reason for these broken promises and dysfunctions, which explains why the UK suffers more from them than most comparable nations. It’s called neoliberalism.

Neoliberalism is an ideology that sees competition as our defining feature. It insists that our wellbeing is best realised not through political choice but through economic choice. What it calls “the market” will, if left to its own devices, determine who deserves to succeed and who does not. Everything that impedes the creation of this “natural order” of winners and losers – tax and the redistribution of wealth, welfare and public housing, publicly run and funded services, regulation, trade unions, protest, the power of politics itself – should, albeit often subtly and gradually, be shoved aside. It has dominated life in this country, to a degree unparalleled in similar nations, for 45 years.

Yet it is seldom discussed in public, or even properly identified. When people on the left try to explain our predicament, they often use terms such as Thatcherism, austerity, laissez-faire economics, supply-side economics, neoclassical economics or libertarianism. All these terms are either inadequate, misleading or plain wrong. Neoliberalism is a distinct ideology, named by its leading thinkers in 1938. Its development was funded, from the 1940s onwards, by some of the richest people on Earth. They built its infrastructure of persuasion until, in the late 1970s, when Keynesianism ran into trouble, it could occupy the ideological vacuum.

Neoliberalism is the means by which capital seeks to solve its biggest problem – a problem called democracy. Unlike laissez-faire economics or classical liberalism, which prevailed before most adults had the vote, neoliberalism uses the state in coherent and repeatable ways to impose its unpopular policies. The state is the force behind market forces, the whip enforcing “economic freedom”.

Neoliberalism’s greatest triumph is to persuade us that, in Margaret Thatcher’s words, “there is no alternative”. In reality, the doctrine is an alternative to the much better lives we might have led. In the new book I’ve written with the film-maker Peter Hutchison, The Invisible Doctrine, we seek to drag this ideology and its disastrous impacts into the light and show how it can be overthrown to fulfil the promise of a better world.

The doctrine reached its apogee in Liz Truss’s 49-day meltdown, when she tried to apply neoliberalism to the ideological letter. But this was just the most extreme manifestation of what we have suffered since 1979. Labour softened some aspects but accepted privatised public services, brutally curtailed protest, deregulated commerce even further and allowed the financial sector to pursue reckless get-rich-quick schemes. It added a disastrous twist of its own, extending the private finance initiative to vast tracts of government provision – one reason for the crises suffered by hospitals, schools, prisons and other services today.

Amazingly, neoliberalism, despite all the breakdowns it has caused, continues to dominate. Labour, as the shadow chancellor, Rachel Reeves, demonstrates through her irrational commitment to austerity and her stated intention to deregulate capital even further, seems determined to ensure there is no alternative. Many in government believe it hasn’t gone far enough. This is what Truss and Mark Littlewood, chief engineer of her disaster, think (if thinking is the right word) and promote through their “Popular Conservatism” group, whose name will forever remain in quotes.

How have successive governments got away with it? Through the endless promise of jam tomorrow. If we keep working harder, one day we’ll pay for the public services we need; one day we’ll earn the economic security we crave; one day we’ll have more leisure time. Will this magic day ever arrive? Of course not. Strong public services and economic security were never part of the plan. But to have us working ever-longer hours on behalf of capital? That is very much part of the plan.

Interestingly, when environmentalists say we need to make sacrifices today to secure our future prosperity, the same government ministers insist that voters will never tolerate delayed gratification. In these and other ways, governance in the UK feels like one long trick played on the public.

So they keep us hanging on. And the endless promises and the endless breaking of those promises grind us down. It would perhaps be more surprising if we found ourselves anywhere else on the mental health rankings.

Good piece from George Monbiot the other day that touches on a lot of what has been discussed in the last few posts. It's all deeply depressing and I don't see it getting better. 

Edit: Forgot to include the link. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/10/britain-mental-health-society-neoliberalism-politicians

[Schmidt]

Stiff upper lip, Blitz spirit, keep calm and have a cuppa, etc.

[west_london_red]

Good piece from George Monbiot the other day that touches on a lot of what has been discussed in the last few posts. It's all deeply depressing and I don't see it getting better. 

Edit: Forgot to include the link. https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/article/2024/may/10/britain-mental-health-society-neoliberalism-politicians

It’s a twisted ideology that aims to return the country to something akin to the 1800 when the country was the most powerful on the planet, as well as when it was at its most unequal. The problem with neoliberalism is that it sees a link between the two, as the country has become more equal over the last 100 years it’s become comparatively less prosperous (in gross terms), therefore the thinking is if you allow inequality to rise if not outright encourage it, the country overall will be wealthier and the 99% are sold a lie that this greater gross wealth of the country will of course trickle down to them in time because the ‘market’ wills it (it obviously doesn’t because the 1% will rig the market in their favour).

[Fitzy.]

Thanks for the tip Fitzy. That was a great podcast. Neil Kinnock is one of Labour's greatest-ever figures I think. Got a bit teary half way thru mind.

Glad you liked it.