What a leftwing leader needs to do to earn credibility
Owen Jones makes the case that a credible leftwing leader needs to win over alienated voters and dodge culture wars (The left needs to halt the UK's slide into Farageism. This is the kind of leader who could do it, 3 April). That starts by rejecting the terms left and right – where people sat in revolutionary France's national assembly does not accurately define today's politics.
The leadership team of any new political movement must convince voters of two things. One: 'I trust these people to run the country.' Two: 'They have got my back.'
Economic credibility requires exploding the austerity myth. Speaking as someone who ran an arm of government – successfully – I found that when you make the case, people, including businesspeople, think it's common sense. That keeping kids in poverty is economically illiterate. That investing in health and education makes us all wealthier in the end, and happier too. That public ownership will lower utility bills and improve services. That the climate crisis is real, and we must invest in a resilient future or see our economy crippled.
Having someone's back means saying that we won't throw you under the bus for an easy headline. We will put your right to a secure home above your landlord's right to make a quick buck. We will put your kid's mental health above the right of global corporations to avoid regulations. We will fight your corner when you're victimised for being disabled, or black, or LGBTQ+.
There is a truth to why governments can't afford to invest. Money flows to very, very rich people. They make 8% to 12% a year from parking money in big tech, utilities, property, finance and care homes, while the rest of us do the work and actually generate the wealth. That money needs to be taxed to pay for the safe, sustainable, prosperous society that everyone needs.Jamie DriscollFormer North of Tyne mayor
Owen Jones is right to some extent – a populist left with a charismatic front person is badly needed. However, his suggestion of Mick Lynch as such a leader is laughable. A new populist left alternative needs to think radically and organise broadly, connecting with and building alliances between social actors who are philosophically and/or theoretically critical of Labourism and the labour movement, especially the macho, workerist tendency that Lynch and others represent. Jean-Luc Mélenchon's La France Insoumise is a good example of a project with some populist potential that is failing to break out of such a straitjacket. We should learn from this.Tony SamphierBeckenham, London
I agree with Owen Jones that Mick Lynch would be the ideal candidate to take on Labour from the left and stave off the sinister threat of Reform. However, I would suggest that, in the absence of Mr Lynch wanting to take up this mantle, the Independent Alliance should form into a political party and merge with the Greens and those seven Labour MPs recently suspended from the party for voting against the retention of the appalling two-child cap.
Such a new party would not only be 15 MPs strong – three times the size of Reform's parliamentary presence – but would represent those predominantly middle-class former Labour voters who have turned to the Greens in disgust at Starmerism, and the traditional white working-class demographic in the 'red wall' seats and other similar constituencies.
Only such a unified party of the left can hope to stave off Reform and provide the 'broad church' that Labour likes to tell us it is but so woefully is not, as the party's lurch to the right under Keir Starmer leaves us in no doubt as to where its priorities now lie.Michael WaltonBath
Do you have a photograph you'd like to share with Guardian readers? If so, please click here to upload it. A selection will be published in our Readers' best photographs galleries and in the print edition on Saturdays.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Independent
an hour ago
- The Independent
Chancellor unveils £6bn NHS funding after health-centred spending review
Some £6 billion will be spent on speeding up testing and treatment in the NHS, Rachel Reeves has announced, after she placed the health service at the heart of Government spending plans. The Chancellor unveiled the investment, which includes new scanners, ambulances and urgent treatment centres aimed at providing an extra four million appointments in England over the next five years, after Wednesday's spending review. The funding is aimed at reducing waiting lists and reaching Labour's 'milestone' of ensuring the health service carries out 92% of routine operations within 18 weeks. In the review, Ms Reeves set out day-to-day spending across Government for the next three years, as well as plans for capital investment over the next four years. The NHS and defence were seen as the winners from the settlement, as both will see higher than average rises in public spending. This comes at cost of squeezing the budgets of other Whitehall departments and experts have warned tax rises may be needed later this year. The Chancellor and Sir Keir Starmer both sought to portray the review as a 'new phase' for the Government, following the criticism Labour has faced during its first year in power, including over cuts to winter fuel allowance. Ms Reeves claimed the NHS had been 'put on its knees' as a result of under-investment by the previous government, adding: 'We are investing in Britain's renewal, and we will turn that around.' The new £6 billion investment will come from the capital settlement for the NHS and will also help to speed up diagnoses with scans and treatment available in places such as shopping centres and high streets. The scale of day-to-day spending for the NHS is akin to an extra £29 billion a year. In a broadcast interview on Wednesday evening, Ms Reeves said the Government was 'confident' it could meet its pledge to reduce waiting lists after the boost to NHS spending. But while health and defence have benefited from the review, the Home Office, Ministry of Housing, Communities and Local Government, Department for Culture, Media and Sport, Department for Transport and Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs are all in line for real-terms cuts in day-to-day spending. The Foreign Office is also in line for real-terms cuts, mainly as a result of a reduction in the overseas aid budget, which was slashed as part of the commitment to boost defence spending to 2.6% of gross domestic product – including the intelligence agencies – from 2027. Ms Reeves acknowledged 'not everyone has been able to get exactly what they want' following Cabinet squabbling over departmental budgets. She said 'every penny' of the spending increases had been funded through the tax and borrowing changes she had announced in her first budget. The Chancellor also insisted she would not need to mount another tax raid to pay for her plans, but experts warned the money for the NHS might still not be enough and the Government is under international pressure to boost defence funding further. Paul Johnson, of the Institute for Fiscal Studies, described the hospital waiting times target as 'enormously ambitious', adding: 'And on defence, it's entirely possible that an increase in the Nato spending target will mean that maintaining defence spending at 2.6% of GDP no longer cuts the mustard.' At a summit later this month Nato members will consider calls to increase spending to 3.5% on defence, with a future 1.5% on defence-related measures. Steven Millard, interim director of the NIESR economic research institute, said the Chancellor's non-negotiable fiscal rules, coupled with the 'small amount of headroom' in her spending plans, meant 'it is now almost inevitable that if she is to keep to her fiscal rules, she will have to raise taxes in the autumn budget'. Elsewhere, policing leaders warned forces may need to make deep cuts after their settlement was announced. The spending review provides more than £2 billion for forces, but ministers have acknowledged some of that 'spending power' will come from council tax hikes.
Western Telegraph
an hour ago
- Western Telegraph
Senedd called to act on 'existential crisis' of abuse
Plaid Cymru's Adam Price, the first out-gay man in his party to be elected to national office, warned prejudices based on sex, race and sexual orientation have been reinvigorated. He told the Senedd: "It is getting worse by the day, and it really represents an existential crisis for our democracy and our society." Mr Price said: "For our democracy to be effective, it has to be diverse. "Diversity trumps ability. "It's a piece of evidence in social science." The former Plaid Cymru leader called for a focus on representation of trans women and men, a community "under siege," to ensure their voices are heard in the Senedd. Mr Price highlighted harmful comments below news stories involving him in recent weeks. "That certainly won't deter me and I hope it won't deter anyone else," he said. "But we've got to do something about it collectively, haven't we?" Labour's Hannah Blythyn expressed concerns that Wales could go backwards in terms of equality of representation at the next Senedd election. Ms Blythyn told Senedd members: "I very much made an active decision when I had the opportunity to stand in this legislature because of the make-up – that there were more women here, that it was more representative." Jane Hutt, Wales' social justice secretary, acknowledged the rise of abuse, harassment and intimidation towards politicians, candidates and campaigners. She outlined voluntary diversity and inclusion guidance for political parties which aims to ensure democratic bodies are truly representative of all the people of Wales. Ms Hutt said safety costs will be exempt from spending limits for Welsh elections. Conservative Altaf Hussain warned guidance on equal representation risks crossing a dangerous line. He said: "Equality of access cannot come just by bureaucratic diktats or targets." Plaid Cymru's Sioned Williams said progress on underrepresentation of women in politics has slowed, warning the voluntary guidance was published "far too late." "Wales belongs to everyone," she said. "Everyone must have a voice in our nation's future."
Spectator
an hour ago
- Spectator
Britain needs reform
This week's spending review confirms that where there should be conviction, there is only confusion; where there should be vision, only a vacuum. The country is on the road to higher taxes, poorer services and a decaying public realm, with the bandits of the bond market lying in wait to extract their growing take from our declining share of global wealth. When every warning light is flashing red, the government is driving further and faster towards danger The Chancellor approached this spending review with her credibility already undermined. Promises not to raise taxes on working people translated into a tax on work itself which has driven up unemployment. A pledge to put growth first has been accompanied by changes to employment law that make the labour market more rigid and the cost of hiring workers commensurately greater. A party which excoriated the Conservatives for letting prices rise has pumped billions into public-sector wage hikes and seen inflation increase again. An apparent determination to take difficult decisions to control spending by removing pensioners' winter fuel payments has crumbled in the face of backbench pressure. The farcical retreat has only emboldened those in Labour who want to drive us deeper into debt. The NHS and the Ministry of Defence are the most hopeless spending addicts but they are not the only departments to have wrung more from the Treasury than the nation can afford – or the Chancellor indicated she wanted. Ed Miliband has shown that, whatever other criticisms may be directed at him, he is brilliant at getting high on the taxpayers' supply – with generous subsidies for domestic decarbonisation and billions for the most expensive energy the markets can provide. The Department for Education has secured millions more to get the state to pay for families' food. Angela Rayner has extra billions, not to build new houses but to buy existing homes for the state. The Department for Transport also has a line of credit to pay for schemes no private sector investor would go near. And any lingering expectations that welfare reform would yield significant savings seems fanciful given the Prime Minister's desire to end the two-child cap on benefit payments. It is not as though this programme can be justified on the basis of an economy that's roaring back. Tax changes this government has introduced have led to a flight of the wealthy and a consequent depression in revenue. Alongside rises in inflation and unemployment, the cost of government borrowing is escalating to a level which causes international markets to demand a heftier risk premium. At a time when every warning light is flashing red, the government is determined to drive further and faster towards danger. Perhaps the greatest sin of this spending review is one of omission. There is no indication that all this additional expenditure will be accompanied by meaningful public-sector reform. The civil service headcount is growing. In education, the greater autonomy and accountability which drove up school standards is being abandoned. Our shoddily inefficient criminal justice system remains a mess of unaccountable fiefdoms: lamentably inadequate chief constables hide their failures behind the alibi of 'operational independence', the Crown Prosecution Service is a creaking liability and courts are hidebound by a judiciary that resists effective management of their operations. The additional money for defence is going to a department whose procurement policies are hardly a model of prudence. And despite the best efforts of Wes Streeting, one cabinet minister who is at least intent on reform, the extra cash for the NHS risks being swallowed whole by staff unions rather than being used to create incentives for change. The failure to fundamentally reform the functioning of government is all too visible in every operation of the state. Britain desperately needs reform. But our government offers only the inadequate management of accelerating decline. Licences to kill While the state proves incapable of reform, our parliament is attempting to prove it is world-leading in terminating innocent lives. Legislation to make it easier to kill the ill and elderly (the private member's bill to encourage suicide) appears still to enjoy majority support. And next week Labour MPs seek to amend the Crime and Policing Bill to decriminalise abortion. The state should undoubtedly treat any decision to terminate a pregnancy with sensitivity. But this amendment is an invitation to abusive partners to coerce vulnerable women into late-stage abortions and removes one of the last protections unborn children still have. Do we really want this decade to be one in which the only thing we do more efficiently than ever is kill innocent souls?
