How would you finish this sentence? “The current system isn’t working, so we should…”
- “…deport immigrants.”
- “…tax the rich.”
For millions, this sums up current British politics. There are quite a few who would choose both A and B.
Radical listening
On Thursday, I was one of the Majority team running our Radical Listening, Radical Persuasion session. Too much politics is “load, fire, aim”. People just shouting slogans or posting offensive memes without making the effort to understand where someone is coming from. It’s counterproductive – almost every neutral observer thinks worse of someone who is shouty, compared to someone who can articulate their point and back it up with evidence.
Part of listening is finding out what is behind the words used. Does “too much immigration” mean “I don’t like dark-skinned people”? Or does it mean, “I’m worried the public services have no money”? You have to get past the different use of terminology. No-one likes having their speech policed. Then, nine times out of ten, you can find some common ground.
Of course, some people think the system is fine. It just needs better managers. The reason our energy bills are too high is because of too much government interference. Either that or it’s because of people with blue hair eating avocado on toast.
The failures of managerialism
Belief in managerialism is declining. For obvious reasons. The Johnson, Truss and Sunak governments didn’t exactly cover themselves in glory. Nor the May and Cameron-Clegg governments before them. Even Labour MPs think the Starmer government is incompetent. U-turn after screeching U-turn.
Managerialism is driven much less by evidence than by the desire to be an insider. They use phrases like “grown-ups”, then jostle for ambassadorships or set up political consultancies, monetising their connections.
Paul Holden, author of The Fraud, explained it neatly in a podcast last week. He said that Starmer’s Labour faction:
present themselves as hyper-competent, ‘We can chair meetings’, ‘We can meet business leaders’, and actually, at a deep and fundamental level, they are threatened by competence. Really genuinely competent people are not allowed to be part of this political project because they are too threatening. The key examples for me are Faiza Shaheen and Jamie Driscoll.
Tax the rich
I’m an advocate of column B, tax the rich.
Those three words comprise a complete economic strategy. You need to blend tax with wider monetary policy. Any government with a sovereign currency can earn, borrow, tax or create money. Even then, money is only part of the equation. You need the real resources too. Skilled, healthy people. Transport and energy infrastructure. But “tax the rich” is three words that encapsulate the idea that wealth extraction is the root cause of people’s daily hardships.
I also think there should be some controls on borders and immigration. In a globally connected world, it is not unreasonable to want to know who is and isn’t in the country. Tax and law enforcement requires that information. Epidemic control and stopping people trafficking needs that infrastructure too.
But the UK and Ireland has had free movement for a century, and it works fine. I look at how 29 European countries work together within the Schengen area. Trade is higher and administration costs are lower. That seems like a workable system to me. You can retain your central bank and monetary sovereignty. You can still have a full English breakfast. In fact, the bacon is probably Dutch or Danish anyway.
Pressing the reset button
Radical Listening, Radical Persuasion isn’t just academic training. Those exact issues come up when we’re out canvassing in Newcastle.
“I’m thinking of voting Reform,” one bloke said after I’d introduced myself. He was maybe in his 50s. His small front garden was neat. He lives in an area of high deprivation. The media would label him “white working class”.
I asked him what he wanted Reform – or any government – to do. It came down to lower bills, cleaner streets, and reversing a general sense of decline. He basically wanted to press the reset button.
Did he want public ownership of water, I asked. Yep. Did he think we should invest in better skills training for young people? Yep. Did he think we should close tax loopholes for the rich? Damn right. Had Reform been round to talk to him? No. Who did he think would get stuff done? “You will,” he said. He’s voting Green.
From Canary via This RSS Feed.