Goblins versus Unicorns:

Liz Truss, the Goblin Queen of Destruction, versus Kier Starmer, the Half-Hearted Unicorn.

VS.

The Labour Conference has finally given the party a much needed identity and purpose, and on the face of it gives us some hope. But while a Labour government would obviously improve things, I see little it would do to solve the core problems of the UK. Net-Zero carbon emissions by 2030 is ambitious, but would obviously be a step forwards if they manage it. The problem is that if we continue to export fossil fuels it will make little difference to the climate crisis – it would merely mean that other countries will be emitting the carbon that we once emitted. The current spike in gas prices is likely to be reduced over the next year or two as production is increased. Poorer countries struggle to introduce sustainable energy use: Richer countries using less fossil fuels whilst the same amount (or more) of these fuels are being produced globally will merely reduce the price of gas and oil and give the poorer countries even less incentive to change. A Labour government would boast about how green the UK is whilst the UK takes more benefit from the same amount of environmental destruction.

A government owned sustainable energy company is an exciting step forwards that gives the impression of a left-leaning party. If the company was not for profit, or even subsidised by taxes, it could be used to provide cheap energy whilst eradicating the private fossil fuel producers through competition and solve the problems mentioned above. It seems unlikely that this is what Labour intends, they see it merely as a new part of the market system that would assist with the net-zero goal. Why would they have spent so long purging the left of the party under the cover of ‘antisemitism’ just to initiate one of the left’s main ideas? Starmer seems dedicated to making the Labour Party dependent on the super-rich, just as the Tories are. He cannot turn around and undermine them.

The main reason I think that Great British Energy will make fuel little cheaper than it was before the gas price crisis is that it will produce profits that will go into the Sovereign Wealth Fund. This fund is very similar to an idea proposed by Labour under Jeremy Corbyn and will be used to invest money in both private enterprise and public services. It will create more jobs and hopefully increase the exports of the UK. This would be great if it were funded by taxing the super-rich and the financial markets and was an actual redistribution of wealth. But it will be funded by the public in general paying their energy bills. The most it will provide for is that the general population will stop getting poorer, but get no better off, whilst the super-rich will continue to grow richer and more powerful. The super-rich will of course attempt either to undermine a Labour government, or control it – as they control most of the mainstream media this should be easy for them.

Labour’s housing policy is easily the most vapid of the new announcements. Whilst ending buy-to-let sounds morally good, because these landlords have to do practically nothing to enrich themselves at the expense of the worse off, it may lead to a shortage of properties to rent, and therefore a general increase in rent rather than a decrease. Increasing the amount of people with mortgages through government grants and loans does nothing to help those who will never be able to afford those mortgages – even with help. The fact that Labour will not give up on the idea as property as an investment means that house prices will continue to rise and the government will have to spend more and more on people who are not particularly badly off – if they want to keep the number of people with mortgages stable.

Whilst these new Labour ideas are nice, the chances of them solving Britain’s problems are non-existent.

The future of the UK.

There are currently debates as to whether Liz Truss is stupid, ‘mad’ or pretending to be ‘mad’. She may be all three. Personally I think that Truss and Kwartang are deluded, they sincerely believe that ‘trickle down economics’ will induce an economic recovery despite the fact that the theory has been disproved over and over in the last forty years. They think that whatever destruction they are wrecking now will be reversed by an economic up-turn in a year or so. I could be wrong. There will be Tory politicians who have given up on the prospects of another term and will end up supporting Truss in causing maximum destruction, to make things impossible for an incoming Labour government. Her apparent concessions at the Tory party conference are unclear. It seems that Truss and Kwartang have U-turned on some of the U-turns. From their perspective there seems little point in cutting out the heart of their agenda to appease the party – they have no other ideas – they may as well gamble everything and fight to keep the whole thing. If they are successful it will be ruinous, despite the fact that Truss would be unlikely to last the full two years to an election. Once out of office Truss herself will be able to make millions in speech engagements and writing books. She has no personal reason to care – the more exciting her time in office is, the better.

It is not necessarily the tax cuts for the rich that are spooking the market, and only a very small amount of them have been apparently reversed. The market will not lend to the government if there are no plans to finance the debt. The fact that the government has delayed the publication of the budget plan until late November (or possibly late October?) implies that no such plan exists, and low taxes and expensive help for energy bills will make the plan very difficult to formulate. The Bank of England cannot go on creating money out of thin air to lend to the government for very long, for this undermines the value of the pound as much as the complete lack of any plan does. Either the Conservatives must reverse their tax policy, and possibly remove Truss – which will make them look weak and pathetic. Or they will have to commit to a course of utter destruction in an attempt to guarantee their prospects in the long-term. Worryingly, Truss will most likely increase tensions with Russia to distract from domestic problems despite the fact that nobody is convinced that the present predicament is Putin’s fault.

Although the government help on fuel costs will freeze prices at the October level, they are not ‘capped’ and still more than 100% above what they were at the beginning of the year. Due to Brexit and terrible planning the UK is the country worst hit by the fuel crisis – Italy coming second with a price increase of 83% and the USA and France on only 6% and 4%. There were people who were having to make the choice between food or fuel even before the crisis began. The help only guarantees the survival of the relatively better off and will not reverse an economic decline that was started by the pandemic, and is indeed dropping from a level of utter stagnation where austerity had not really ended.

The policy of creating free-ports – that has been vastly extended due to the crisis – is provably useless. Where free-ports have been introduced abroad they have brought no inward investment, they merely induce business to move from one part of the country to another. They decrease tax revenues, reduce worker rights and increase organised crime in the towns effected. As the trade deals that the UK has made depend on maintaining current regulations, free-ports will not be able to export to our trading partners.

Trussite policies could easily wreck the chances of an incoming Labour government. Labour’s Sovereign Wealth Fund is dependant on funds from the public, and if the public have no money to supply it the Fund would be useless. Would Starmer become more radical and use the wealth of the rich? This seems unlikely, though possible. If thisdestruction were to happen the Tories would have to completely re-invent themselves after 2024. They would have to dissociate themselves from the crisis they have caused by some new, distracting idea – possibly more nationalism and scapegoating. If they were to choose some more competent course right now, they could not solve the economic problems with Conservative policy, or regain the support of their base. (As far as I can tell it’s been lost already.) They have the choice of monstrous destruction, or possible annihilation.

A long term solution to the problems of the UK may be the foundation of a separate Socialist Party by the Labour Socialist Campaign Group. It would not enter government for the foreseeable future and may increase the power of the Conservatives in the short term (although this seems unlikely in the government’s current predicament). In the long term it would induce a gradual improvement. A Socialist Party would move British politics to the left. There is no reason for the current parties to embrace transformative change for they have no left wing competition. A viable Socialist Party would either force Labour to the left, or Labour would have to enter a battle for the centre ground with the Liberal Democrats whilst the Socialists monopolise all left-leaning support. Although there may be more chance of a Tory government, the Tories would have to become less extreme to form a majority.

In the long term the Socialist Party would become powerful, for it is in the self interest of young people to support those ideas and more of them will be old enough to vote as time goes on. If there is no Socialist Party these young people will be ignored – just as the current parties always ignore the 30% of the population who usually never vote, they prefer to fight over the ‘red wall’ instead. Indeed the ‘red wall’ could be induced to support the Socialists: Current wisdom says that centrist voters are the most important for they are the ones most likely to flip between Labour and Conservative. But between 2017 and 2019 the ‘red wall’ flipped from Corbyn to the extreme right without touching the centre ground – the centre is in fact despised by many in the ‘red wall’. They may be older property owners but many of them will have children who can thrive only if their conditions are transformed.

Please sign my petition to try and persuade the Socialist Campaign Group to separate from Labour here.

Martin Gooding