The more cynically minded might have a different take. Poulter entered the Commons in 2010 and apart from chuntering about Boris Johnson and Liz Truss, he has been a mostly loyal member of the parliamentary party. When the Coalition government was whipping its members to force its two nation Toryism on the country via the programme of cuts, privatisations, and petty conditionalities, it never troubled Poulter enough to affect his voting record. There were grumbles about Tory attacks on junior doctors, but that didn't alter his politics any. The real reason is therefore obvious. Like Christian Wakeford before him, Poulter is jumping before he's pushed. He can see the writing's on the wall and he wants to survive the coming battle by defecting to the opposing army.
Yet this explanation doesn't work either. His Central Suffolk and North Ipswich constituency is a super safe Tory seat whose status isn't going to be compromised much by the boundary changes. And Poulter has said he won't be calling a by-election as he's standing down at the next election. All he hopes for is some input into Labour's programme for dealing with the mental health crisis. Not your usual rat run from the sinking Tory ship then. More a matter of Labour moving toward the Tories on so many things that he feels at home among Keir Starmer's PLP. Whether a berth in the House of Lords awaits remains to be seen, but it does appear Poulter has determined, from the standpoint of the interests his politics protects and serves, that Starmer is offering more of a go-er than the current idiocies of his former party.
Whatever the nature of any deal that has been struck, there are two points worth noting. This was supposed to be Rishi Sunak's best week for months. He had demonstrated "leadership" by finally getting his disgusting Rwanda bill through parliament, which put clear water between the Tories and Labour ahead of the local elections. He must be feeling cheesed off that the political coverage on the Sunday shows and in the Sunday papers will be dominated by more evidence of his party's decomposition. And the second shows how Starmer's strategy of kowtowing to elite interests is bearing fruit ... among elites. The Tory adjacent position takings are partly designed to ameliorate a press they're terrified will turn against them, but this is only one part of Starmer's plan. In his project to modernise the state he wants broad support from as wide a section of the establishment he can get. Even those who oversaw the horrors of the Dave/Osborne years. Bringing Poulter on board is, therefore, more significant than capturing a flighty, unreliable 2019 intake Tory like Wakeford because it demonstrates that Starmer's plan to build a wider coalition of elite constituents that crosses political lines has made significant progress. Where Poulter treads, more former Tories in the state and in the boardroom, if not in the Commons and the Lords, will follow.
Image credit
7 comments:
«In his project to modernise the state»
Perhaps to modernise *thatcherism*, but I doubt even that as his ruthless priority is to represent the interests of his affluent middle class constituents and for them property is far more important than the state, and maintaining the status quo more important than risking any change. The other problem is that modernisation of the state would cost a lot of money, and his target constituents are not willing to consider that, and workers and other members of the lower classes are already being squeezed hard by the private tax of housing costs, so it is difficult to increase taxes on them.
«Starmer's plan to build a wider coalition of elite constituents that crosses political lines»
I would call that across party lines: the politics are the same, globalist thatcherism (nationalist thatcherism is outside the "guardrails", except perhaps in vacuous talk).
«couldn't look his NHS colleagues in the eye any more knowing the state the NHS has got into under this government.»
But that is inevitable: the NHS is a lost cause for the next 10-20 years as the great wave of boomers goes through it. To accommodate that wave would take a large increase in the share of GDP going to the NHS and the better off tory constituents that can afford to go private also thanks to property profits have no intention of paying for that and funding it with debt would risk an increase in interest rates that would stall or crash property profits.
The only practical option is to increase *a lot* immigration, as immigrants usually are young and so their load on the NHS is negligible yet many pay NIs and net taxes, and indeed that is what happened after 2004 and then again after 2016; but there are difficulties with increasing that even more; we can expect that to be the main policy of the next 10-20 years, as immigration hugely benefits the core constituencies of Conservatives and New, New Labour and their sponsors too, but it will not increase enough to save the NHS.
«He also says the Tories have gone off to the right, and no longer approach the poorest and most vulnerable with compassion.»
Under thatcherism the UK no longer has those categories: "we are all middle class now"; except "suckers" and "losers" and other "scroungers" who do not matter also because no major party if willing to represent their interests.
Haven't actually bothered to read the first two posts in this thread - but let me just have a wild guess, do they mention house prices?
«do they mention house prices?»
When middle class people eagerly borrow five to ten times their income to buy something, whether that is to speculate or not, they usually become pretty obsessed with the price of that something.
When 90% of the total value of bank loans go to those who borrow five to ten times their income to buy something, the BoE and the Treasury and the City become pretty obsessed with the st affljuename something.
The result is that after 1979 in the UK the ruling party has lost elections only after a house price fall.
@Anon. Indeed.
One tiny question for @bliss (although I may regret asking). What is property without the state? The rule of law is necessary for 'property' to have any meaning. This depends on having a functioning state. The alternative is a sort of warlord protection racket but this is likely to lead to widespread seizures of 'property' and the loss of any meaningful property rights for the majority. So, no state, no property.
Thatcher wasn't against the state per se. She was against it being used to correct some of capitalisms more egregious effects. She was very much in favour of Law'n'Order, a military, and control of the populace. All of which is dependent on a state.
I'm also curious about your 10-20 year timeframe for the NHS being a lost cause. Are you imagining that after that it will be revived? Or that it will be so broken that it will be abandoned altogether?
«What is property without the state?»
That is a question that has been debated in many other places and times. My interest is rather in the enormous effect of mass property rentierism on elections, politics, the economy, which is something that is rarely mentioned in "polite" contexts (I guess also thanks to the power of english hypocrisy). Our blogger here is one of the few that acknowledges that politics is about interests and a major interest of most thatcherite (New Labour, Conservatives, LibDems) voters is property prices.
«I'm also curious about your 10-20 year timeframe for the NHS being a lost cause. Are you imagining that after that it will be revived? Or that it will be so broken that it will be abandoned altogether?»
This was in the context of the strain on the NHS caused by the support of the old age years of the baby boomer generation, the 1946-1964 cohorts. Many of them will require significant NHS support when between 65-85 (etc.), so roughly between 2010 and 2050, with with the tail being smaller, so the for the next 10-20 years. It will be grim especially in the poorer areas.
After that the strain on the NHS will be lower so maybe it will survive. But the Conservatives are committed to downsizing it as much as possible, slowly over time to ensure that older people have an "after me the deluge" attitude and do not oppose the downsizing. How slowly? Well getting around to the full privatisation of the Royal Mail took 30-40 years...
The end goal is a Pinochet style economy with a Pinochet style (that is more brutal than the USA pre-Obamacare one) healthcare system:
https://www.margaretthatcher.org/document/117179
“I was aware of the remarkable success of the Chilean economy in reducing the share of Government expenditure substantially over the decade of the 70s. The progression from Allende's Socialism to the free enterprise capitalist economy of the 1980s is a striking example of economic reform from which we can learn many lessons. [...] Our reform must be in line with our traditions and our Constitution. At times the process may seem painfully slow. But I am certain we shall achieve our reforms in our own way and in our own time.”
What is reported here by Ken Clarke was meant to be the first step, it will become the second after the "internal market":
https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/jul/19/kenneth-clarke-views-no-10
“His first challenge at health was heading off Thatcher, who "wanted to go to the American system", he reveals. "I had ferocious rows with her about it. She wanted compulsory insurance, with the state paying the premiums for the less well-off. I thought that was a disaster. The American system is hopeless … dreadful." He prevailed on her to take a different route by introducing more competition into the NHS. It became known – in a phrase he didn't like – as "the internal market". Ever since then, successive governments have pushed in broadly the same direction.”
The goal of compulsory insurance with private companies, like that of compulsory pensions with private companies, is to ensure that those private companies skim around 30-60% of of the money paid in by the customers, which also the main reason why the percent of GDP spent on health care in the USA is twice that of the UK, in addition to GDP per person being rather higher.
Well I never! Who could have guessed that your "interest is rather in the enormous effect of mass property rentierism on elections, politics, the economy..."? Why haven't you mentioned it before?
By the way, just saying that something has been debated in other places and times isn't an answer. It seems to me that actions that undermine the long term stability of a state are ultimately going to have a negative effect on property, and hence the value of that property. The problem with neoliberalism is that it is hollowing out the state (and economy) and that this will lead to an economic and legitimacy crisis. I would say that in my view that point has been reached and we are in the opening phase now. While people will continue to vote to protect their interests, it is becoming harder to determine which set of politicians is most likely to do that. Which leads to increasing volatility, and instability, which further exacerbates the legitimacy problem, and the stagnation of the economy.
You need to tweak your theories to reflect the changing circumstances and prospects for the property owneing classes. People are looking for reassurance, but if that isn't available, a narrative with a resolution. Your Liz Trusses, Trump's and Farages have a bold story to tell and an offer to make. But they won't deliver stability, which adds to the vicious cycle of decline.
Post a Comment