Saturday, 3 May 2025

Reform - but how?

 

Reform – but how?

Thursday 1st May 2025 may go down in our political history as a  seismic moment.  Nigel Farage’s “Reform” (the possessive is accurate: It is not a party in the normal sense of “belonging to the membership,”  but owned, or maybe just part-owed, by him) have certainly broken the mould in the way that the Liberal- SDP alliance of the early 1980s hoped but failed to do.  Whether they will really change our politics, or simply be a flash in the pan, remains to be seen, but it its victories are a massive achievement.

The consensus seems to be that Reform have exploited grievances, particularly about immigration, without offering, so far, realistic policies for repairing Britain’s depleted public realm.  In addition, the bulk of their councillors and one of their two mayors, have little experience of public service, but maybe that’s what we need (or maybe not, if Elon Musk’s adventures in the US are anything to go by.)

For once it’s fortunate that local government’s powers are so substantially reduced that these inexperienced councillors probably cant,  in the short do much harm.

However, if the major parties (and I would include the Nationalists, Greens and the Liberal Democrats in that category along with Labour and the Conservatives) are deflected from attempting to solve Britain’s real and acute problems, made even more acute by America’s abdication of participation in the pursuit of a fairer, lay-abiding, rules based liberal world, real harm will be done.

In my view our core problems (adapted from a recent post on a Liberal Democrat discussion site) are as follows:

1.    Physical Standard of Living. For a least a century and a half there has been an assumption that each generation should enjoy a better material standard of living  their parents.  In our developed economies we must move on from idea.  Yes, there will be advances in medicine and other scientific areas, in arts, music and leisure pursuits,  which improve our quality of life, but we already have the capability of affording everyone a decent material standard of living, provided we share more equitably. The idea that we can improve the lot of the disadvantaged only though further exploitation of the world’s scarce resources is now past its sell-by date, not least because of . . .

2.    Climate Change. We have to take this very seriously indeed, and challenge Sir Tony Blair’s and the climate- change deniers’ protestations. Preserving our planet as a habitable  environment for humans (and a goodly portion of nature’s flora and fauna)   is not just an optional add-on but must be central to our policies.  The current Labour government seems to be prepared to postpone or even ditch policies to limit damage to the environment if they impede short run physical growth and employment. We need to find other ways of “ raising all boats” to an acceptable standard.  Better sharing is the obvious one.

3.    Inequality.  It is now beyond question that the neoliberal bonanza of deregulation for private profit has not only failed to improve standards but also led to an unacceptable increase in inequality.  The wealth has soared upwards rather than trickled down.  Hence the “left behind” are legitimately indignant and understandably but unfortunately  looking towards phoney “saviours” such as “Reform “to wreck the system.  Once again the answer is better sharing rather than a yet bigger cake than the ample one we already have.

4.    Participation.  Elections at all levels have become competitive auctions of “what we can do for you” rather than what we can enable.   This is true at both national and local levels, not least with the regard to the conferring of powers on executive mayors.  We need policies to encourage participation and consultation in communities along with greater autonomy to councils and councillors as close to the people they represent as possible. Instead the present national government is abolishing the councils closest to the people and  handing powers to charismatic individuals in the hope that they will wave effective magic wands (or  begging bowls to Whitehall and Westminster.)

5.    Communications. Given the fantastic developments in this area in recent years we desperately need measure to control the flaunting  of misinformation and “alternative facts,”  and to ensure that provision of a balance of reasoned opinions based on generally accepted truths.  This is not going to be easy.  We also need to recognise that the communications revolution has hit what used to be called the “Third World” as well as the developed one.  Subsistence farmers the world over know what luxury is available in some economies and want a share.  We must recognise and accommodate this.  We need reasoned arguments for legitimising immigration and providing legal routs for those who wish to add to and share in our prosperity. Not yet another party sloganising about “luxury hotel accommodation” and “stopping the boats.”

6.    Internationalism.  Rather than cut ourselves off even further from other countries struggling to create a fairer and more liberal environment and turning inwards to more jingoistic self-aggrandisement we need to recognise that internationalism is  the true patriotism.  We need to “Look Wide”  and participate fully in the international organisations designed to create the “New World Order for which we allegedly fought the World Wars, the victories in which we shall celebrate on Thursday.  And not, please, as “leaders,” but just involved and effective partners.

I hope that our major established parties will have the courage to fight for the above and not allow  Farage and his party to be a distraction from the true reform which our country so desperately needs.

3 comments:

  1. we need to recognise that internationalism is the true patriotism

    Not you're just spouting nonsense. 'Internationalism is the true patriotism' makes exactly as much sense as 'War is peace. Ignorance is strength. Freedom is slavery.'

    the “New World Order for which we allegedly fought the World Wars

    We didn't fight the world wars for any such thing, and those who fought in them would have been horrified at the very idea. We fought the world wars because allowing Germany (or indeed any single power) to dominate Europe would have put Britain in a precarious strategic situation — exactly the same reason we fought Napoleon a century earlier.

    I hope that our major established parties will have the courage to fight for the above

    Given that your views are shared by, at a generous estimate, about 12% of the population, any major established party which did fight for them would cease to be a major party quite quickly and be replaced by a party which more accurately represented the views of the electors…

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks as always for your detailed criticisms. It's useful to have the "other side's" thinking explained.

    By co-incidence Nic Aubury's 4-line poem in this week's New European (he does one every issue) is entitled "The God of Growth" and is highly relevant:

    "The books they read on economics courses
    insist (if I've correctly understood)
    that when we're all consuming scant resources
    at ever greater rates each year, that's good."

    I'll save me comments on what we claimed to have fought for in the wars for a post on Wednesday or Thursday

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The books they read on economics courses
      insist (if I've correctly understood)
      that when we're all consuming scant resources
      at ever greater rates each year, that's good.


      He hasn’t correctly understood, obviously.

      Delete