Neoliberal Democracy – A Wolf in Sheep’s Clothing

In my last blog: Democracy is too much Democracy?! I showed how the Trilateral Commission’s ‘Democracy in Crisis: 1975’ was, in my view, their reasoning as to why democracy and Socialism needed to be suppressed so that the guardians of Capitalism, the elite, can maintain control of their capitalist interests.

This is a follow-on blog, connecting the dots between the Trilateral Commission’s purpose, Neoliberalism, Thatcher, and Labour ‘centrism’.

Neoliberalism and The Trilateral Commission

Trilateral Commission was formed to protect the interests of capitalists, as does the neoliberal political and economic ideology. I found a neat synopsis in a Labour Heartlands article entitled ‘Sir Keir Starmer: The Trilateral Commission and Jeffrey Epstein’ By Paul Knaggs February 24, 2020

“An organisation that believes the working class, the masses should be removed from any democratic process leaving the issues of democracy and government to the Elite, the establishment.”

“An organisation that was created to spread neoliberal free-market values across the globe, that now finds itself having to recreate its form and mission to manage the spread of nationalism, populism and protectionism all of which they vehemently oppose.”

Sir Keir Starmer: The Trilateral Commission and Jeffrey Epstein

Elements of ’The Constitution of Liberty’ by Friedrich Hayek (one of the founders of neoliberalism) are reflected in the Trilateral Commission’s ‘Democracy in Crisis: 1975’ For example:

“Hayek regards democracy as the best practicable form of government, so long as a majority of the community is committed to individual liberty, the Rule of Law and limited government. Democracy is not primarily a way of life, but a set of procedures for organising and operating government.”

Click to access upldbook519pdfSummary.pdf

In other words, members of government should be left to lead once chosen. No ‘voice of the people’ in decision or policy making, no scrutiny, just let them get on with it. But of course, this means government can then act in their own self interests – as we have witnessed down the years.

Neoliberalism – Hayek, Friedman, and Thatcher

Friedrich Hayek was an Austrian born political economist and philosopher who believed that it wasn’t democracy but markets which dictated Liberalism.

“Liberalism is a political and economic doctrine that emphasizes individual autonomy, equality of opportunity, and the protection of individual rights (primarily to life, liberty, and property), originally against the state and later against both the state and private economic actors, including businesses.” Britannica.com

Having observed a cyclical pattern of economic recessions and booms, Hayek became convinced that the markets should be left to sort themselves out, competitive markets were key, and state governments should not interfere by injecting money into the economy – ie quantitative easing. He said that State planning leads to authoritarianism, but dictatorships adopting market driven economic policies were okay.

In 1947, Hayek met Milton Friedman in Switzerland at a conference (organised by Hayek) which came to be known as the Mont Pelerin Society. Milton Friedman taught at the University of Chicago. Hayek and Friedman clicked.

“Large swaths of Europe lay in ruins. Reconstruction efforts were colored by Keynesian ideals: employment for all, curbing the free market, and regulation of banks. The war state became the welfare state. Yet it was during those same years that neoliberal thought began gaining traction thanks to the efforts of the Mont Pèlerin Society, a group that would go on to become one of the leading think tanks of the 20th century. “Together, they helped precipitate a global policy transformation with implications that will continue to reverberate for decades,” says the historian Angus Burgin.”

“For the rest of his life, Friedman never stopped emphasizing that his success would have been inconceivable without the groundwork laid since 1947. The rise of neoliberalism played out like a relay race, with think tanks passing the baton to journalists, who handed it off to politicians. Running the anchor leg were two of the most powerful leaders in the Western world, Ronald Reagan and Margaret Thatcher. When asked what she considered to be her greatest victory, Thatcher’s reply was “New Labour”: Under the leadership of neoliberal Tony Blair, even her social democratic rivals in the Labour Party had come around to her worldview.” Rutger Bregman

Friedman and Hayek: How Neoliberal Revolutionaries Took over the World

From 1950 – 1962, Hayek was a professor at the University of Chicago in the US. Here, in 1960 he wrote ‘The Constitution of Liberty’ in response to his adversary Keynes’ critique years earlier.

In 1975 at a Conservative Party Research Department meeting, Margaret Thatcher is said to have pulled out of her handbag a copy of Hayek’s book and presented it saying “This is what we believe”.

Neoliberal ideology took hold and burgeoned under the leaderships of Margaret Thatcher in the UK and Ronald Regan in the United States. Faith in the State declined as faith in free market systems increased. The UK became a DINKY* society as property ownership and easy to obtain mortgages boomed, interest rates increased, manufacturing industry lost, unions demonised and regulated, and the rate of unemployment rose.

*Double Income No Kids Yet

Pinochet and the Chicago Boys

Outside influence in Chile’s politics existed at a time when Communism was seen as a danger by the Western world. As Allende’s socialist movement grew in popularity, so did the US and UK’s anxiety levels…. especially about the possible nationalisation of US owned copper mining industry in Chile.

“Under the Labour government of Harold Wilson (1964-1970), a secret Foreign Office unit initiated a propaganda offensive in Chile aiming to prevent Allende, Chile’s leading socialist figure, winning power in two presidential elections, in 1964 and 1970.”

However, Allende did win, and became President in November 1970. A socialist programme ensued including nationalising the copper mines.

But interference in Chile’s political landscape continued under the Conservative Government when Sir Alec Douglas-Home was Foreign Secretary:

“[The Foreign Office unit] The IRD also shared intelligence about left-wing activity in the country with the US government. British officials in Santiago assisted a CIA-funded media organisation which was part of extensive US covert action to overthrow Allende, culminating in the 1973 coup.”

Exclusive: Secret cables reveal Britain interfered with elections in Chile

In September 1973 Chile’s socialist government was overthrown in a military coup. Yet again, involving outside interference from the capitalists guarding their own interests…..

“The U.S. Senate Select Committee on Intelligence has disclosed that “CIA collaborators” helped plan the economic measures that Chile’s junta enacted immediately after seizing power. Committee witnesses maintain that some of the “Chicago boys” received CIA funds for such research efforts as a 300-page economic blueprint that was given to military leaders before the coup.”

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/the-chicago-boys-in-chile-economic-freedoms-awful-toll/

The Chicago Boys were a group of Chilean born, US educated economists who had studied at Milton Friedman’s Chicago School of economics.

So, in 1973 when the military junta seized power, the Chicago Boys set to work in Pinochet’s government with their neoliberal policies. State industries were privatised (except the copper mines), capital flows were deregulated, price controls abolished, and taxes reduced. It was neoliberalism on steroids! However, this caused a shock to the economic system. Bank interest rates went sky high, manufacturing industries were lost, and unemployment doubled. By 1975 manufacturing production had dropped by 26%. The Chicago Boys claimed the economic crisis was the previous government’s economic legacy – due to a lack of market competition.

Pinochet stuck with the neoliberal programme and the economy did start to show signs of recovery. However, in 1979 Chile pegged it’s currency to the US dollar. Over-valuation of the Peso and high interest rates led to the economic crisis of 1982.

The Chicago Boys were ousted, banks nationalised, and Chile’s Central Bank settled it’s foreign debt. Government public spending was greater than when Allende’s socialist government was in power. By 1985 bank regulation and capital controls returned, but the banks were re-privatised.

In 1990, following a referendum, Pinochet’s dictatorship came to an end and democracy restored. A more socialist programme of spending under the new president Alwyn was implemented and unions were legitamised.

Thatcher and Pinochet

Under Edward Heath, the UK formally recognised the legitimacy of Pinochet’s regime in 1973. In 1974 however, Harold Wilson’s government imposed sanctions on the sale of arms to Chile, mainly due to public protest about human rights abuses. Margaret Thatcher became leader of the opposition in 1975, and in 1979 Prime Minister of the UK. Not only did she lift the embargo on the sale of arms and weapons to Chile, the UK also provided training in counter insurgency to their military.

Thatcher treated Pinochet as a friend, at the same time as crowing about a special relationship with US president Regan. It was almost like Thatcher and Regan were proud parents of the neoliberal baby they’d produced in Chile, and wanted to nurture it then show it off to the World as an example of neoliberalism being a success….. and there was plenty of propaganda to make it seem as though it was.

Both Labour and Conservative had sold arms to Chile, and to Argentina, and both parties in government had tried to swap the Falkland Islands for oil rights when oil was discovered off the islands’ coast, but Argentina were not conceding.

In 1980 Thatcher’s foreign minister had secret talks with Argentina to finally seal the deal on a swap, but Labour suddenly developed a conscience and led a strong protest against the government, so the plan was shelved. Argentina’s claim on the territory eventually led to armed conflict, but Thatcher was still exporting arms to Argentina right up to the eve of going to war with them.

Extract http://camdennewjournal.com/article/that-sinking-feeling 7^th May 2020

Thatcher’s friendship with Pinochet was very useful for her during the Falklands War when, as Argentina’s neighbour, Chile provided intelligence to the UK.

The Falkland’s War, Thatcher’s glorious Boudicca event….. what a sham.

Conclusion

The Trilateral Commission is the guide, and Neoliberalism the method, by which the capitalist elite ensure global control of their interests . They are anti-democratic whilst pretending to be upholders of democracy. Using governments to do their bidding, they are willing to destroy people’s lives and destabilise countries to maintain guardianship of the sources of their wealth.

Democracy is bad for Democracy?!

The new Labour leader, who claims to be a socialist, seems to be doing everything he can to destroy democratic socialism within the party. Why?

In Twitter conversations I’ve seen, socialists seem deeply hurt by the words, actions and inaction of the new Labour leader. ‘The Trilateral Commission’ cropped up in quite a few comments about Sir Keir Starmer…. so I decided to look deeper into it.

What is the Trilateral Commission?

“The Trilateral Commission was founded at the initiative of David Rockefeller in 1973. Its members are drawn from the three components of the world of capitalist democracy: the United States, Western Europe, and Japan. Among them are the heads of major corporations and banks, partners in corporate law firms, Senators, Professors of international affairs — the familiar mix in extra-governmental groupings. Along with the 1940s project of the Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), directed by a committed “trilateralist” and with numerous links to the Commission, the project constitutes the first major effort at global planning since the War-Peace Studies program of the CFR during World War II.” Noam Chomsky https://chomsky.info/priorities01/

Global planning or global control of capitalists’ interests?

Laying my cards on the table, I’m a lefty, anti capitalist, believer in small local enterprise, non-monopolistic business, equality of opportunity, workers rights, public ownership of social housing and public services etc. I am a Democratic Socialist. As such, and having read up about it, I agree with Holly Sklar’s take on the Trilateral Commission, as reported in the Washington Post:

“ To Holly Sklar, who edited the 1980 anthology “Trilateralism,” the commission “represents the interests of multinational corporations and banks,” which means it’s contrary to the interests of Third World countries and workers all over. It wants wages kept low. It wants voters kept apathetic and polarized.

The Trilateral Commission is not a “conspiracy” and is not “omnipotent,” Sklar says. “But that doesn’t mean it’s not influential.” For example, she says the commission set out to economically “co-opt” OPEC, persuading countries like Saudi Arabia to put their petrodollars back into Western banks, and to buy weapons from the West, instead of investing in developing countries.” https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/lifestyle/1992/04/25/beware-the-trilateral-commission/59c48198-9479-4c80-a70a-a1518b5bcfff/

In my view, the Trilateral Commission was founded by the capitalists to protect: capitalist interests and their private wealth. Therefore, capitalists need to have control, ergo they are anti democracy. However, they wouldn’t get away with being a full on dictatorship, so they had to find a way of creating an illusion of democracy whilst not allowing people to have the power of a true democracy.

‘Democracy in Crisis’ – My Observations with Extracts

In setting up the Trilateral Commission as controllers of capitalism to protect private wealth for the elite, there has to be a structure which enables a few guardians* to gain and maintain control. United States already exists in America, but Europe needs to be unified. The populace needs to be compliant, let the leaders lead. The leaders need to be willing to do the guardians’ bidding. Reading through the Democracy In Crisis report, it became clear to me how they would achieve it.

* guardians pops up a number of times in the report

Tactics of the self assigned ‘guardians’ of Capitalism

My argument

The ‘Democracy in Crisis’ report was presented as a strategy for elite capitalists to achieve the control they needed to protect their interests:

Justify the need for a guardian of democracy in Western societies:

Pose the threat of danger……

Predict dictatorship

“In recent years, acute observers on all three continents have seen a bleak future for democratic government. Before leaving office, Willy Brandt was reported to believe that “Western Europe has only 20 or 30 more years of democracy left in it; after that it will slide, engineless and rudderless, under the surrounding sea of dictatorship….”

Too many educated people

“In an age of widespread secondary school and university education, the pervasiveness of the mass media, and the displacement of manual labor by clerical and professional employees, this development constitutes a challenge to democratic government which is, potentially at least, as serious as those posed in the past by the aristocratic cliques, fascist movements, and communist parties.”

Spoilt teenagers don’t care about anyone but themselves….

“In all three Trilateral regions, a shift in values is taking place away from the materialistic work-oriented, public-spirited values toward those which stress private satisfaction, leisure, and the need for “belonging and intellectual and esthetic self-fulfillment.” These values are, of course, most notable in the younger generation……. They tend to be privatistic in their impact and import.”

Too much socialism – bring back poverty

“The rise of this syndrome of values is presumably related to the relative affluence in which most groups in the Trilateral societies came to share during the economic expansion of the 1960s.”

Democracy needs a guardian …..

“The demands on democratic government grow, while the capacity of democratic government stagnates. This, it would appear, is the central dilemma of the governability of democracy which has manifested itself in Europe, North America, and Japan in the 1970s.”

2. Justify the need to leave decision making to the leaders:

Identify the ‘bad’ influences in democratic systems…..

Socialism is bad

“…Britain has become the most dramatic example of this malaise, not because it is the worst example but because Britain, which had escaped all the vagaries of continental politics, had always been considered everywhere as the mother and the model of democratic processes. Its contemporary troubles seem to announce the collapse of these democratic processes….”

Diversity is bad

“Each country, of course, is substantially different. The main characteristic of Western Europe is its diversity….

> The European political systems are overloaded with participants and demands, and they have increasing difficulty in mastering the very complexity which is the natural result of their economic growth and political development.”

Solidarity and access to information are bad

“First of all, social and economic developments have made it possible for a great many more groups and interests to coalesce. Second, the information explosion has made it difficult if not impossible to maintain the traditional distance that was deemed necessary to govern. Third, the democratic ethos makes it difficult to prevent access and restrict information, while the persistence of the bureaucratic processes which had been associated with the traditional governing systems makes it impossible to handle them at a low enough level.”

Decision-making systems are complex and dysfunctional

“Politicians and administrators have found it easier and more expedient to give up to complexity. They tend to accommodate to it and even to use it as a useful smoke screen. One can give access to more groups and more demands without having to say no and one can maintain and expand one’s own freedom of action or, in more unpleasant terms, one’s own irresponsibility.”

Decision-making in fewer hands is good

“….…. a country like Sweden, which has developed an impressive capability for handling complex problems by relieving ministerial staffs of the burden of administrative and technical decisions and by allocating considerable decision-making powers to strengthened local authorities”

3. Establish a reason why national democratic systems in their current diverse forms don’t work, ie political rhetoric (nodding to the people’s demands to get elected) versus policy administration (only able to implement small changes to group rather than general social advantage). Thereby, justifying the need for unified, standardised regulation, to maintain social order and acceptance of decision-making powers being in the hands of a few.

Why European countries should Federate….

Blame bureaucracy

“Politico-administrative regulations work according to a basic vicious circle: bureaucratic rule divorced from the political rhetoric and from the needs of the citizens fosters among them alienation and irresponsibility which form the necessary con- text for the breakdown of consensus that has developed. Lack of consensus in its turn makes it indispensable to resort to bureaucratic rule, since one cannot take the risk of involving citizens who do not accept the minimum rules of the game.”

Too many groups fighting in their own corners

“In Denmark, the Netherlands, and Britain, the social democratic consensus is breaking down while the relationships between groups have become so complex and erratic that citizens are more and more frustrated.”

Look, Europe’s great!

“European societies are still very civilized societies whose citizens are well-protected and whose amenities and possibilities of enjoyment have not only been maintained but extended to a great many more people. In addition Europe suffers less from social disruption and crime than the United States.”

Let’s Federate before people’s demands cause governance problems

“There are growing areas, nevertheless, where governments’ capacity to act and to meet the challenge of citizens’ demands has been drastically impaired……This impairment of capacities is becoming prevalent in more countries in bargaining among groups, income redistribution, and the handling of inflation.”

4. Socialism gives too much democracy. There has to be justification for a class system comprised of workers and those who govern i.e. the holders of power. Socialism doesn’t work because people get ideas above their station, and create unrest when their demands aren’t met.

Convince the public Socialism doesn’t work….

Mainstream News Media subliminal messaging and propaganda

Spin the post war period

“……tremendous economic gains made during the past twenty years* by all groups and especially the workers……..Instead of appeasing tensions, material progress seems to have exacerbated them.”

*1950s and 60s

“Once people know that things can change, they cannot accept easily anymore the basic features of their condition that were once taken for granted. ….…. citizens have been more sophisticated politically…..”

Demonise the Unions

“Rank-and-file workers do not recognize themselves in such a bureaucratic process and they tend to drift away, which means that the more trade unions and working-class parties accept regular procedures, the weaker they become in their capacity to mobilize their followers and to put real pressure on the system. Thus, they have to rediscover radicalism.”

5. Encourage people out of their comfort zones

Heighten the fear – easier control

Change is disruptive

“.…accelerated change is extremely costly in terms of disruption. It means that many branches and enterprises decline and even disappear while others undergo tremendous growth.”

Unfamiliarity is unsettling

“People are forced to be mobile geographically and occupationally, which can be accounted for in terms of psychological costs. They have had to face a new form of uncertainty and are likely to compare their fates more often to the fates of other groups. Tensions, therefore, are bound to increase.”

False narratives about immigration are a prime example of creating and stoking division

Demonise the Unions – into the 80’s
https://theconversation.com/war-on-the-picket-line-how-the-british-press-made-a-battle-out-of-the-miners-strike-60470

Extracts from: https://archive.org/details/TheCrisisOfDemocracy-TrilateralCommission-1975/page/n25/mode/2up?q=acute+observers+on+all+three+continents

Conclusion

In my view, the last forty-plus years UK governments policies align with the Trilateral Commission strategy for the capitalist elite to gain control.

Coincidence? I don’t think so.

Some Outcomes from 40+ years of UK Governments’ policies

Council Housing sell off – property ownership is touted as mark of success, never mind those who can’t buy
Trickle down economics – the rise of neoliberalism and the ‘special relationship’ with America
Slowly destroy manufacturing industry and coal industry
Call, and treat strike action as ‘riots’ – Orgreave; Regulating and disempowering Unions
Control education – Produce a Statutory National Curriculum
Encourage economic migrants, then make them unwelcome ‘Go Home Vans’
Corporatism in Public Services
Point the blame at others if people don’t climb the ladder of ‘success’ – immigrants, benefit scroungers, identity politics
Demonise Socialism with fake or spun information – shout Zimbabwe; Venezuela; Russia; Strikes; Labour Broke the bank!
Suppress the working class – Austerity, ‘flexible working’ ie zero hours, unstable jobs
Devolution – NHS, Local Government

Under the guise of identity politics, the majority of Labour PLP continue to support the suppression of democracy and through his messaging, delayed action, or inaction the new leader of the Labour Party allows the fear to grow.

https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/economy/2020/09/labours-new-message-its-tougher-tories-public-spending

And so the maintenance of Capitalist control through fear goes on

Is Socialism really that bad that people decide to vote with the Capitalists?

Final thoughts:

I cannot see socialism being allowed to exist in the party when the leader of UK Labour is a member of the Trilateral Commission………

It does not mean the end for Socialism though

Fundraisers v Public Money for NHS

“Charity is a cold grey loveless thing. If a rich man wants to help the poor, he should pay his taxes gladly, not dole out money at a whim”…Clement Attlee

We love our NHS

The NHS is the ‘jewel in our crown’, our ‘national treasure’…. we love our NHS. In fact, we love it so much we’re pained to see it’s staff struggling to cope with the Covid19 outbreak.

Our hearts go out to the families who have lost their loved ones from this terrible illness, and to the NHS staff battling to save them, who sometimes have to make the most difficult decisions about treatment pathways laid down by NICE guidelines.

Understandably, talking about the NHS brings out our strongest emotions. Knowing that NHS staff and Social Care workers are not being provided with adequate Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) in too many settings – hospitals, GP surgeries, Residential homes, ambulance crews, community nursing/caring, it brings out a natural response: we want to help.

Hence, there has been an explosion of fundraising activity on social media platforms. The biggest has been organised by NHS Charities Together:

As someone who has been a proactive campaigner in support of #OurNHS for three years, I fully understand the desire to help.

However…. Stop It! Our NHS Is Not A Charity

Be warned, you may find what you’re about to read controversial. I ask for your patience in reading all the way to the end. I might challenge your perceptions, but bear with me, I hope by the end you will have seen why I felt it was important to write this blog.

I’m going to set the historical context first. Then I’ll demonstrate how the context has impacted our NHS and why it’s in the position of needing help and support today. Next I will put forward the macroeconomic context, and finally I intend to show that Public Money should be the winner in a Fundraiser v Public Money for our NHS argument.

The NHS – brief historical context

NHS: the Early Years

In post war Britain 1948, the Labour government launched our National Health Service

A publicly owned, publicly run, and publicly delivered comprehensive *National* health service free at the point of need for all.

Birth to death….from the cradle to the grave. Eyes, ears, nose, mouth, mind, limbs, internal organs, disease, infection…. Midwifery, District Nursing, Consultations, Tests, Treatments, Hospital stays, and Prescriptions were free.

Aneurin Bevan, Health minister at the time said:

Many governments have come and gone, making changes such as implementing prescription charges, centralizing and decentralizing the ambulance service, and in 1998 devolution had some impact….

“The UK’s four systems were created very similar at the high water mark of British political unity. They were all ‘national health service’ (NHS) systems, with the government directly owning hospitals, contracting with primary care General Practitioners (GP) and employing most other staff in a system centrally financed out of general taxation and provided for free at the point of service.”

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5127421/

Corporatisation and Markets

The internal competitive market and Foundation Trusts (run as businesses) were introduced early to mid 2000s.

But…. every Secretary of State for Health of whichever political party in government had the responsibility to provide comprehensive healthcare for it’s citizens…. until the Health and Social Care Act 2012* passed into law.

NHS Death Knoll – The Lansley Act

Professor Allyson Pollock (March 2013):

“The UK NHS was created by national consensus in order to ensure that every citizen was guaranteed health care. Underpinning these arrangements was the secretary of state’s core duty to provide or secure a comprehensive health service, a duty repealed by the first clause of the Health and Social Care Act*.”

leftfootforward.org/2013/03/why-we-need-a-political-campaign-to-reinstate-the-nhs

This was passed at a time when the country was still reeling from the 2008/9 global financial crash and the coalition government had imposed severe austerity measures on public services. But more on that a bit later.

The Act opened up all our NHS services to the external market except for acute emergency and obstetrics.
It opened the flood gates for private sector provision of health and social care services
The Act also gave birth to four quangos: NHS England, NHS Scotland, NHS Wales, and NHS Northern Ireland each responsible for the provision of health and social care. Although still called NHS it was no longer a National Health Service

NHSE – The US model of healthcare comes to England

The appointment as head of NHS England was given to Simon Stevens, worked for the USA giant United Health Insurance company, where he was president of their global health division, and CEO of Medicare.

His job as NHSE head was to oversee implementation of the complete reorganization of our health and social care service in England, by splitting England up into 44 regional health economies – ‘footprints’.

The aim was to establish Accountable^{^NB} Care Organisations (an American model) which we now call Integrated^{^NB} Care Systems/Organisations.

These ICS/ICOs are contracted out to a body (which can be a private business or a combination of local authority and private partnerships) who are responsible for the provision of health and social care across their ‘footprint’ within a fixed budget. They are run like a business, so must balance the books or make a profit… they cannot go into deficit.

^{^NB}Accountable in a financial sense, ie accounting Integrated in an admin sense ‘back room stuff’

Government Austerity and NHSE Combine for Maximum Impact

Under Austerity, we saw swathing cuts in budgets to our public services from 2010 onwards
NHS trusts told to make ‘efficiency’ savings, savings targets set and if not achieved, financial penalties imposed. A Trust could even be put in to Special Measures for being in ‘debt’
Staffing levels were cut, wards and small hospitals closed, bed numbers dropped.
Businesses have taken over services such as diagnostics, Mental Health, phlebotomy, radiology, cleaning, catering, ophthalmology, and so on.

In the private sector, the leanest service they can give the more profit they make. Our health service and social care system began to feel the strain.

“Sustainability” became the mantra of Government and NHS England chiefs.

By 2016 Sustainability and Transformation Plans (STPs) were published. These were the plans which would transform our health service and social care into ICS/ICOs.

Some STP Boards held Public Consultations

https://midessexccg.nhs.uk/get-involved/public-consultations/your-care-in-the-best-place/3221-your-care-in-the-best-place-consultation-document/file

As small gatherings of ‘the aware’ sat and listened to highly paid NHSE employees give glossy presentations, telling us that our NHS will not survive unless we make these changes, which would improve the service….. make it sustainable so it’s there for the future.

They asked for our views, which in practice were never going to make the slightest difference to their grand plans.

And Here We Are…..

2019 saw our fragmented, under-resourced, under-funded, and under-staffed system in a very poor state:

43,000 nurses and 10,000 GPs short
Hospital targets abandoned because they consistently couldn’t be met
Worn out staff working longer shifts than they were being paid for
Cancelled appointments and operations a common occurrence
Little to no mental health support
3 week waits to see a GP
Apps being touted as the answer to everything

People were dying who shouldn’t have been……

“Like many junior doctors who have worked in overwhelmed and understaffed A&E departments, I’ve seen things happen as a result of the overstretched conditions that I believe should be classed as “never events”. Since 2016, nearly 5,500 patients have died in England alone as a direct result of having waited too long to be admitted to hospital. To put that in perspective, that’s nearly twice the number of people killed in terror attacks in the UK since 1970. We should be outraged”

https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/10/doctor-johnson-thousands-deaths-nhs-patient

Now in 2020, the pandemic has hit an already ‘in crisis’ health care service (exacerbated by a chronic problem in social care)

Our NHS…. Macroeconomic Context

It is political!

To all the naysayers who shout “Keep politics out of our NHS”………… you can’t.

https://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-government/

Government has control of the public purse it’s role is to spend public money for public purpose and social benefit.

“If the job is to be done, the state must accept financial responsibility“

So what is the public purse and public money?

The public purse is not a fund, and public money is not tax payers money
The public purse is the Bank of England and public money is the creation of pounds sterling by keystrokes – entering numbers into banks’ reserve accounts so they in turn can credit the account of a person or company selling it’s goods or services to the Government – as instructed by the Treasury.

Having said this, I can hear you ask….. but where does the money come from? It must come from somewhere?

The key word is “creation”

The UK Government is the sole issuer of our sovereign fiat currency. Every time the Government (of whichever colour) spends, it creates pounds sterling out of thin air. If the government needs to purchase goods or services which are for sale in GBP, then it simply instructs the Bank of England to do so via the Treasury. The Chancellor of the Exchequer provides the Budget Statement ie ‘shopping list’ and this is administered by the Treasury’s Debt Management Office (DMO) and the Monetary Policy Committee (MPC) at the Bank of England.

There is no taxpayers money funding Government spending. The only constraints on spending are the availability of resources (goods, services, labour) and inflation caused by resource shortages.

Now ask yourself….. when the global financial markets collapsed in 2008 what shortage did this cause?

Government told us “There is no money! We have to tighten our belts… Austerity!”

Did anyone shout back “Hang on a cotton picking minute…….. you create money!”

[To be fair, some did. But the response they got (and still do, but from fewer people) was “Venezuela” and “Zimbabwe”….. which demonstrated how little they know about those countries’ economies.

See my blog https://idleobs.wordpress.com/2020/03/29/coronavirus-economic-stimulus-but-how-will-you-pay-for-it/ ]

The Truth: Our Government can NEVER run out of money

The Final Argument – Why we should not have to fundraise for the NHS

Current Shortages in our Health and Social Care Services

Nurses, Doctors, Radiologists, Social Workers, Care-workers ie labour
Equipment, especially PPE, Covid19 Tests, and Ventilators ie goods
Diagnostics/Testing laboratories ie services

Labour – the workforce

500,000 volunteers have come forward to help our ‘NHS, there must be jobs that these volunteers are doing, and that is great. Practical help at a time of most need.

No shortage of people willing to work for no pay – although government could pay them via a Job Guarantee programme, and this could encourage more people into care-worker jobs.

However, the shortage of clinical staff and social workers needs addressing urgently through government investment in bursaries, decent wages, and free education, but will not help in the immediate crisis.

Goods

Through a combination of incompetence or deliberate policy, the government did not purchase goods listed above prior to the pandemic, despite being forewarned in the pandemic simulation report 2016. Government’s initial ’do nothing’ strategy exacerbated the situation as global demand for equipment and tests grew. By the time Matt Hancock and NHSE tried to get hold of, or refused to deal with certain suppliers of, what we needed, the goods aren’t there (although that’s debatable)

Volunteers across England are making PPE out of the goodness of their hearts and donated material. Practical help at a time of most need.

Services

Although slow to start, government are negotiating contracts with laboratories. Money is being created to purchase these services.

Conclusion

There can never be a shortage of public money to purchase anything if it’s available for sale in our own currency………

There is not a shortage of money to attract, train and retain staff, only the shortage of will by the government to do it

There is not a shortage of money to purchase equipment, only the shortage of will by the government to do it, and at the right time

So why does the ‘NHS’ need money from charity when government can provide it with public money?

It doesn’t and shouldn’t!

If the government keeps getting away with not accepting financial responsibility, they will keep starving our NHS of money to pay for the facilities, staff, equipment, and resources it needs to exist !!

Please stop giving money to charity for the ‘NHS’

Demand from government that it carries out it’s duty to use public money as it was meant: for public purpose and social benefit.

Coronavirus Economic Stimulus: But How Will You Pay For It?

As disruption to daily life continues, due to the Coronavirus pandemic, our Government are spending money like water and making provision for projected high budgetary demands. Consequently Government spending is a hot topic on Twitter.

From observing tweets and comments, there are two distinct and quite different perspectives of how our economy works. One (the majority view) is based in the politically conveyed, mainstream neoliberal economics system, the other is based in a non-mainstream exposition of macroeconomics in a sovereign fiat currency-issuing nation, ie Modern Monetary Theory.

Examples of the kind of comments I’m seeing on Twitter:

If we hadn’t wasted the taxpayers’ money on Brexit, NHS would be better off

The kids who are off school now will one day be the taxpayers who have to pay this money back

[Re Quantitative Easing] UK bankers have the UK taxpayers by the balls

Peston – ‘If Coronavirus continues and people have to stay at home, business will suffer and Government will have to put money in people’s pockets’ No! ‘Government’ doesn’t have money. Any handouts will go on to UK taxpayers’ expansive tax tab – as always! Doh!

Govt response to the Coronavirus has exposed flaws in neoliberalism/free market ideology and the ‘how will you pay for it?’ myth

Tories have found the Magic Money Tree again…. it proves austerity was a lie

Govt will finance free parking for NHS staff at hospitals. Why aren’t people asking ‘How will you pay for that?’ like they did when Labour’s manifesto promised hospital parking would be free?

UK govt is a sovereign fiat currency issuer, it can never run out of money

USA government is a Sovereign fiat currency issuer like the UK, Japan, Sweden and many others. Here’s the proof ‘taxes don’t pay for’ (clip of Ben Bernanke – Head of Federal Reserve, Central Bank 2006-2014 responding to the question “Is that tax money that the Fed is spending?” His answer: “No, it’s not tax money. We simply use the computer to mark up the size of the account…”) https://youtu.be/O5mMW6dZtfw

On the one hand we have people believing that paid taxes go into a ‘pot’ and is used to fund government spending; when the ‘pot’ is empty government has to borrow from somewhere and later, taxpayers have to bear the brunt to pay this back. On the other hand, we have people saying taxes don’t pay for anything and government simply creates money when it spends.

@duncanpoundcake neatly summarises the two different perspectives:

I spotted this BBC article by Faisal Islam 26/03/2020

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/business-52044374

Here are a couple of extracts I find intriguing…..

“.… the Monetary Policy Committee is considering buying [£200bn] UK government bonds directly from the Treasury…..”

“.… For Mr Hughes, the official who for three years was in charge of the Treasury’s relationship with the government bond market, the unique global damage from the wretched pandemic, highlights a significant point.

‘Governments may need to turn to their central banks for the liquidity needed to pay out against their commitments while government bond markets are temporarily disrupted,’ he says.” (my highlight)

*MPC is the Monetary Policy Committee which is a Bank of England committee. They manage the Government’s monetary policy, such as quantitative easing, deciding the UK’s base interest rate and monitoring the CPI (consumer price index) to ensure it’s kept close to the target rate of inflation.

A supporter of MMT (Modern Monetary Theory) replied with this image on Twitter to the question “What do we pay taxes for?”

A reply to this from another tweeter, quoted Zimbabwe as an example of how “printing monopoly money” doesn’t work, and said that “MMT is a sham”.

After a few tweets back and forth, they challenged the MMTer to explain how MMT would be viable in one or two paragraphs.

To explain a non-mainstream macroeconomic perspective in one or two paragraphs is a ridiculous expectation. However….. as an MMT supporter myself, for this blog I will outline the basics :

As a sovereign fiat currency issuer Govt creates new money each time it spends

Taxes do not fund govt spending therefore no limited pot of money as a constraint to spending.

Govt ‘Debt’ is a record of how much Govt has spent into circulation minus how much has been taken out via taxes. Borrowing ie selling bonds & gilts is simply an accounting mechanism. Issuing Bonds is the same as issuing £5/£10/£20/£50 notes… “I promise to pay the bearer”

Govt can always service it’s debt (eg a few days ago MPC talking about BoE purchasing £200bn in bonds from the treasury)

‘Deficit’ is just the difference between debt & revenue ie how much there is in circulation ie private assets & savings. When a ‘deficit’ is squeezed (austerity) or in surplus people & businesses have to depend on personal loans which have to be paid back with interest, or savings, or not spend, which throws the economy out of balance by restricting flow & reducing production.

Govt spending is limited by the availability of resources & services (labour) for sale in it’s own currency.

Govt can spend on stuff as long as there’s sufficient resources & services to absorb their spending. The govt is not like a household which depends on income before it can spend, so the phrase “balance the books” is nonsense.

Fiscal instruments such as taxation are used to influence/manipulate the economy to maintain it’s balance. Currency flow is the key.

Hyperinflation is caused by resource constraints. For example, when production fell in Zimbabwe after the government took farms away from owners, and handed them over to ‘the people’, who had no clue how to run them! Once there’s a severe shortage, inflation follows. We are seeing this right now in UK with… toilet rolls and hand sanitiser! Thankfully our economy isn’t dependent on these items.

I return to @duncanpoundcake who frequently makes me stop and think….

So in conclusion, when we’re through this very scary time, if the UK government (whoever that may be) tell us that we have to cut spending, or say ‘we cannot afford to implement the Green New Deal or fund public services such as the NHS…. we should challenge them and demand adequate funding for these social benefits.

Tackling Climate Change – Is it a Taboo Subject?

Why isn’t Climate Change trending?

Extinction Rebellion UK has more than 37k followers

Why do their tweets get relatively few RTs and Likes?

Tweeted on 17^th February (7:21am) screenshots taken at 3pm same day and on 21^st February at 13:30 4 days later

Lots of people are aware of the climate emergency it seems…….. 256.9k likes

So, why isn’t any of this front page news? Why isn’t any of this Trending every single day?

Is Climate Change a taboo subject? I don’t think so. In my opinion, for most people there’s a cognitive dissonance between knowing the facts and acting on the facts. For the last 40 years we have been inculcated to view our lives through an individualistic lens, not a collective one. How then, can we expect everyone to act collectively and in solidarity?

Just consider how the following groups have been demonised and the language used to achieve this:

Unions – “Troublemakers” “crippling mail services” “destructive”

Yet we wouldn’t have had the weekend, safety at work, secure jobs if it hadn’t been for the collective action of union members

NHS Campaigners – “Scaremongers” “Activists” “Loud, placard waving crowd”

Yet if it wasn’t for campaigners, England’s health and social care system would have been established as Accountable Care Organisations run by big American health insurance companies in 2017/18, with only 44 acute 24/7 A&E “Super” hospitals serving the population, and a co-payments system.

Extinction Rebellion – “criminal organisation” “vandalising” “raving lunatics”

Yet without XR protests getting media attention, albeit negative, would we be so aware of why there’s an urgent need for climate action?

It isn’t the subject of climate change which is taboo, it’s any sign of collectivism and social solidarity. This is how the Establishment fights it’s corner, by demonising any group or action that demonstrates people power, no matter how vital the cause.

In the UK we are seeing increasing frequency and strength of storms…Flood victims homes and possessions have been destroyed by river water and sewage. In a lot of areas it’s worse than it would’ve been, or wouldn’t have happened at all, if rivers and flood defenses had been maintained/built. Australian forest fires have destroyed whole towns and villages. Mining companies had diverted river water for their own use, causing severe drought in local areas; regulation on forest floor clearance was reduced significantly; and, year on year record-breaking high temperatures; all contributed to the unprecedented extent of the fires.

Insurance companies are refusing to insure people in these flood and fire hit areas…. the insurance companies know these catastrophic effects of climate change are going to continue!

Almost all the World’s governments are not acting urgently or adequately enough to prevent the devastating consequences of climate change, and not enough people are demanding they do.

Tracking climate action targets across the World

Why is there such a tiny area of green shading?

https://climateactiontracker.org/countries/

I would argue that Governments have been well aware of the consequences of climate change, so too are carbon emissions’ biggest offenders: the companies who lobby them. It seems that their priority is money not lives. Do I think the J.P. Morgan leaked document this week will push Governments into serious, effective action?….

I’m afraid not. We, the people, are the ones who will have to do the pushing.

Addendum: A twitter thread ….. https://twitter.com/Pamos19/status/1231287370575745026?s=20

Trolls and bots came out to play

Troll-bots popped up every now and then on Twitter when I first joined just over two years ago. I just thought they were behaving like toddlers, poking you to get on your nerves. But in 2019… they came in their thousands! and had mutated into vicious beasts.

Troll-bots favourite diet? Socialist MPs and their supporters. They’d pounce into a tweet with loathsome intent, spitting vitriol. You could almost imagine the keyboard…. like gnashing teeth as they created insults, slanderous accusations, vile abuse and even threats.

When someone showed they weren’t going to be intimidated, troll-bot mates joined-in. Like a pack of wolves they’d rip their prey to pieces. Why? In my view, to incite a reaction of anger, fear, retaliation…. masters at twisting something you said into a weapon they could use against you, and aha! the troll-bot turned victim and accuser. Few escaped unscathed.

Lots of targeted socialists tried reasoning, but eventually said stuff debate! we’re sick of…. “only to be expected from Corbynistas” and being called: cultist, racist, antisemite, commie, Stalinist, Trotskyite, Marxist; they fell into tit-for-tat responses: typical Tory, far-right, liar, fascist… and so on.

There’s an invisible wall now, dividing the left from everyone else, over which people shout back and forth. Some are single-shot profanity rallies “f*ck off” and “c**t”, others are tirades.

Embroiled in mudslinging matches or defending themselves, socialists got reported and too often, suspended from Twitter!

Caught in their trap last year, by twisting what I said, they accused me of being something I most definitely am not. I was defending someone being targeted by multiple troll-bot mates. Afterwards, I realised it was a deliberate, cruel game to get us both suspended – lesson learned…^ps

We know most tweeting takes place in echo chambers making a troll-bot’s targeting easy. Lots of tweets said ‘ignore the trolls’ or ‘Bot. Blocked’ but others felt they had to ‘fight back against the lies and smears’.

Troll-bots baited, hooked and reeled ‘em in for their propaganda machine to then display cherry-picked examples to tar all lefties with the same brush, as “thugs” “hooligans”….. ie socialists are ‘baddies’ and everyone else ‘goodies’.

The troll-bot game managed to close down a lot of voices, and it succeeded in amplifying the right-wing, neoliberal propaganda message that Socialism is ‘bad’.

^PSI haven’t modified what I tweet, I just don’t play the troll-bot games.

20/01/2020

Growing Socialism at Grass Roots Part 3/3

Why not create Socialist Community Hubs? A place for meeting and socialising, getting practical help, to learn something, to build support for a community project, or build an effective local campaign.

Socialism at work at grass roots level. How do we start though?

‘Big Bug’ and my thinking…..

I love the Stranglers, it’s very interesting reading about their music inspiration and meaning behind the lyrics. Hugh Cornwell and Robert Williams collaborated on an album Nosferatu…I started researching the background to the song “Big Bug”, it refers to Trotsky’s war train during the Russian revolution. I found a chapter in his autobiography: Trotsky’s Life called ‘Train’…

In this chapter, he talks about the train as a campaign machine.. he identifies three different qualities making up the group in ratio 20:60:20.

the positive, motivated, proactive fighters of the cause
the middle undecided, vacillating between likely winners and losers, not knowing who to follow in moments of danger they succumb to panic
the hostile, skulkers.

Trotsky uses the first group (the motivated) initially in each place he visits, to enthuse and teach necessary skills to others, in order to alter and increase the ratio in the cause’s favour.

My brain started whirring… imagine a socialist campaign ‘train’ enthusing and skilling-up ‘leaders’ who help create and develop the Socialist Community Hubs, who then carry on after the train has moved to it’s next location, and to keep the momentum going till the train returns.

Labour leadership elections coming up. The deputy leader’s role could be key to the creation of Socialist Community Hubs:

“Burgon has pledged to overhaul campaigning, messaging and selections, and to chair a special commission on rebuilding support in leave seats. Rayner, meanwhile, …… a commitment to “community campaigning” “ (The Guardian 18/01/20)

Butler says in her candidate statement “As a working-class socialist with a history of fighting, delivering and winning, I will be relentless in building an inclusive base.”

With backing from socialist Labour in laying the foundations, and party support in maintaining the hubs, the enthused, committed activists could be our local leaders and organisers of Socialist Community Hubs.

Could this be how we develop and grow socialism?

03/02/2020

Growing Socialism at Grass Roots Part 2/3

During the fifties and sixties, the spirit of socialism was in local Labour activity and it spilled out into the community. A Labour Government enabled communities to come together too, we had council run social and educational facilities: Over 60s club,Youth Centres, vocational and academic evening classes.

In my 21^st century joint-constituency, I am aware of only an occasional quiz night, the Labour hall has no social club, and hires out the car park to London commuters. Going to meetings in my 150k population district is like going to a hundred year old person’s wake, where there’s hardly anyone left to attend. There is a notable shortage of young people, ie two mid-late twenties (at a guess). Social media has become the Labour communication tool, but it can’t compensate for the tangible camaraderie and practical support felt amongst a face to face group of people. Also on social media, information only gets to an engaged section… it becomes an echo chamber.

Like most regions we have lost many local hubs, such as our Community Centre, Senior Citizens club, Youth club. Our district town has a Community Centre: it hires out rooms to organisations or individuals to run classes or counselling sessions at out-of-reach prices for many; to get there, public transport is not only expensive, it is sparse or non existent in the evenings. Plenty of local gyms and leisure centres… if you have £40 (single) to £100 (family) a month spare for membership.

So where am I going with this? It seems apparent to me that ‘grass roots’ socialism isn’t just about campaigning around the country. It’s a way of life which develops within community activity.

I hear some say ‘but there’s a myriad of voluntary and charitable organisations’. Yes, however, they compete against each other for donations, often paying CEOs fat cat wages… this kind of doing ‘good’ is mostly a corporate enterprise which exploits our emotional response to the plight of the poorest and most vulnerable. In my view this enables the government to maintain it’s complete lack of civil and social responsibilities.

If we are to succeed in developing a more socialist society, at grass roots level, why not bring together the elements which made it happen before… why not create Socialist Community Hubs?

I have seen a few mentions on Twitter about the need for CLP offices in every town. Yes! But why not combine the ‘surgery’ activity with community activity? A place for meeting and socialising, getting practical help, to learn something, to build support for a community project, or build an effective local campaign.

Socialism at work at grass roots level.

02/02/20

Growing Socialism at Grass Roots Part 1/3

Coming out of post GE doldrums I saw lots of tweets saying socialist Labour needs to find a way to combat or side-swipe MSM propaganda if we are to stand a chance of winning the next General Election. Some replies suggested the way forward is at grass roots level… which to be honest, is where I thought the engine that drove Corbyn’s Labour campaign was, helped by Momentum. This made me think… was it really a Grass Roots campaign? If so, why are we still a Tory voting country?

Obviously there was Brexit. Who could miss that?! People have tweeted: real socialists wouldn’t have voted Tory or for the Brexit Party, or even for Lib Dems.

I wonder if, after 40 years of neoliberalism via Tory and New Labour governments, the meaning of socialism has been contaminated with neoliberal ideology? If so, how do we decontaminate?

As a pre-Thatcher adult, I asked myself…how did my socialist beliefs develop?

I grew up in the post war ‘Golden Age’ of socialism. Primary School was: the three Rs….reading, ‘riting, and ‘rithmatic; learning hymns; and discipline. Secondary education gave kids from council estates an opportunity to gain qualifications: GCE, RSA, CSE. Many school friends left at 15, boys went on to be apprentices while girls worked in Woolies, got engaged, married and had a child within a couple of years. Those of us who ‘stayed on’ to do exams only did the ones which teachers decided would improve league tables. “Girls don’t do Maths GCE” I was told by the teacher every time I put my hand up to ask a question, in a class full of boys. Girls only did human biology as their Science subject. Needlework for girls, woodwork was a boys only subject. History taught us names and dates of English Kings, famous English battles, and which countries were our allies or enemies in WW2. Geography was naming continents, countries (learnt on maps duly coloured-in to show colonies, but never explained how they became such), capital cities, major rivers and mountain ranges. I remember going on a Geography field trip once in my school career… we measured the speed of the river flow… I’ve no idea why, or how it related to Geography lessons, but heyho! it was a day out.

My schooling was about learning a body of knowledge which certainly never gave me any view other than through the Imperialist establishment lens – Churchill was a hero, ‘Red Indians’ were savages that needed rescuing from their savagery, Janet and John and Enid Blyton stories engendered roles for everyone in society. School was hardly the place to develop strong socialist values.

My dad was an active Labour party member. From a very early age, he would take me with him door knocking and leafleting (Mum insisted, to get me out from under her feet!) I helped him at the village hall when he and other members set-up on polling days. The Constituency Labour Hall in town had a social club and sports club. Socialists gathered to enjoy themselves, families, singles, old and young. They would bring along friends, non-Labour members. I remember a sense of fun and togetherness, it was a community. If people were (what we called) stuck… it seemed there was always someone to help out. I remember collections: he’s been on the sick for a few weeks, got two little ones, the paraffin man is demanding they clear their tab before selling them any more.

The spirit of socialism was in local Labour activity, and it spilled out into the council estates, town terraces, village halls, and into the workplace: social clubs, outings and ‘dos’ often organised by unions.

01/02/2020

Labour but not Labour

Trying to fathom what happened in the General Election 2019 I kept being hit in the face with people saying: they’re life-long Labour, or working class Labour, but couldn’t vote Labour in the election.

Some of the reasons I’ve seen given are:

We were let down by Labour changing their stance, going for the final say PV on a Brexit deal
Labour has been/is too London centric
We’ve been presented as poor, suffering victims…. being used to pull in votes by tugging at heartstrings
We had 13 years of Labour doing nothing for the de-industrialised towns and mining areas why should we trust them?
How could Labour possibly do all they say they will, it’s too much. They’ll let us down again.

In the reasons given above, there is a sense of betrayal.

It didn’t seem to matter that Tories are well known for being liars. Or that they are a party who don’t fulfil election promises, and their MPs are either corrupt, immoral, or lacking any compassion. Tories don’t “betray” because their promises are meaningless in the first place.

With the manifesto, Labour shot themselves in the foot by maintaining the mainstream economic fallacy that ‘your taxes pay for’ Government spending. McDonnell was not being honest about how the system works to enable funding projects for social benefit. (If you would like to read more on this, then I suggest you go to @duncanpoundcake on Twitter to read his blog ‘Boris was Right’)

This leads me to surmise that the ‘Labour but not Labour’ electorate hold traditional, working class Labour in high esteem, as a party that had integrity. Was that integrity lost through betrayal?

And what about those who felt they were being portrayed as poor, suffering victims… are they expected to respond “Oh look, poor us”? One of the hardest most demoralising positions to be in is having to depend on other people’s charity or benefits. As much as those willing and able to help don’t want people to feel like it, that’s the reality – I’ve been there and know. However needs must, charities, benefit assessments, and foodbanks are a lifeline. BUT imagine what it must feel like with the spotlight shining on you, your family and friends, amplified in videos, campaign material, speeches: your whole community as ‘victims’ of poverty, in an economically dead wasteland of destroyed industry and high unemployment. Yep …. I’d feel pissed off with that too.

Conclusion….. ‘New Labour’ legacy has a lot to answer for

Don’t campaign to gain the sympathy vote

Provide a clear, tangible vision of the future under Labour

18/01/2020