Thank you Grace for one of the clearest explanations of the passivity of the Labour Party. They are structurally now like the Democrats comma who for the most part are not interested in rocking the boat, but in lying back and taking the tsunami of money that comes from people not interested in rocking the boat. Unfortunately the boat needs rocking, possibly sinking, to avoid the dreadful future that waits for both the us and the UK without change unlinked neoliberal nonsense.
Grace is so spot on . Anyone with a brain who is able to read stuff like Labour Files or Paul Holden massive and brilliant analyses of what happened to Labour party and why in Fraud also peter Obourne Complicit can see why the Labour party is the mess that its in and will never in its present state change the country in a way that would be meaning ful for most of UK population.
Great article Grace. It gets to the structural elements at play that transcends anyone person (even as actors retain agency). I've been toying with the idea of reverse polarity applied to social institutions - that in certain circumstances organisations such as a party can end up pushing against their founding purpose. In social democratic parties this can turn into "managing stakeholders" instead of empowering labour (as but one example).
I’ve been saying privately for some time that the reason why Starmer isn’t following a radical agenda is that there must be powerful people within and around government who are dictating policy. Your article Grace explains exactly what I have been thinking.
I was a member of the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn was elected. Whilst he had a base of ordinary people he could never be allowed to get power. The Labour Party right, the press and ‘other’ interested parties conspired to ensure failure. You are correct in what you conclude is required, but I fear that these same people will work tirelessly to try and ensure that it never happens.
Great article and, as a Green Party member, I hope you're right.
I have been a Labour supporter for most of my life, (and that's quite a long time!), but like many, I was dismayed by their transformation into the "Tory-lite party". For the last two GEs I've voted Green - mainly out of concern for climate. I became a member when they adopted more pronounced left-wing policies. They now look a lot like the "democratised Labour Party", that Labour is never going to be.
Just to clarify, the Green vision always was for a socially just and environmentally sustainable world - e.g. look at the opening paragraph of our 2015 General Election manifesto:
"Britain has the wealth and resources to do great things. We can build an economy that gives everyone their fair share of the world’s sixth-richest economy. We can create a humane, caring society that supports everyone’s needs. And we can be a world leader in tackling the threat of climate change."
Thanks Colin. I stand corrected, but... in my defence, I suspect many, (like me), were only aware of the Green Party's social justice credentials after Zach Polanski became leader.
I wear eyeglasses and that didn't forbid me from seeing Starmer as a lame duck all along. The coup against Jeremy Corbyn was such a schoolyard plot to anyone not wearing eyeglasses. Labour should be renamed Layburr, for it's sticky annoying cumbersome uselessness (except that the real burr has good medicinal properties). I guess that is why the Greens and others have the wind in theirs sails.
What bothers me most is that Burnham, like Starmer, will bend his knee to Israel. Until we can detach British politics from Israeli influence, nothing will change. And I remember well that sound bite from Thatcher.
absolutely Thomas . He has not shown any signs that he will distance himself from Isreal and its genocde. He would need very quickly confront the zionist Lobby and totally change uk and stop any support for Israel but I doubt that he has the capability of doing that. So he just move slightly away from Starmer towards a slighly more popular approach but LFI and Israel for a time yet will continue to control UK.
It's as if you'd described the Democratic Party in Italy. Its history is shorter, having been founded in 2009, so the current party structure is as envisioned from the beginning, rather than a degeneration like the British Labour Party: a party created by non-Berlusconi lobbies that was supposed to pretend to be a left-wing party to eliminate real left-wing parties and occupy a position that made it and still makes it impossible to run without entering into a coalition with it. But every time you do that, you lose any chance of pursuing truly left-wing policies. Born to eliminate the left, I'd say it's done an admirable job, and it's as rigid as the Labour Party you described. So, once again, the only possible alternative is to build a new path based on community and participation, as we're attempting to do.
Eduardo, yes! The Labour Party in the UK was indeed born to eliminate the left, and has succeeded brilliantly. Now, it doesn’t have to pretend any more as the deception is more or less complete after years of propaganda, combined with total control of the mass media and an education system that is based in authoritarian control. As you say, the only alternative is a new path based on community and participation, instead of dependency and reliance on whichever puppet the corporate world shoves into place… change means hard work and requires new forms of social and community education.
The obsession with "growth" is typified by the explosion in Data Centres (sadly not *of* Data Centres).
DC produce "growth", & profits, but none of the benefits of that growth, none of those profits, end up in circulation - none of it "hits the streets" where its needed. The environmental damage is "socialised", any profits disappear into the accounts of the feral rich.
"Keir Starmer learned this lesson the hard way. Now, it's Andy Burnham's turn."
Neither Starmer not Burnham are interested in learning anything other than how to stay at the top of the greasy pole for as long as possible. We don't have people with genuine convictions getting anywhere in political parties these days as I've said elsewhere. Even Keir Starmer on a bad day at the moment is living his best life at the peak of his career and Burnham is the next in line to weekend at Chequers and occupy No. 10 and do what he needs to do to stay there.
Any chance we could have a more detailed breakdown on who these powerful bureaucrats actually are and a proposed strategy for their removal? Personally, I'd rather see Labour doing it's bloody job than a fragmented leftist vote, especially with FPTP still in place.
well its worth reading Paul Holdens book Fraud also peter Obournes Complicit for starters to get a understanding of what has happened to Labour party and why.
This is a very useful article, thank you. I had not encountered the cartel-party theory, and it fits -- or is proved by -- social/liberal parties elsewhere. (I vote in France.)
Thank you Grace for one of the clearest explanations of the passivity of the Labour Party. They are structurally now like the Democrats comma who for the most part are not interested in rocking the boat, but in lying back and taking the tsunami of money that comes from people not interested in rocking the boat. Unfortunately the boat needs rocking, possibly sinking, to avoid the dreadful future that waits for both the us and the UK without change unlinked neoliberal nonsense.
Yes very true - fortunately the Dems seem to be electing some promising people, much to the annoyance of the Democratic machine!
Grace is so spot on . Anyone with a brain who is able to read stuff like Labour Files or Paul Holden massive and brilliant analyses of what happened to Labour party and why in Fraud also peter Obourne Complicit can see why the Labour party is the mess that its in and will never in its present state change the country in a way that would be meaning ful for most of UK population.
Great article Grace. It gets to the structural elements at play that transcends anyone person (even as actors retain agency). I've been toying with the idea of reverse polarity applied to social institutions - that in certain circumstances organisations such as a party can end up pushing against their founding purpose. In social democratic parties this can turn into "managing stakeholders" instead of empowering labour (as but one example).
Sounds super interesting! Send over when you've had the chance to write :)
Will do!
We need younger leaders now, we have been letting the older generation take over. It’s about time for new leadership a younger voice.
I’ve been saying privately for some time that the reason why Starmer isn’t following a radical agenda is that there must be powerful people within and around government who are dictating policy. Your article Grace explains exactly what I have been thinking.
I was a member of the Labour Party when Jeremy Corbyn was elected. Whilst he had a base of ordinary people he could never be allowed to get power. The Labour Party right, the press and ‘other’ interested parties conspired to ensure failure. You are correct in what you conclude is required, but I fear that these same people will work tirelessly to try and ensure that it never happens.
It seems like the City of London oligarchy has an inexhaustible supply of BoJos of different colors and genders to shuffle for PM..
Putting more lipstick on a pig does not work anymore...
Deeply depressing but almost certainly correct, unfortunately.
It's pretty much the same with SPD's right wing, Blair and Schröder have been crownies with the same roots ...
Yep!
in the end. no one wins 🫣🧐😅
The game of politics is a snake & ladder saga.
Great article and, as a Green Party member, I hope you're right.
I have been a Labour supporter for most of my life, (and that's quite a long time!), but like many, I was dismayed by their transformation into the "Tory-lite party". For the last two GEs I've voted Green - mainly out of concern for climate. I became a member when they adopted more pronounced left-wing policies. They now look a lot like the "democratised Labour Party", that Labour is never going to be.
Just to clarify, the Green vision always was for a socially just and environmentally sustainable world - e.g. look at the opening paragraph of our 2015 General Election manifesto:
"Britain has the wealth and resources to do great things. We can build an economy that gives everyone their fair share of the world’s sixth-richest economy. We can create a humane, caring society that supports everyone’s needs. And we can be a world leader in tackling the threat of climate change."
https://commondecency.org.uk/assets/files/manifesto/Green_Party_2015_General_Election_Manifesto_Searchable.pdf
Thanks Colin. I stand corrected, but... in my defence, I suspect many, (like me), were only aware of the Green Party's social justice credentials after Zach Polanski became leader.
I wear eyeglasses and that didn't forbid me from seeing Starmer as a lame duck all along. The coup against Jeremy Corbyn was such a schoolyard plot to anyone not wearing eyeglasses. Labour should be renamed Layburr, for it's sticky annoying cumbersome uselessness (except that the real burr has good medicinal properties). I guess that is why the Greens and others have the wind in theirs sails.
What bothers me most is that Burnham, like Starmer, will bend his knee to Israel. Until we can detach British politics from Israeli influence, nothing will change. And I remember well that sound bite from Thatcher.
absolutely Thomas . He has not shown any signs that he will distance himself from Isreal and its genocde. He would need very quickly confront the zionist Lobby and totally change uk and stop any support for Israel but I doubt that he has the capability of doing that. So he just move slightly away from Starmer towards a slighly more popular approach but LFI and Israel for a time yet will continue to control UK.
It's as if you'd described the Democratic Party in Italy. Its history is shorter, having been founded in 2009, so the current party structure is as envisioned from the beginning, rather than a degeneration like the British Labour Party: a party created by non-Berlusconi lobbies that was supposed to pretend to be a left-wing party to eliminate real left-wing parties and occupy a position that made it and still makes it impossible to run without entering into a coalition with it. But every time you do that, you lose any chance of pursuing truly left-wing policies. Born to eliminate the left, I'd say it's done an admirable job, and it's as rigid as the Labour Party you described. So, once again, the only possible alternative is to build a new path based on community and participation, as we're attempting to do.
I think you are correct its going to take a long time though and the UK could well callapse as it becomes more and more authoritarian.
You could be right, Ian. A servile population taught to please the masters in an authoritarian system is ripe for fascism.
yes wish i was not. I pray I am not Bob, but in order to keep sane I agree.
Eduardo, yes! The Labour Party in the UK was indeed born to eliminate the left, and has succeeded brilliantly. Now, it doesn’t have to pretend any more as the deception is more or less complete after years of propaganda, combined with total control of the mass media and an education system that is based in authoritarian control. As you say, the only alternative is a new path based on community and participation, instead of dependency and reliance on whichever puppet the corporate world shoves into place… change means hard work and requires new forms of social and community education.
The obsession with "growth" is typified by the explosion in Data Centres (sadly not *of* Data Centres).
DC produce "growth", & profits, but none of the benefits of that growth, none of those profits, end up in circulation - none of it "hits the streets" where its needed. The environmental damage is "socialised", any profits disappear into the accounts of the feral rich.
"Keir Starmer learned this lesson the hard way. Now, it's Andy Burnham's turn."
Neither Starmer not Burnham are interested in learning anything other than how to stay at the top of the greasy pole for as long as possible. We don't have people with genuine convictions getting anywhere in political parties these days as I've said elsewhere. Even Keir Starmer on a bad day at the moment is living his best life at the peak of his career and Burnham is the next in line to weekend at Chequers and occupy No. 10 and do what he needs to do to stay there.
Any chance we could have a more detailed breakdown on who these powerful bureaucrats actually are and a proposed strategy for their removal? Personally, I'd rather see Labour doing it's bloody job than a fragmented leftist vote, especially with FPTP still in place.
well its worth reading Paul Holdens book Fraud also peter Obournes Complicit for starters to get a understanding of what has happened to Labour party and why.
This is a very useful article, thank you. I had not encountered the cartel-party theory, and it fits -- or is proved by -- social/liberal parties elsewhere. (I vote in France.)