Welcome back Ian and Happy New Year. If I may add one extra element that seems to make this even worse, I keep coming across people who used to be politically reasonable until a single issue - which trumps (no pun intended) everything else for them - has meant that they identify with one bloc and some of nastiest bits of it, all in the name of not compromising this one issue. The example closest to home for me is Israel/Palestine; Jewish friends and relatives who can only see any political event through the prism of that one issue, so they fall into the right-wing bloc and start being apologists for Trump, Netanyahu, Brexit, Farage and even Yaxley-Lennon. In a similar way, those who started with an understandable concern over women-only safe spaces are now so transphobic that they too have fallen in with the worst of the Right. Of course this can happen on the Left too - toleration of antisemitism, crank views and some nasty autocrats because my enemy's enemy is my friend. It's exhausting.
There was a figure I heard that you are more likely to have a criminal record than be a party member!
Then go to a party conference where you meet your fellow obsessives.
On the other hand it would help if a lot more people understood how our politics and government work. They could do a lot worse than by reading How Westminster Works…
I share your views on the framing of questions about immigration. I get frustrated that every time immigration is mentioned in the news the context is “immigration crisis”, with no attempt to explain why it is a crisis - just an assumption that everyone thinks it is.
At last, someone writing a comprehensive article about what is really going on with the electorate … which is what most Labour lefties have been miffed about ….. we are Loyalist , but cant be THAT loyal when it comes to their callous immigration policies , winter fuel payments , and just abut the basic lack of compassion on any level for people as humans.
What is unfathomable is why hasn’t someone at the top table realised this yet.
Ian . I think you should offer yourself to them to do both internal and external comms.
A wise suggestion , Gillian , but there is more hope of hell freezing over , than that the likes of Starmer and his soulless political robots would bother to listen .
It is grossly unfair and unhelpful to tar Labour Party members as a whole class in the manner you describe. It is exactly the characterisation that mitigates against sensible debate and the potential for much needed compromise. Having said that, I do recognise some of the behaviours you mention in some elected members, but rarely among the many foot soldiers.
Circumstantial evidence to add to your golden words & all that academic research M’Lud.
Yesterday I was unwilling witness to a revealing exchange from next seat while I was at barbers.
The man getting trimmed, his female hairdresser & two others had already given Starmer a ritual slagging off & Trump’s name came up…
“He knows what he wants & just does it. He doesn’t give a fuck. We need more leaders like him.”
There was enthusiastic agreement from everyone within earshot apart from me & it’s not at all the first time I’ve witnessed similar sentiments…& this was post Venezuela, Greenland & the extra-judicial murder of a US citizen in Minnesota.
We on the left should not underestimate the magnetism of perceived strength & simplicity to millions utterly disillusioned by politicians still trying to find compromise & a middle way.
ATB
Driver Andy
Ps I’d like to say I intervened but they were all bigger than me especially the women.
You omitted that one of the drivers for this split into two broad blocs is the voting system. It's no coincidence that the same split operates in the UK and the USA - despite the fact that we would not recognize the Democrats as 'left' or progressive. The voting system forces us into a binary. If we reformed how we voted it might reduce the tendency to lump into a for-against based pair of blocs.
It's not just the voting system, of course, because the nature of our political system is antagonistic - that of government and opposition, which also tends to bunch us into for or against. Winners and losers. Goodies or baddies. Right or wrong. Plus or minus. But in a country of 65 million we need nuance and give and take. We have been very poor at developing systems that encourage and reward consensus and compromise.
I understand your antipathy to political parties, but in our system they are necessary, so being a member is a way of having a bigger say (or imagining you have). Surely the membership having some say is less concerning (since anyone can join) than the flood of dubious money that is surging through our politics. The Tories, Labour and Reform are all taking large 'donations' from people that clearly have vested interests and expect (and usually get) some advantage as a result of their 'generosity'. That is what is poisoning politics. We need more members and a cap on donations (I'd set it at a month's net median wage per year).
I also think we need informed debate on issues like immigration rather than just a shouting match at cross purposes where nobody is listening and its all about whose opinion is loudest and most adamant. Our media have utterly failed us in this and we need to address the ownership issue. The same dark traits that our political system seems to encourage are also rewarded in business. Research has suggested that the number of sociopaths in the population is around 3%, but in senior corporate executives it is nearer 25%. Presumably in oligarchs its more like 99%. One wonders a what the mix is in politicians. Perhaps our politics reflects the bias in our economic system in which we celebrate the ruthless driven 'winner' and denigrate those that try to be inclusive and collaborative.
As ever, really enjoyed the article Ian. You always give me something to think about.
Re: "Once you drop the party labels and accept that the electorate is divided into these two blocs, the basic picture barely changes." I know what you're saying, but I don't think your article fully highlights the significant shift to the right that has put Reform in pole position.
I think the "basic picture" has changed. We are moving from shades of grey, to black and white.
FYI: I'm a Green Party member, who voted Labour for nearly 40 years. Here's my thinking on some of the issues you looked at. A free party-member poll, if you like:
- Immigration: I'm pretty much with you on this. Labour are completely fucking this up. We should treat people with respect and give them the opportunity to contribute.
- Leader qualities: Horses for courses. If Churchill is what we need, Chamberlain isn't going to cut it. And I fear, in the current world-climate, Starmer is not the right man. And, yes - maybe - rules have to be broken. Playing with a straight bat, when the other side are bowling grenades, and the umpire is in their pocket, doesn't make sense. You need to be pragmatic.
- Fixing the problems: Yeah I know this wasn't an area you looked at. But it's the reason I switched from Labour to Green. And I suspect you should know about that. It wasn't just the traditional, "save the planet" Green values that won me over. It was the belief that the Greens, unlike the two "major" parties are not in the pocket of the rich. And that, they will, therefore, actually do something about the morally indefensible inequality in our society. I believe inequality and poverty are policy decisions - which Labour are signed up to. So, my vote and support goes to a party that is honest enough to propose a "Tax The Rich" policy.
Correct in every detail . The same applies here in Australia . We have our very own “Neville Chamberlain” unfortunately.
Former PM John Howard said “The times will suit me .” They certainly did , for his personal views and career. “The times” do not suit PM Albanese , as we see every day .
Thanks for this Ian. Like you I had a really good Christmas and New Year. At 7pm on January 1st, having just staggered home from a party I was probably the happiest I've been for years. 8 days later and I feel so depressed about the World (particularly in the US) that I desperately need hope. I want my Labour Government that I've voted for all my life to actually start standing up for my actual values. Stop triangulating and working out the course of least resistance (you're always wrong) and start doing the right thing. I don't care who you upset, how could things possibly be worse, just show some morality.
My view at this stage is that Labour could readily pivot towards the values we want to see at almost zero political cost. After all, when you’re this far in the crapper, what more can you lose.
Let’s start by shuffling Starmer to the Foreign Office, see what Big Ange wants and shift Byrne to the Chancellor’s seat while telling Streeting to suck it up and shut up, Kamkaran style. (Ducks while pearls are clutched in the crowd.)
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 As I keep repeating , it is the same here in Australia . What was once the Labor Party that so many people voted for , is no longer , having shrivelled into an appeasing, virtual vassal state of America and Israel , where the Public Interest is of a low priority against the demands of corporate donors .
Agreed. And just recently considering that, although Albanese is not a particularly unlikeable person, he doesn’t strike me as being the sharpest tool in the shed. It would seem that, as ID points out of Starmer’s advisors and CoS, Albanese is captured in a bubble of magical thinking, rather than good ol intellectual rigour and proper hard and constructive policy work.
Former PM John Howard famously said that “the times will suit me”. They certainly did , but “the times” most emphatically do NOT suit PM Albanese . For someone who worked so hard for so many decades to be where he is , that is sad but all too true .
As soon as I retired from government service I joined the Labour Party to put my money where my (private) mouth had always been. I quit in the face of Mr Corbyn, then rejoined to make sure I had a vote for a more reasonable centrist leadership. I agree that the problem is a membership with too much sway on who becomes Prime Minister - but as long as the rules remain mad I think it is important to weigh in as a member. Is the member problem more a case that there are not the mass numbers any more?
Thank you for the magnificent Origin Story Series on Socialism: balanced and insightful, but even more so - comprehensive.
I've never been a party member but I became a Labour supported under Ed Miliband's scheme. I cast and ordered 3 votes and didn't cast a vote at all for the 4th person - Mr Corbyn. So i tried.
I do wonder, based on Ian's piece, whether one should join the party of The Other (we have the secret ballot for good reason). There have been occasional Tories I could've voted for - Alistair Burt, Amber Rudd, Robert Largan - so I am plausible. Once within, one can oppose the lunatics as best one can.
Of course, that leaves unopposed one's own lunatics ....
It's about time political parties reversed the Bennite idea of getting the membership to elect party leaders. In a parliamentary system, MPs should do that.
So the leader of the greater political party would be elected by the most minority of the minority of people?
I think implicit in your comment is the belief that MPs are somehow superior to their membership and somehow more representative of the wider populace despite overwhelming evidence that they come from an even narrower range of backgrounds than party membership.
Any party that governs does so when it has the confidence of the Commons. The leader (PM) needs the confidence of his MPs, who should be the ones choosing. In turn, MPs should be selected by party members. We are still paying the price of Tony Benn’s ideas
I read the Mars trilogy yonks ago & loved it, though I agree some parts are slightly *too* detailed. Are you going to continue on to the rest? I also love the 40/50/60 trilogy about climate change. I must read more of his other books, I've really fallen behind.
Unfortunately over the last decade dark triad personalities have risen to the top in politics, business, media, technology, religion and many other systems. Sadly good people struggle to work within these systems, they leave and are replaced by dark triad traits attracted to the leadership and power system. Hence once corrupted at the top an organisation becomes tainted and toxic throughout.
This is a directly on-target piece! Getting a grasp of the two-bloc political structure has been needed at least since Brexit. Ian’s account of the psychological divide is equally if not more important. I suggest the “dark triad” be complemented with the psychological condition/personality trait of cognitive rigidity—cognitive inflexibility, inability to change perspective, to empathise, and black-and-white thinking. The neuropsychologist Leor Zmigrod argues this trait is intrinsic to the far-right authoritarian mindset. I would add that there are linguistic markers of it that are being investigated by Oxford researchers.
Welcome back Ian and Happy New Year. If I may add one extra element that seems to make this even worse, I keep coming across people who used to be politically reasonable until a single issue - which trumps (no pun intended) everything else for them - has meant that they identify with one bloc and some of nastiest bits of it, all in the name of not compromising this one issue. The example closest to home for me is Israel/Palestine; Jewish friends and relatives who can only see any political event through the prism of that one issue, so they fall into the right-wing bloc and start being apologists for Trump, Netanyahu, Brexit, Farage and even Yaxley-Lennon. In a similar way, those who started with an understandable concern over women-only safe spaces are now so transphobic that they too have fallen in with the worst of the Right. Of course this can happen on the Left too - toleration of antisemitism, crank views and some nasty autocrats because my enemy's enemy is my friend. It's exhausting.
Well and wisely said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 It is the same here in Australia , largely assisted by media propaganda and censorship .
There was a figure I heard that you are more likely to have a criminal record than be a party member!
Then go to a party conference where you meet your fellow obsessives.
On the other hand it would help if a lot more people understood how our politics and government work. They could do a lot worse than by reading How Westminster Works…
And I am a party member and go to conferences!
Apathy and complacency is a lot worse
I share your views on the framing of questions about immigration. I get frustrated that every time immigration is mentioned in the news the context is “immigration crisis”, with no attempt to explain why it is a crisis - just an assumption that everyone thinks it is.
At last, someone writing a comprehensive article about what is really going on with the electorate … which is what most Labour lefties have been miffed about ….. we are Loyalist , but cant be THAT loyal when it comes to their callous immigration policies , winter fuel payments , and just abut the basic lack of compassion on any level for people as humans.
What is unfathomable is why hasn’t someone at the top table realised this yet.
Ian . I think you should offer yourself to them to do both internal and external comms.
A wise suggestion , Gillian , but there is more hope of hell freezing over , than that the likes of Starmer and his soulless political robots would bother to listen .
I know that really Elizabeth , but i sometimes hope………..in vain.
It is grossly unfair and unhelpful to tar Labour Party members as a whole class in the manner you describe. It is exactly the characterisation that mitigates against sensible debate and the potential for much needed compromise. Having said that, I do recognise some of the behaviours you mention in some elected members, but rarely among the many foot soldiers.
Circumstantial evidence to add to your golden words & all that academic research M’Lud.
Yesterday I was unwilling witness to a revealing exchange from next seat while I was at barbers.
The man getting trimmed, his female hairdresser & two others had already given Starmer a ritual slagging off & Trump’s name came up…
“He knows what he wants & just does it. He doesn’t give a fuck. We need more leaders like him.”
There was enthusiastic agreement from everyone within earshot apart from me & it’s not at all the first time I’ve witnessed similar sentiments…& this was post Venezuela, Greenland & the extra-judicial murder of a US citizen in Minnesota.
We on the left should not underestimate the magnetism of perceived strength & simplicity to millions utterly disillusioned by politicians still trying to find compromise & a middle way.
ATB
Driver Andy
Ps I’d like to say I intervened but they were all bigger than me especially the women.
They would not have listened to you anyway ! It would have been like trying to have a debate with a brick wall . 🙄
Great, if depressing (but useful), point. Are you driver Andy D of Rock n Roll Politics fame (white van man)? Enjoy your reflections there too.
Guilty as charged. Thank you. 🙏🏻
> someone better, like James Cleverly
'kinell. There's a sentence not often written.
I was going to make the very same point - you beat me to it!
You omitted that one of the drivers for this split into two broad blocs is the voting system. It's no coincidence that the same split operates in the UK and the USA - despite the fact that we would not recognize the Democrats as 'left' or progressive. The voting system forces us into a binary. If we reformed how we voted it might reduce the tendency to lump into a for-against based pair of blocs.
It's not just the voting system, of course, because the nature of our political system is antagonistic - that of government and opposition, which also tends to bunch us into for or against. Winners and losers. Goodies or baddies. Right or wrong. Plus or minus. But in a country of 65 million we need nuance and give and take. We have been very poor at developing systems that encourage and reward consensus and compromise.
I understand your antipathy to political parties, but in our system they are necessary, so being a member is a way of having a bigger say (or imagining you have). Surely the membership having some say is less concerning (since anyone can join) than the flood of dubious money that is surging through our politics. The Tories, Labour and Reform are all taking large 'donations' from people that clearly have vested interests and expect (and usually get) some advantage as a result of their 'generosity'. That is what is poisoning politics. We need more members and a cap on donations (I'd set it at a month's net median wage per year).
I also think we need informed debate on issues like immigration rather than just a shouting match at cross purposes where nobody is listening and its all about whose opinion is loudest and most adamant. Our media have utterly failed us in this and we need to address the ownership issue. The same dark traits that our political system seems to encourage are also rewarded in business. Research has suggested that the number of sociopaths in the population is around 3%, but in senior corporate executives it is nearer 25%. Presumably in oligarchs its more like 99%. One wonders a what the mix is in politicians. Perhaps our politics reflects the bias in our economic system in which we celebrate the ruthless driven 'winner' and denigrate those that try to be inclusive and collaborative.
As ever, really enjoyed the article Ian. You always give me something to think about.
Re: "Once you drop the party labels and accept that the electorate is divided into these two blocs, the basic picture barely changes." I know what you're saying, but I don't think your article fully highlights the significant shift to the right that has put Reform in pole position.
I think the "basic picture" has changed. We are moving from shades of grey, to black and white.
FYI: I'm a Green Party member, who voted Labour for nearly 40 years. Here's my thinking on some of the issues you looked at. A free party-member poll, if you like:
- Immigration: I'm pretty much with you on this. Labour are completely fucking this up. We should treat people with respect and give them the opportunity to contribute.
- Leader qualities: Horses for courses. If Churchill is what we need, Chamberlain isn't going to cut it. And I fear, in the current world-climate, Starmer is not the right man. And, yes - maybe - rules have to be broken. Playing with a straight bat, when the other side are bowling grenades, and the umpire is in their pocket, doesn't make sense. You need to be pragmatic.
- Fixing the problems: Yeah I know this wasn't an area you looked at. But it's the reason I switched from Labour to Green. And I suspect you should know about that. It wasn't just the traditional, "save the planet" Green values that won me over. It was the belief that the Greens, unlike the two "major" parties are not in the pocket of the rich. And that, they will, therefore, actually do something about the morally indefensible inequality in our society. I believe inequality and poverty are policy decisions - which Labour are signed up to. So, my vote and support goes to a party that is honest enough to propose a "Tax The Rich" policy.
Correct in every detail . The same applies here in Australia . We have our very own “Neville Chamberlain” unfortunately.
Former PM John Howard said “The times will suit me .” They certainly did , for his personal views and career. “The times” do not suit PM Albanese , as we see every day .
Thanks for this Ian. Like you I had a really good Christmas and New Year. At 7pm on January 1st, having just staggered home from a party I was probably the happiest I've been for years. 8 days later and I feel so depressed about the World (particularly in the US) that I desperately need hope. I want my Labour Government that I've voted for all my life to actually start standing up for my actual values. Stop triangulating and working out the course of least resistance (you're always wrong) and start doing the right thing. I don't care who you upset, how could things possibly be worse, just show some morality.
My view at this stage is that Labour could readily pivot towards the values we want to see at almost zero political cost. After all, when you’re this far in the crapper, what more can you lose.
Let’s start by shuffling Starmer to the Foreign Office, see what Big Ange wants and shift Byrne to the Chancellor’s seat while telling Streeting to suck it up and shut up, Kamkaran style. (Ducks while pearls are clutched in the crowd.)
Well said 👏🏻👏🏻👏🏻 As I keep repeating , it is the same here in Australia . What was once the Labor Party that so many people voted for , is no longer , having shrivelled into an appeasing, virtual vassal state of America and Israel , where the Public Interest is of a low priority against the demands of corporate donors .
Agreed. And just recently considering that, although Albanese is not a particularly unlikeable person, he doesn’t strike me as being the sharpest tool in the shed. It would seem that, as ID points out of Starmer’s advisors and CoS, Albanese is captured in a bubble of magical thinking, rather than good ol intellectual rigour and proper hard and constructive policy work.
Former PM John Howard famously said that “the times will suit me”. They certainly did , but “the times” most emphatically do NOT suit PM Albanese . For someone who worked so hard for so many decades to be where he is , that is sad but all too true .
As soon as I retired from government service I joined the Labour Party to put my money where my (private) mouth had always been. I quit in the face of Mr Corbyn, then rejoined to make sure I had a vote for a more reasonable centrist leadership. I agree that the problem is a membership with too much sway on who becomes Prime Minister - but as long as the rules remain mad I think it is important to weigh in as a member. Is the member problem more a case that there are not the mass numbers any more?
Thank you for the magnificent Origin Story Series on Socialism: balanced and insightful, but even more so - comprehensive.
I've never been a party member but I became a Labour supported under Ed Miliband's scheme. I cast and ordered 3 votes and didn't cast a vote at all for the 4th person - Mr Corbyn. So i tried.
I do wonder, based on Ian's piece, whether one should join the party of The Other (we have the secret ballot for good reason). There have been occasional Tories I could've voted for - Alistair Burt, Amber Rudd, Robert Largan - so I am plausible. Once within, one can oppose the lunatics as best one can.
Of course, that leaves unopposed one's own lunatics ....
Forgive if I'm missing something & this is just a stupid question... but I cannot locate a link to click for the audio version this time?
Me either
It's about time political parties reversed the Bennite idea of getting the membership to elect party leaders. In a parliamentary system, MPs should do that.
So the leader of the greater political party would be elected by the most minority of the minority of people?
I think implicit in your comment is the belief that MPs are somehow superior to their membership and somehow more representative of the wider populace despite overwhelming evidence that they come from an even narrower range of backgrounds than party membership.
Any party that governs does so when it has the confidence of the Commons. The leader (PM) needs the confidence of his MPs, who should be the ones choosing. In turn, MPs should be selected by party members. We are still paying the price of Tony Benn’s ideas
I read the Mars trilogy yonks ago & loved it, though I agree some parts are slightly *too* detailed. Are you going to continue on to the rest? I also love the 40/50/60 trilogy about climate change. I must read more of his other books, I've really fallen behind.
'Aurora' is worth a look. Over 10 years old now (!), but a sharp interrogation of some of the wilder fancies of space enthusiasts.
It's a good contrast to Neal Stephenson's 'Seveneves' (which was published the same year and which I did *not* get on with at all).
Unfortunately over the last decade dark triad personalities have risen to the top in politics, business, media, technology, religion and many other systems. Sadly good people struggle to work within these systems, they leave and are replaced by dark triad traits attracted to the leadership and power system. Hence once corrupted at the top an organisation becomes tainted and toxic throughout.
Insightful as always, but I'm afraid that, 'We can talk a bunch' is unacceptable on so many levels to be uncountable.
The question is, did you understand what the writer meant? If you did, the levels on which it's unacceptable melt away to a bunch of not much.
Whoosh
This is a directly on-target piece! Getting a grasp of the two-bloc political structure has been needed at least since Brexit. Ian’s account of the psychological divide is equally if not more important. I suggest the “dark triad” be complemented with the psychological condition/personality trait of cognitive rigidity—cognitive inflexibility, inability to change perspective, to empathise, and black-and-white thinking. The neuropsychologist Leor Zmigrod argues this trait is intrinsic to the far-right authoritarian mindset. I would add that there are linguistic markers of it that are being investigated by Oxford researchers.