That Starmer fella...

Okay, I'll try and outline my position here as clearly as I can. Here's what I've said previously in the thread:

The Blair project was typified by a modernising programme, large parts of which were a heady mix of social democracy and market ideas. They’re not totally neoliberal by any means, and that term should be kept solely for the likes of Peter Thiel and advocates of special economic zones, but there has definitely been a thread of neoliberal thought running through all UK politics for the best part of 50 years.

I mainly think he was part of a neoliberal period, so singling him out isn’t completely right in all honesty, particularly when there were clearly worse actors than him. I think his failure as a representative of the left is that he succumbed to it rather than offered a transformative project.

[…] That, alongside his pro-market reforms (BoE independence, foundation hospitals and academies), I don’t think you can dismiss his neoliberal tendencies.

I'll try and say why largely through a history of economic policy:

Monetarists almost entirely rejected both fiscal and monetary intervention in the 70s because of neoliberal ideas of rational individualism and economic freedom. Therefore in policy, democratic processes shouldn’t be able to meddle with monetary policy, and money itself should be reflective of the actions of economic actors rather than pursue political ends.

In practice, they targeted a k% growth figure in the overall stock of money in the economy (the fixed money rule), which was intended to match expected GDP growth (usually 2%). The rule didn't work very well because it didn't account for the velocity of money. To factor it in you need to target inflation itself, rather than the aggregate stock of money, but the same principle still applies — money is an abstraction over economic actors, not a social tool.

There was an attempt in the 80s to reach a new consensus between neoclassical and Keynesian economics which effectively allowed government intervention using only fiscal (not monetary) policy in the short run, but all of the same rational actor models, methodological individualism, neutrality of money and monetarist-style approaches in the long run. It engages with Keynesian thought mostly through technique and dismissed social ends as a monetary problem altogether. Many of the neoclassical elements were watered down too, so markets weren’t always considered to be efficient, prices and wages are now sticky, welfare can work. A little more realistic than neoliberalism, but it's still present.

Blair and Brown come along just as the new neoclassical synthesis is becoming a thing. The models fit with Third Way idealism, so they can use short-run fiscal intervention to bolster a modern welfare state, but ultimately long-run stability in the models is determined by markets and individuals. No need to jump back into old political discussions, but also little consideration for the classic problems of political economy.

So yeah, that may not convince everyone, but there's most certainly a thread of neoliberal thought throughout in my view.

Anyway, thanks for watching my Adam Curtis documentary / coming to my TED talk. I’ll leave you with a quote from Brown in the article @ReekBlefs posted yesterday, and I won't reply about Milton bloody Friedman ever again:

Brown said Bank independence had stood up well as a concept but added: “It is going to be tested in a period of stagflation. We have got to get away from the idea that central banks are the only game in town.”

Thanks, will give it a watch 🙂

Keith's finance explored in today's ST... The murky joy of dark cash...

Murdoch's attack XL bullies missed the Croydon angle. I would imagine Evans will be having a sweaty grappa with his espresso this morning.

Well at least there’s still some people in the Labour Party with a moral compass, I guess.

Just none of them are on the front bench any more lol.

How many more dead children will it take for Starmer to call for a ceasefire?

Apparently “more than 5000” still doesn’t do it

What a guy

1 Attachment

it's ok, he's only pretending to like Thatcher.

will be interesting to see how the Sensible Grown-ups™, try and spin this one.

Nothing this cunt does should suprise me anymore but JFC

What did he actually say? The only thing I've found showing the words is this bit on the importance of the rule of law.

https://youtu.be/IWG-QegXBg8

I assume there must be other stuff.

Regardless it's a weird place to go on a divisive figure.

Tailoring your message to your audience only really works if the audience you gave a different message to last week can't hear it

Apparently she

dragged Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism

Which I guess is one way of saying “I understand all you Tories are fucking delusional, and I’d love it if you voted for me”

Voters have been betrayed on Brexit and immigration. I stand ready to deliver

It is too easy to look at Britain today and throw your hands up in despair. Families across the country are bombarded with daily reminders of our current malaise: crumbling public services that no longer serve the public, families weighed down by the anxiety of spiralling mortgage bills and food prices, neighbourhoods plagued by crime and anti-social behaviour. Any one of these individually would be cause for outrage. Taken together they merge into something more insidious: the idea that our country no longer works for those it is supposed to.
That sense of a once great country now set on a path of decline has been sharpened by our political culture. The vast majority of the public don’t think about Westminster much. Why would they? At a time when people are looking for answers to the deep challenges of our age, they see a politics too large in its hectoring and interfering, too small in its ambition and ability. In these difficult conditions, the current Government resembles nothing so much as the sinking Mary Rose: overburdened, incompetently handled, plunging into the depths.
Every moment of meaningful change in modern British politics begins with the realisation that politics must act in service of the British people, rather than dictating to them. Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism. Tony Blair reimagined a stale, outdated Labour Party into one that could seize the optimism of the late 90s. A century ago, Clement Attlee wrote that Labour must be a party of duty and patriotism, not abstract theory. To build a “New Jerusalem” meant first casting off the mind-forged manacles. That lesson is as true today as it was then.
It is in this sense of public service that Labour has changed dramatically in the last three years. The course of shock therapy we gave our party had one purpose: to ensure that we were once again rooted in the priorities, the concerns and the dreams of ordinary British people. To put country before party.
None of that was easy but it was necessary. Often, it meant taking the path of most resistance. It meant not just listening to those who felt unable to vote for us but understanding them and acting. The public do not have outlandish or unreasonable expectations. They expect taxpayer money to be spent wisely, our security and our borders to be prioritised and a politics that serves them rather than itself. On each of these, we are now ready to deliver.
While we were moving back towards voters, the Tory Party has been steadily drifting away. Years of sowing empty promises, cynical falsehoods and false dawns is now reaping inevitable consequence. The Tories have talked the talk on fiscal prudence while wasting untold billions, weighing the country down with debt and raising the tax burden to a record high. They have squandered economic opportunities and failed to realise the possibilities of Brexit.
They will bequeath public finances more akin to a minefield than a solid foundation. Labour’s iron-clad fiscal rules will set this straight – but it will not be quick or easy. There will be many on my own side who will feel frustrated by the difficult choices we will have to make. This is non-negotiable: every penny must be accounted for. The public finances must be fixed so we can get Britain growing and make people feel better off.
Changing Labour has also meant ridding us of the nonsensical idea that some subjects are simply off limits for us. I profoundly disagree with the idea Labour should not be talking about immigration or small boats crossings. These are matters of serious public concern and deserve to be treated as such. This is a government that was elected on a promise that immigration would “come down” and the British people would “always [be] in control”. For immigration to then triple is more than just yet another failure – it is a betrayal of their promises.
When people see the Prime Minister allowing companies to pay workers from abroad 20 per cent less than those already here, they are right to conclude that the Tories are not just unserious about reducing immigration but actively driving it up. Labour would scrap this policy immediately. The Prime Minister should follow our lead.
Likewise, when people see government ministers wasting their time on gimmicks like Rwanda, they are right to conclude they are more interested in talking about small boat crossings than stopping them. Labour would use the full force of Britain’s intelligence and policing to smash the criminal gangs growing fat on the misery of human trafficking, destroying their evil business model. The Government should do the same.
Across Britain there are people who feel disillusioned, frustrated, angry, worried. Many of them have always voted Conservative but feel that their party has left them. I understand that. I saw that with my own party and acted to fix it. But I also understand that many will still be uncertain about Labour. I ask them to take a look at us again. If you believe that Britain needs stability, order, security then Labour is the party for you. If you believe there are precious things in our way of life, our communities and our environment that it is our responsibility to protect and preserve for future generations, Labour agrees with you. If you believe that this country needs change to get back to greatness, this Labour Party stands ready to deliver for you.
Britain’s priorities are once again Labour’s priorities. Delivering them is going to require all our efforts. That’s why we extend the hand of friendship to you, no matter where you are or who you have voted for in the past. National renewal demands it. It is only together that we will build the better future we all want.

"Vote for me, and I'll hamstring the unions even more, and really make sure inequality rise. Middle class as the new working class. Working class as the New Poverty. And lol imma stop the boats too."

.

Oh Labour.
Chances we get a new Centre party form before next election? Seems to be the in thing

So what he actually said about Thatcher was:

Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism.

It really doesn't seem worth the spluttering, red faced indignation I've been seeing all morning. She might've been a cunt, but she did that.

What like Change UK?

He was writing a piece for the Sunday Telegraph, he’s got to throw a few crumbs their way if he wants them to not vote Conservative at the next election.

It was one sentence. Praise is pushing it.

Margaret Thatcher sought to drag Britain out of its stupor by setting loose our natural entrepreneurialism

"Nuance for me, but not for thee"

There are probably better examples.

I'm literally just quoting what he actually said.

Yes.

And what he said was, on the surface of it, full of praise for Thatcher.

And then goes on to defend the nuance of his comment elsewhere.

A concession that he does not appear to allow others.

Hope that helps.

she did that

Citation needed