The democratic recession does not begin when a far-right party takes office. It begins when a centrist party crushes hope in democracy. When Keir Starmer’s government takes a chainsaw to people’s aspirations for a fairer, greener, kinder country, he cuts off not just faith in the Labour party but faith in politics itself. The almost inevitable result, as countries from the US to the Netherlands, Argentina to Austria, Italy to Sweden show, is to let the far right in.
So what’s the game? Why adopt policies that could scarcely be better calculated to prevent your re-election? Why stick to outdated fiscal rules when projections suggest they’ll make almost everyone worse off, especially those in poverty? Why impose devastating attacks on wellbeing, such as sustaining the two-child benefit cap, freezing local housing allowance and cutting disability benefits?
Why pursue austerity when the country voted so decisively to end it? Why cut and cut when years of experience show this will undermine the government’s primary (and ill-advised) goal, economic growth?
Why taunt, insult and abuse a crucial part of your political base: people who care about life on Earth? Why trash environmental commitments, abandon protections, expand airports and tie down green watchdogs? Why sustain and defend the most extreme anti-protest measures in any nominally democratic country?
Why seek to nix the financial regulations inspired by the 2008 crash, when the likely result is a repeat performance? Why reject a wealth tax, when a 2% levy on assets of over £10m could raise £24bn a year? Why not adopt the measures proposed by Patriotic Millionaires, generating £60bn a year? Or those suggested by political economist Richard Murphy, worth £90bn in tax revenue? Why abandon plans to tax non-doms properly? Why not demand an end to the Bank of England’s destructive quantitative tightening?
Why bury policies that might help restore democracy, such as proportional representation? Why introduce new political funding rules without actually addressing the capture of politics by the rich?
Why adopt Reform’s messages, Reform’s branding and Reform’s cruelty, to compete over who can most brutally beat up asylum seekers? An abundance of evidence shows that when centre-left parties take radical-right positions, they lose more voters on the left than they gain on the right. Adopting far-right messaging helps far-right parties win.
These policies might seem incomprehensible. But there’s a thread running through them. They all arise from the same doctrine: neoliberalism. This ideology, which has dominated the UK since 1979, demands austerity, the privatisation and shrinkage of public services, curtailment of protest and trade unions, deregulation and tax reductions for the rich. Justified as a means of creating an enterprise society, it has instead delivered a new age of rent, as powerful people monopolise crucial assets, from water to housing to social media. It leaves a government with few options but to scapegoat asylum seekers and other vulnerable groups for the problems it fails to address.
UK Politics
General Discussion for politics in the UK.
Please don't post to both [email protected] and [email protected] .
Pick the most appropriate, and put it there.
Posts should be related to UK-centric politics, and should be either a link to a reputable news source for news, or a text post on this community.
Opinion pieces are also allowed, provided they are not misleading/misrepresented/drivel, and have proper sources.
If you think "reputable news source" needs some definition, by all means start a meta thread. (These things should be publicly discussed)
Posts should be manually submitted, not by bot. Link titles should not be editorialised.
Disappointing comments will generally be left to fester in ratio, outright horrible comments will be removed.
Message the mods if you feel something really should be removed, or if a user seems to have a pattern of awful comments.
[email protected] appears to have vanished! We can still see cached content from this link, but goodbye I guess! :'(
view the rest of the comments
Genuine question;
How can anyone argue that privatisation has any benefit to government whatsoever?
Private enterprise exists to make money above all else. In some cases they are legally obligated to choose the path of greatest profit, no matter what.
This, by definition, means that any service provided will be of the absolute minimum viable, so as to make the maximum profit. It means that profit is the driving factor, not providing an excellent service or product.
That means that everywhere private enterprise has a job for the government, they will charge as much as they can, and provide the absolute least possible in return. Contracts will be gamed and exploited for maximum profit, and the service will be the barest possible to meet contractual obligations.
How can anyone even pretend that private companies leeching every penny at every available opportunity is less wasteful than doing it yourself and actually getting what you've paid for?
To play devil's advocate;
The theory is that privately run enterprise is more efficient and is able to provide goods and services at lower price, the mechanism for this that most people don't mention is that if there are many companies in competition the inefficient ones are out-competed and go bust.
The issue with privatisation is that this efficiency requires A: several businesses competing to provide the service, B: an elastic demand curve and C: informed consumers.
Ideally providing excellent service at a good price increases market share and poor service at high prices results in decreased market share.
The problem with privatisation is that most of the privatised services were nationalised originally because they are not a good fit for one of the above reasons.
E.g. medicine is difficult because if you break a leg you aren't shopping around for hospitals you go to the nearest one, you can't really just put it off and medicine is incredibly complex so being and informed consumer is difficult and the country needs sufficient coverage so hospitals going bust is unacceptable.
The UK has chronic issues with energy prices (I seem to remember seeing the highest in Europe?), but we don't see energy companies undercutting one another, so it's hard to argue that they are actually in competition.
The issue is that most privatised services wind up running as a defacto monopoly the same as the nationalised one, just as you mentioned now with a profit motive too which incentivises hollowing out the service via cost cutting.
I may misunderstand the situation, so please correct me, but isn't the issue due to the separation of the energy production from the home suppliers?
The rules as I understand them are that there is a "most favoured nation" rule, so energy production from Octopus (for example) has to go onto the national grid where they are paid for their production, because that's how you get electricity into homes (unless you want to build our own electricity "alt-net"). Octopus the consumer sales then have to buy the electricity at the wholesale rates which they then sell to you.
Why you can't get a credit on your account for the excess Octopus are paid for their cheap wind instead of expensive gas, I don't know but I can only assume its because they aren't actually the same company. What it also means is that we will never have cheap electricity until we are 100% moved off any and all expensive electricity sources.
What I'm disappointed in as well is that councils can't get involved with turbines. Any monies generated could be put towards everyone's council tax, it may help get past NIMBYs if they know they are getting a tax break because of it and it improves energy independence.
Correct, this is kinda what I meant in that energy providers are private entities, but can't really compete over price so the value of having a market based system is diminished