Those old rules about not talking about politics and religion have never applied here. I take the view that these are just the things we should be talking about. Both concern themselves with ideology and values, which shape our communes. Both have the power to bring change, and so both are targets for manipulation. This blog mostly concerns itself with pre-political and post religious discussion these days, but…

…we are about to be pitched in to another one of those political pantomimes called a ‘general election’. There is consensus amongst all parties, all media outlets, that the result is a foregone conclusion – a Labour victory. It feels like a coronation is about to take place, not an election.

How do I feel about this?

As a life long Labour supporter – and member of the party until last year – part of me feels a wave of relief that we will finally be moving the dial back towards the left. If indeed that is what Starmer’s (‘changed’) Labour party will do. At present, based on the actions and pronouncements of Sir Kier Starmer, it is hard to feel confident that real change around any of the big issues – economy, social justice, international relations, climate emergency, democratic process – will take place. He is currently attasking the Tories on issues like immigration and austerity from the right, not he left. I have no idea where he finds the democratic mandate for this kind of behaviour as it would appall almost everyone who attends a Labour Party conference.

And that is a huge problem, not just because of the missed opportunities, but also because it feels as though the ‘stability’ promised by Starmer might be part of the death spiral for our social and political system. Trust is at an all time low;

A third (34%) trusted local government and a quarter (27%) trusted the UK government. Parliament, including both the House of Commons and House of Lords, and the political parties were the least trusted, with 24% and 12% trusting, respectively.

Office for naitonal statistics.

Part of this is about the ‘truth’ problem. In the age of Trump and Boris Johnston, lying entered the mainstream of our political system. People have always accused politicians of lying, but it has never been so blatant, so consequence free. The standard approach to being found lying appears to be the double-down, then the trippled-down, all supported by compliant media outlets. Lying has become a politcal weapon, used to divide, to paint the other as evil, to demonise and dehumanise. It is hard not to compare this kind of politics with the rise of fascist movements in the 1930’s. ‘Truth’ becomes a fluid concept, mouldable and malleable to the needs of a particular narrative. This is not the same thing as ‘spin’. Spin doctors seek to shape the narrative too, but not all will turn to direct lies.

The Cambridge Analytica scandal has blown open the door into how policial systems use and abuse social media to shape power.

In case you are under the impression that ‘changed’ Labour is different, I am afraid the evidence would very much suggest otherwise. Given that Starmer is about to be prime minister, and that the Labour party central office will take its brightest stars into government, then the integrity of all should be scrutinised, not least by our media. This is simply not happening at the moment – it is almost as if a decision has been taken to wave him through into high office. After all, he is not Tory, but he has shown himself to be no Corbyn either. He is Labour, but he is one of ‘us’. He won’t rock the boat.

If you think I am exaggerating, then I suggest we turn to this definitive and remarkable piece of long form journalism by Al Jazeera, called ‘The Labour Files’. This was an investigation into the Labour party as led by Corbyn and how it all fell apart. It centres on how Labour Party Central Office undermined their own democratic processes, using smears and allegations at all levels to ensure that those on the left of the party would be defeated. The first episode is here.

How do we know this to be ‘true’? Ultimately, we must decide for ourselves. Do the work, chase down the reports and read them. I have done so. Politics has always been a dirty business, but this – it makes me feel ill. Good people are still in the party, and I believe that many of them felt that the dirty work was necessary to make Labour ‘electable’ again. You decide whether you agree with this. Does integrity matter?

What was the Labour response to the Al Jazeera documentaries? Try a google search. They almost entirely ignored it, as did the rest of UK media.

Was Corbyn ever the liability he was painted as? How do we know? Who told us? How was a consensus of opinion achieved? As far as we can see, one of his weaknesses was that he did not engage in this kind of politics. Some call this naive, callow, detached from reality, ideologically backward. Perhaps it was.

The official reason that Corbyn remains suspended from the Labour party is because he refused to apologise for his suggestion that antisemitic problems within the party had been weaponised for political reasons – something demonstrated by a report comissioned by Starmer himself (The Forde report) let alone the Al Jazeera revelations.

I have long wondered where the hate within the Labour Party came from. The left/right divisions within the Party are not new. Anyone growing up like me in the 1980’s will remember the battles fought then between Kinnock and Militant Tendency for example. We also remember how Michael Foot – arguably the pre-Corbyn – was painted as a shambilic idealist and therefore unelectable. It is these battles, along with the intervening shining success of the Blair years that formed the parliamentary party we know today. This party is metropolitan, neoliberal, small government and concerned most of all with power. In this sense, it has little left of the old working class ideologies of power and equality. The grass roots movement for change created during the Corbyn era was always in direct conflict with the Blairite centre. They were frightened by it, surprised by it, confused by it, suspicious of it. They saw themselves as the ‘adults in the room’, faced with a populist insurgency.

One thing I have heard said which has intrigued me is that the hate within the parliamentary party for the old left has been greater than that expressed towards the actual enemy, the ascendent, right wing Tory party. Can this be true, and if so, what is the psychology at work here? I wonder if there is something about feeling attacked in an area of your percieved strength. If you believe yourself to be on the right side of history, but then people who are on your side tell you that you have not gone far enough, does this provoke more outrage, more hurt, more defensiveness?

If you have fought to the point of compromise stand-still, do you resent those who call you out for your world-wearyness all the more?

If I am right, and our political system is in danger, does this matter? Is collapse inevitable, and perhaps the only way to bring about change?

I think it does matter hugely. Collapse is likely to open the door for extremism and violence. I think there are some basic things that we can do to strengthen and enhance our democratic process. Here are a few of them.

1. Social media. We have to hold platforms like Facebook and X to account for spreading lies and misinmformation. We need to do this by the process of law. Huge conglomerates can not be allowed to shape our societies through algorithms. This requires meaningful fines and even breaking up the hold of individuals through monopoly laws. We need a powerful independent method to hold all media to account.
2. Political funding and lobby groups. We have to take the money out of politics. We are heading towards an American system where money buys influence. Make spending on political campaigns limited, and even public funded. Ban lobbying. Refuse Think Tanks access to media outlets unless they publish where their money comes from, and whose agenda they are revealing.
3. Political and corporate links to end. If you work in an industry and then go into government, you can not go back. No minister can take a cosy job on a board either whilst in office or afterwards.
4. Truth in political office. Introduce a three strikes rule in public office. Establish public watchdog to police it. Hold all politicians to account for spreading misinformation and missusing statistics.
5. House of Lords. Just get rid of it. Replace it if you must, but with an elected second chamber with seperate legeslative and scrutiny powers. Or just get rid of it.
6. Local government. Finish process of federalism begun by Blair. Bring as much power to local communities away from London as possible, including powers to spend money.
7. Citizens assemblies. Look again at ways to engage people in better. Take real debates to the people and talk them through like adults.
8. Proportional representation. We have to break up the cosy us/them sectarianism of having two main parties who just wack at each other like Punch and Judy. I would favour a system like Scotland’s, with a hybrid of first past the post MP’s and ‘list’ MP’s. I know this brings some crazies into the main fold, but it forces debate and compromise.
9. National constitution. We do not have one. We need a commission of experts and ordinary people (perhaps through the citizens assemblies) to work on this as a long term project.
10. A return to research, evidence based policy. Politics can no longer be decided on our worst instincts, fueled by divisive hate speech. We need a way to frame political debates within the context of research. All major policy should include a clear evidence base, and this should be presented alongside it.
11. Equality. All policies should receive a rating as to the degree to which they contribute towards greater equality or whether they further undermine the opportunities of minority or disadvantaged groups. This score needs to be once again political dynamite as it was for a while after the last world war.

Will Starmer do any of these things?

Not a chance.