November 2016

Meeting held on Monday 21 November 2016

6 people were present and 6 gave their apologies.

Since our last meeting Donald Trump had become president elect of USA. This was the basis of our reflections on the prospect of Trump as president, on its relationship with Brexit and on the challenges faced by the left in the light of the increasing prominence of the right.

Despite some apparent moderation in his tone, we were impressed that many of Trump’s senior appointments reflected his right-wing position. But we needed to bear in mind that Bernie Sanders also made a very strong performance. While the right claimed ‘victory’, the rise of a socialist alternative was not going to disappear.

We saw the development of US relations with China as being very important and wondered whether Trump’s apparent isolationism might herald the end of the neoliberal economic project. Possibly, while the prospect of Trump is daunting and potentially dangerous, this could be a positive outcome. What would happen, we wondered, when the increasingly impoverished working (US middle) classes realised that Trump’s policies were not leading to the amelioration of their condition? Would this lead to the rise of more socialist alternatives? Or would it, on the contrary, lead to increasingly right wing moves? Would minorities be scapegoated as the cause of all social ills?

We thought that similar issues and questions were posed by Brexit. There was an apparent move to the right as a consequence of the lack of trust of the ‘masses’ in the ‘elites’. But this shift would be unlikely to serve the economic interests of the poor whose expectations had been raised. With signs of Europe also moving towards the right (France, Austria and Eastern European states), it was particularly challenging for the left who, we thought, should give more thought to the possibility of progressive alliances.

In this regard some frustration was expressed that the Labour Party had been unprepared to consider the possibility of forming a progressive alliance with the Liberals in Richmond (over Zac Goldsmith’s resignation over the government’s Heathrow terminal decision). On the other hand, the liberal party had done little to enhance its progressive credentials by its recent collaboration in the 2010-2015 Tory government.

We thought that the left needed to respond by articulating a clear value basis for a socialist alternative. This might involve a universal citizen’s income, for example. But it would need also to make clear the social aims and values that such an economic policy might support. For example, might the ‘Thatcherite’ celebration of selfishness and acquisitiveness be replaced by values which give a stronger basis to our collective and social wellbeing? In this regard, comparisons were made with the post-war progressive government.