By Daviemoo
Many people are set to vote labour in as a landslide in the no doubt shortly coming election- and my concern isn’t that Labour are going to win, which is a foregone conclusion- it’s for the wave of disappointment that will consume many who think they’re voting for the chain- breaking changes we need, when they’re voting for a party who just can’t stop praising Margaret Thatcher. All I ask, and all people like me ask, is the briefest consideration that perhaps this version of labour led by Starmer isn’t the golden goose to lift us out of where we are, but a party who sold itself off like a public entity going private, in order to assure a victory that will mean scant change in a country that desperately needs it- and if you find yourself thinking that yes, that is the answer, you don’t have to abandon your party- you just have to gird your loins for a fight.
Fighting off the inherited legacy of a man who seemingly enjoys oppositional moaning has been quite frustrating, to say the very least. People really do seem to believe people like myself enjoy the bitter taste of loss, but it’s not that we’re masochists, we just have higher standards than what appears to be most in the country.
I’m desperate to see a vivacious government take over in the UK, a government who isn’t afraid to tax assets and use that money to fund infrastructure projects to help the UK modernise, a government who isn’t afraid to nurture the NHS by strictly sanctioning private initiatives and attracting NHS staff back to their roles, and by changing education to enable more young people to aim for those vital jobs.
Most of all, I’m absolutely desperate to see a chancellor appear who doesn’t seem wedded to the ideology of forty years ago- supply side reform keeps being brought into the conversation and every time it does my stomach lurches with dismay. Why must we keep going back to the same old ideas of economics that have led us down this dark path? Reeves seems to be setting out her vision for HashTag Thatcherism, low tax- free market deregulation for the economy which she hopes will boost the country out of the financial cul de sac we-re in.
But how did that go in the 80s? Were there two financial crashes? Did even healthy businesses shutter because they couldn’t survive in a market the prime minister refused to intervene in because she believed small government, even as it decimated livelihoods? If Reeves truly believes in the policies she’s saying, she’s gone Thatcherite- something she’s hovering on the verge of admitting herself considering she stated she joined labour to fight back against Thatcherite fiscal policy… and yet she praised Thatcher in her recent speech to a room full of fiscal experts, followed swiftly by her colleague David Lammy who called Thatcher a visionary– this is mere months after Starmer also praised her. For some reason, instead of looking forward to new ideas, new pathways, our incumbent government is staring back lovingly over their shoulder at the political legacy of the woman who made it impossible to buy a house, sold our public services and caused two fiscal- what did the tories call the recent recession? “Fiscal events”? What exactly are you opposing when you embrace the ideology of the enemy?
Ultimately it’s been plain to see for a long time that Labour are wedded to appealing across the aisles to dissatisfied tory voters who would otherwise seep to reform or off into apathy.
I think, after fourteen years of their elected choices making a complete hash of the country in terms of economy, infrastructure, justice, equality, health, education… we might be quite happy to watch them go. We’re also told that progressives are too quick to cut the yoke that binds, but many progressives still grimly hang on to labour even as the ranks swell with those who believe the tories were great until Johnson, overlooking the fiscal decimation of Cameron, the paralysis of May, and the party’s willingness to sell itself to a man who used an MP’s brutal murder to shore up support for his horrendous policy.
But no, labour seem to believe these poor voters need a new vision in an old party to offer them what the tories promised and failed to deliver on. I could go through the old promises of Starmer as incumbent leader, calling Corbyn a friend and stating that his manifesto was a foundational document of the party and how quickly that fell apart, or the promise the party are putting out now, but this is always met with the same tired refrain, wait for a manifesto– and yet when a manifesto comes and we’re dissatisfied, what then? The people who repeat this line seem to understand little of politics, or understand their own duplicity- or perhaps understand it too well.
In terms of fiscal policy, Reeves seems geared to repeat the anti interventionist policy that underscored 80s fiscal writings, seems interested in upselling investment into people even as she rolls back on the most vital personal investment we have at our fingertips. Green spend would vitalise the economy, opening up many new sector based jobs which would boost the economy and finally make the UK begin to take climate change seriously, instead of frowning at events we flew to on private planes. But Reeves struck down that policy, shortly before confirming that labour’s plans on taxation of the rich would be watered down hopelessly. And their flagship non-dom abolishment was half-inched by Hunt, no doubt because it was actually a sensible policy and that the tories, visionless and culture war ridden as they are (not to mention led by Hunt who was a stupendously bad health sec), had no plans of their own.
If Reeves is using supply side reform as a moniker for repetition, instead of genuine person based investment via education and a reaffirming of commitment to the UK’s obligations, we should be concerned- concerned, too, By Starmer and Reeves’ recent meeting with big business heads at an event where it was said that Starmer was “reassuring big business that his plans to shore up on workers’ rights won’t interfere in their bottom line”. Because after fourteen years of being abused by the government and by proxy dodgy employers, what we, the people, really care about is big business’ income. Is this the same big business like British Gas, BP and half the energy suppliers in the UK who have torn money away from us in droves over the last two years, talking about difficult times yet posting record profits– we’re all in it together of course, unless you’re a CEO who makes £615,000 a year and earned a hefty bonus to boot.
Is it the companies who hire their workers on exploitative contracts like zero hours or fire and rehire? Are we really coddling businesses who make huge sums of money by exploiting a beleaguered public, or who make profit by paying workers horrendously low salaries, whilst giving upper management bonuses in six and seven figures? But lets’ not forget that this is the party who big business claims is now their party – is it for us to intuit that they are then no longer the party of workers? Or are they somehow the party of both- of the businesses who exploit us, and the party of the exploited workers? What an unlikely marriage in this broad church labour self describes.
It is also the party who welcomes Conservative voters even if this means they bleed their own former support, and by doing so ties itself to the wont of the base they are meant to oppose.
A broad church indeed- but the socialists can wait outside apparently, unless they want to rub shoulders with those who have wrecked the country.
The usual refrain from labour loyalists galore is to wait for a manifesto. But with enough people willing to cheer on whatever that manifesto comprises and tell us it’s good and to vote for it, it’s a useless chorus with a predictable refrain- because when a manifesto comes, that’s it. If you don’t like it, what then? The entire point of politics is to steer parties before an election, before a manifesto. But the UK has a legacy of fear of the people we keep letting take power. The tories had a huge vote share in 2019 but more people voted for parties that leaned more to the left of them than for them- our division over which style of leftism, be it more radical or more pragmatic, meant the tories were shoved over the line. In a country with PR, the tories would have had a large share of parliament but would have been in opposition. As it happens we ended up with an eighty seat majority swollen fat by the ranks of opportunists who joined the tories to steer us on course for the disastrous brexit we’ve suffered through.
I don’t know if its fear of the tories winning again- every time I’ve talked to the labour adherents I’m met with iterations of the phrase “I won’t live through another tory term” as though the relatively affluent and successful white cisgender and heterosexual are truly the tories most maligned victims. And those same people will turn around to those who actually meaningfully suffer under tory policy and lambaste them for not supporting a Labour Party who has left them in the cold. Starmer only deals with transphobia when he can pull an outraged face at PMQs whilst airily waving through plans to remove rights from trans patients in the NHS. He only deals with racism when he can make a buck off it, silencing the actual victim. He refuses to call out our complicity in mass murder abroad, and his MPs like Emily Thornberry can sit on TV and give Israel the airy right to self defence even when their self defence comes with the lofty price tag of over 30,000 dead people and famine, only to turn around and say she thinks Labour are more abused than the tories over their stance- yes, Ms. Thornberry, because some still think you’re a party worth pursuing to push for decency: when that stops, understand you’ve finally reached the barrel scraped level of the Conservatives who we know don’t care about decency so we don’t try. You’re closer than you think…
Cooper’s plans for immigration seem to be a tamer, more law compliant version of Rwanda- labour were rumoured recently to be discussing sending detainees to a country that is compliant with protective laws around refugees rather than Rwanda, because labour seem to think that it’s the Rwanda part of the Rwanda scheme people take issue with. I don’t like the Rwanda scheme because it’s inhumane to send people abroad when they seek refuge here, yes- but it is also a dead duck policy, one that simply will not fly. The cry from the tories- and no doubt labour- is that it will “break the funding model of people smugglers”. Yes, I’m sure the exhausted refugees whose only experience with iPhones is mining the cobalt that makes them work, will definitely be ken to the policy where a small group of them will be shipped away to another country as a putoff to people smugglers who will simply… take their money and let them be shipped off. It is embarrassing that we’re so ideologically welded to cruelty that our government and our opposition don’t see the painful logical fallacy, and to boot are aiming cruel policy at people who are so desperate for refuge they’ll chance drowning in the storm tossed seas to get here- no doubt the roulette spin chance of a flight to another country will stop ’em… I despair.
The thing is, there are upsides to electing labour. I’m no fool. The EU is already promising to work constructively with a labour government on lessening the issues of the tory brexit deal, they will still the endless ranting of ECHR removal and we’ll have a government less mired in corruption and cronyism- we hope. Of course there are positives. But crumbs look delectable to the starving, so let’s not pretend it’s a four course meal on offer from Starmer et al.
I’ve no doubt that labour policy will slow down problems we’re currently facing. I’ve said this so many times I feel like I’m on repeat. But it’s not slowdowns and delays we need- the UK is, and will continue to be, in a poor state. We have to deal with the issues at hand, because if we don’t, they will either continue to be a lesion which hurts us, or will worsen and take more down- be it poverty conditions the UK have watched explode in the last 10 years or radicalisation towards the misogynistic manosphere where men can blame women for everything from not being attractive to their financial disadvantagement. Ignoring these glaring issues is allowing its propogation- have any government ministers promised to tackle the very real threat of misogyny in our society or are we all too focused on talking about specific people’s gender? The tories failed to illegalise misogyny- will Labour? Or are they too afraid to do so, whilst confirming beyond doubt that misogyny isn’t “when a transgender person exists”?
As I said at the beginning, it’s tiring to fight off the relentless attack that people like myself enjoy being in opposition. I hunger for a government able to tackle the problems we have- our inability to buy property, to save, to travel the country without taking out a small loan or selling grandma’s china first. I’m desperate for a chancellor whose plans include real terms reinvestment into the country’s dusty, rusty infrastructure, new plans to make public transport cheaper and who will invest into a sector that will only grow if the government waters it- green energy & security. I want a health secretary who is going to work constructively to build a compliance framework around insourcing companies who are currently working, poorly regulated and highly compensated, to deal with the NHS’ waiting lists- a home secretary who understands that many of us aren’t perturbed or loyal to imaginary borders around our isles, only concerned that we give due care to those we’re charged to look after whilst also being strictly practical on issues of safety for everyone- we the people, and those who seek refuge here. Most of all I want a man who stands to be prime minister who is more than just “not Rishi/Liz/Boris/Truss/Cameron” or whichever other ghoul comes rising from the dark to snatch at the country’s purse. I want a prime minister who stands for and with the vast swathes of the disadvantaged, and who fights to ensure our lives are better, safer, easier, healthier. Not a man who hides in the basement of a London complex, giving speeches to big business about how he’s got their backs.
Is that too much to ask?
I understand why people are so desperate to adhere to their vision of labour as saviour from the tory mess. That’s not the battle I’m fighting. The battle I’m concerned about is longer and more insidious in nature. If we don’t have a government in who fully disbelieves in the project that is conservatism then the problems of conservatism will not be dismantled, only tinkered with and tickled by a party whose current voter base is driven by those people and who seems to believe that it is necessary to continue the decades long conservative project which has arguably only blighted the UK.
So this isn’t the same tired battle of telling people “Labour bad!”, but a genuine appeal to labour voters to ask whether they can and will fight for better, rather than primly settling into the acceptance that perhaps, perhaps, labour can and should offer better and if so, what they will do to fight for it. Watching labour defenders fight to pretend that labour is offering distinction in its vision is frankly embarrassing when it comes to smart people- enterprising political pundits defending Reeves propagating the lie of “household economics is the same as country economics” because ‘everyone’s told that lie’ is insane. Labour is currently one of the largest political parties in Europe, and has the resources and nous to build a platform of education on how economy, health, wealth, law works. Younger people being given access to common sense political knowledge in bite size chunks would revolutionise political discourse & offer engagement to those overlooked for too long. But clearly it’s better to defend a party who is repeating the same old mistakes again than chide them on their sleight of hand, staunchly refuse their distasteful stances and overlook the uncomfortable negatives they are endorsing.
Labour can, and should be, better for us all. But they fail to meet that basic threshold in my eyes. Too many are clinging to them as they let us down, out of terror of more three word sloganeering from tories, and by allowing the standards of politics to decline whilst loudly denying it’s happening at every juncture, we’re creating a new landscape of poor politics where parties proselytise to we the people what we want, how we feel, what we believe, and if we refuse to take this medicine, we’re labelled “tory enablers” and disregarded.
I, and those like me, don’t want labour to lose- we want them to win and be good. This is not a radical cause, not a shocking way of thinking nor is it indoctrination or champagne socialism. It is not student politics to expect better from our representatives, not lofty idealism to want more from our chance to remove the corrupt tories, nor is it pragmatism to allow a party formed by workers and wrapped intrinsically around the labour movement to abandon those core tenets in order to win. We can win with a better platform than the one labour have rolled out, and fighting for that is not a lost cause.
Politically Enraged 