Meeting held on Monday 21st August 2023
Eight people were present. Three gave their apologies.
We returned to discussing the leadership of the Labour Party. It was felt that Starmer need to offer hope, which he does not do at present, having dropped or diluted a number of policies (recently involving workers’ rights) that had previously been agreed.
We observed that a number of right wing governments around the world have shown a lack of enthusiasm, and even hostility towards, green policies. The Labour Party has appeared to retreat from a green agenda arguing that economic growth was the priority. What might be a politically ‘left’ view of the relationship between economic growth and a greener economy, and was economic growth (as measured by GDP, for example) desirable anyway? What did seem clear is that there are some measures (like insulating homes) which were popular and needed support from government. But this was unlikely from a Tory government that appears to be unable to manage any aspects of the economy or policy.
There was some difference of view concerning whether the government was simply incompetent or whether the Tories, who favour a ‘free market’ which inevitably redistributes wealth towards the wealthy, are in fact successful in achieving such redistribution. Any policy of the left should counter such an ideology by using state intervention to compensate for the unjust consequences of the free market.
Interventions, such as ULEZ, are necessary to transition from fossil fuels. There is increasingly a right wing reaction to this which views any such intervention as part of an authoritarian/metropolitan-elite/woke/cancel culture which characterises a ‘culture war’ between left and right.
In the face of this we might expect Starmer to offer an alternative perspective, but none is emerging. His position is seen to be justified by a primary concern to get elected, which inevitably requires acceptance by the right wing press. Such a position might be called ‘pragmatic’. On the other hand, it was argued that Starmer needs to ‘show leadership’ by ‘offering a vision’. We wondered whether it was possible to both offer a vision and be pragmatic. We also wondered whether or not, once in government, some visionary policies would emerge, or whether competence and pragmatism would be the hall marks of a Labour government.
Given the problem we saw with the first-past-the-post electoral system, some of us wondered whether it might be in the longer term interests of the political system if the Labour Party fails to get a majority in parliament and be forced into some kind of collaborative relationship with other parties.
The next meeting of Whats Left will be on 18th September.