What is to be done

The state we are in

Our political system:

• is corrupt.

  Politicians and political parties are allowed to accept cash ("donations") from wealthy indiividuals, companies, hedge funds and foreign countries.

  Politicians can make more money outside parliament than in it - e.g. as TV presenters.

• is undemocratic.

  Less than 26% of the electorate voted for the Labour Party in 2024 yet is has 411 MPs and a majority of 172.

  Fewer than 60% of the electorate turned out to vote in 2024 - the second lowest since universal suffrage.

• is unfair.

  The rich get richer and nothing gets better for the rest - things gets worse for many.

• allows our public services to decay while putting private profit before public service.

What can be done?

• Moan. X/Twitter and Bluesky are full of moaning which achieves nothing - apart from catharsis.
• Revolution. A fantasy. Those advocating it should start with Lenin's 1902 document of the same title. Ask yourself: "would this sort of language get anywhere now?" Good luck if you think it would.
• The ballot box.

Can the ballot box bring radical change?

The surprising answer is "yes".

2017 was the first time since 1945 that the Labour Party promoted specific policies to bring about significant change.

In 2017 the election turnout was 69.3% - people saw that there were policies worth voting for and the slogan "for the many, not the few" was very effective. The Conservatives got 42.3% of the vote, Labour got 40.0%.

By 2019 turnout had dropped to 67.3%. The Conservatives got 43.6% of the vote, Labour got 32.1%.

What happened between 2017 and 2019?

Simple. The hatchet job worked.

The establishment (*) saw the support for Labour policies and panicked. There followed two years of "get Brexit done", personality building for a self-serving, narcissistic idiot and personal attacks on a decent man. The back-stabbing within the Labour Party, the re-emergence of Blair and Mandelson, the weaponisation of unfounded anti-semitism, the attacks by the right wing press and the direct financial involvement of the Israeli government succeeded in destroying Jeremy Corbyn.

* the "establishment" means all those who wish to maintain the status quo in their own financial interests and who are therefore against any radical change in favour of the majority.

What happened in 2024?

• Turnout fell to 60% - the lowest since universal suffrage except for 2001 under Tony Blair when it was 59%.
• The Conservatives got 23.7% of the vote.
• Labour got 33.7% - the lowest vote share of any new government since WWII.
• The Labour vote fell by 25% compared with 2017. (From 12.9 million to 9.7 million)
• Kier Starmer's person vote in Holborn & St Pancras fell by 48% compared with 2017. (from 36,641 to 18,884)
• 8 out of 10 of the electorate did not vote for Labour.
• People did not vote for Labour (it had no policies worth voting for), they voted against the Conservatives. People stayed at home rather than vote for Labour.
• Reform UK, under Nigel Farage, took 14.3% of the vote (4.1 million) and 5 MPs - effectively from a standing start! This was more than the Liberal Democrats who took 12.2% of the vote and 72 MPs.
• Reform UK plus the Conservatives took more votes than Labour. (4.1 million + 6.8 million = 10.9 million compared to Labour's 9.7 million.) The electorate voted for the right - not for policy-free Labour.

  Note: thanks to "Short Money" Reform will get £1,024,344 of tax payers' money each year. With his MP's salary and external income, Nigel Farage will be taking home well over £400,000 a year - placing him well within the "elite" he so much claims to despise. Reform is not a conventional political party made up of members, it is a private limited company controlled by Nigel Farage who holds 8 of the 15 shares.

What can we learn?

• No party has ever had the support of the majority of the electorate.
• Radical change can be brought about without winning an election.
• Proportional representation must replace first-past-the-post before radical change is possible.
• Reform UK has proved that a significant share of the vote can be obtained very quickly by a very small party.
• Proportional representation, a hung parliament and coalition with Labour could bring about radical change.

How did Farage succeed?

You may hate what he stands for, you may consider him a narcissistic buffoon, you may know that his party is a policy-free zone - but he gets votes!

• He is undoubtedly charismatic (hard to believe, but it must be true!)
• He gets huge amounts of free publicity as a useful idiot promoting division on behalf of the establishment.
• He cannot be held to account because he offers no policies to rectify problems in society.
• He has mastered the dog whistle and appeals to the lowest common denominator of people's prejudices.
• He clearly identifies scapegoats to carry the blame - always those who cannot stand up for themselves.
• He will eventually crash and burn because he will achieve nothing - but he will do a lot of damage along the way.

What do we need and what do we do?

We need:

• A new party. Farage and Reform UK have shown that this does not have to be a mass party nor does it need members.

  Since 1945 the Labour party has never been a radical party and it is beyond reform. Leading up to 2017 thousands tried to reform Labour with popular policies but ultimately they failed against an establishment backlash.

  The Labour party's "grand plan" was revealed in the 2024 King's speech - it offers nothing beyond aspirations and tinkering at the edges of the status quo. It fails to recognise the underlying problem in society (the grossly unfair distribution of wealth and economic development) and it offers no specific solutions to the major problem we face. Labour remains firmly entrenched within the establishment as Starmer struts his hour upon the world stage.

• Policies. That's the easy part. We can erect them, debate them, and agree on them - but it is pretty easy to see what is wrong and what needs to be done - after we obtain a position to do it.
• A charismatic leader - or at least a presentable one!

  Sad to say but this is essential in the social media world. Such a leader must be subordinate to the agreed policies - no off-the-cuff policy creation, no knee-jerk reactions. Unfortunately, charisma often goes with narcissism and ego-building - so great care is required when selecting and vetting a leader.

We must run on selected policies which:

• are not broad aspirations: "we will build a better society" is meaningless,
• are highly specific: "we will do this ... in order to achieve this ...",
• meet people's immediate needs - obviously the NHS comes top of the list,
• are easy to understand using straightforward language without talking down to the electorate.

We must avoid:

• Out of date clichés: "working class", "hard working families", "workers' control". The principles may be fine, the language paints the wrong picture in many people's minds.

  The left has never learned that a word that leaves my mouth may mean something completely different when it reaches your ear.

• Hostages to fortune.

  The establishment has mastered the art of using a single detail for diversionary attack. When Land Value Tax was badly explained during a TV interview it was rapidly labelled the "garden tax". When it was proposed that those with accumulated wealth should contribute to their care in old age it was labelled as a "death tax".