Shifting Sands

Back in the 1980s, David Icke was a spokesman for the Green Party. Though his public statements about alternative medicine and mysticism embarrassed his fellow party members, leading to his resignation in 1991 just prior to his announcement that he was a son of the Godhead, it's fair to say that the reputation for eccentricity in the public mind was not limited to just him. The Greens have always been an amalgam of different traditions, not to mention people pursuing obscure hobby-horses. Conservation has often looked like conservatism, hence the presence of aristocratic scions like Jonathan Porritt in the party's ranks, while the close relationship of envrionmental damage and poverty has encouraged what political scientists like to refer to as "leftwing economics". At the margins you will find both xenophobic nativists and hunt saboteurs. This variety also extends to the practice of politics. For example, the earlier incarnations as PEOPLE (sic) and The Ecology Party highlight the contrasting atttractions of anti-establishment populism and a more academic and scientifically-grounded approach to public persuasion.

Since the 1990s, and the fragmentation between the Scottish Greens, the Green Party Nortthern Ireland and the Green Party of England and Wales, the GPEW specifically has tended to opportunistically reflect the shifts in the party landscape at Westminster. In policy terms it has moved less towards the left, as is popularly supposed, than to the centre, for example in dumping its earlier euroscepticism and becoming pro-EU, which reflected its relative success in elections to the EU Parliament. Its embrace of social justice is largely rhetorical as practical actions, such as housebuilding, risk conflicting with its ethos of growth scepticism. Local councils under Green control have not been noted for their radicalism. When the party has gone out on a limb, as with the proposal for a basic income, it has often come a cropper as these contradictions have emerged. The fundamental problem is that you can only reconcile a more equitable distribution of resources in society with a minimal growth, sustainable economy if you commit to the expropriation of wealth, and that would necessitate a significant expansion of the state's power, which runs against the party's libertarian instincts.

Of the longstanding political parties, the Greens have had the most volatile membership and electoral support since the millennium. There was an influx of former Labour supporters in response to the Iraq War, but then an outflow of more conservative supporters to the Liberal Democrats in 2010. After getting 1% in the 2005 and 2010 general elections, its vote almost quadrupled to 3.8% in 2015. This was partly due to the return of voters disllusioned by the Lib Dems, but also to the influx of left-leaning voters disillusioned with Labour, as was evidenced in 2017 when the Green's vote share more than halved to 1.6% as Labour  under Corbyn energised the left. The subsequent victory of the right of the Labour Party has seen many leftwing members decamp to the Greens and supporters switch allegiance. At the 2019 general election Green support was 2.6%. In 2024 it jumped to 6.4%. Since then, the party has been at around 10% in opinion polls. Clearly the composition of its support has changed along with the quantum over the last two decades and all the pointers suggest this is largely down to attracting people who identify left on both the social and economic dimensions.

The recent leadership contest, which Zac Polanski won with 85% of the vote, suggests the party is going to move towards a distinctive left populism, but perhaps the real significance of the result is that it highlighted the tension between the managerial class of MPs, PPCs and party staffers and a more radically-inclined membership, something that will be familiar to former Labour Party members. With the long-trailed Corbyn-Sultana vehicle now looking like it has lost its wheels before ever taking to the road, and with Polanski's undoubted talents for publicity, there's every chance that the Greens will start to post support levels in the mid-teens, at which point they will be level with the Liberal Democrats and may even be breathing down the necks of Labour and the Conservatives if those two continue to shed support. Though the prospect of the Greens entering government as part of an anti-Reform coalition cannot be ruled out, they are unlikely to find themselves in such a position so long the UK has a first-past-the-post electoral system and so long as their support is geographically diffuse. 

The evidence from other countries with more proportional voting systems is that green parties are quickly co-opted by the cartel of established parties, sacrificing radicalism for respectability. This leads to tension between those advocating pragmatism and those insisting on principle, or "realos" and "fundis" as they are styled in Germany. The GPEW is unlikely to face that problem in an acute form due to the constraints of the electoral system, but there is clearly a difference between the parliamentary elite and the wider membership in terms both of ideology and praxis. With a party leader outside Parliament, it is likely that the Greens will lean more towards activism and protest in the coming years, which will accentuate this difference. It will also reinforce the impression of the Greens as the locus of the extra-parliamentary left, particularly if the Corbyn-Sultana fallout leads to splintering. While Corbyn remains a formidable figure, he is 76. In reality, the Your Party proposal always looked unstable given the evident gulf between not only Sultana and the "boy's club" of Gaza independents but between those wanting a party based on mass membership democracy and those more comfortable with the "organising committee" approach of Labour tradition.

From the perspective of the Labour Party, the old claim that the left have nowhere else to go is already redundant, but this won't persuade the party leadership to shift leftwards to win those voters back. If there is one principle that defines the current regime, and explains the alliance between Blairite modernisers and the old Labourist right, it is a visceral hatred of the left. The idea that if Starmer could be replaced by Andy Burnham there would be a reorientation is simply deluded. The vibes might be better, and the "King of the North" might scrap the two-child benefits cap and various other unpopular policies, but there will be no return to full-throated socialism. In other words, there will continue to be a large space to the left of Labour and electoral gravity will inescapbly drag the Greens there. The strategic question for the GPEW is whether it can broaden its voter base beyond the young and educated and make inroads among working class voters in urban areas, which would mark a significant change of direction after focusing on rural seats. This in turn is bound up with the possible fortunes of Reform UK.

The liberal panic over the prospect of a government led by Nigel Farage is ill-founded. While you can win a majority in the Commons on the sort of vote share Reform has seen in recent opinion polls, as Labour proved only last year, this requires three things: a solid core of safe seats, which Labour have in the cities; an opposition that is split nationally, allowing you to pick up lots of seats on a third of the vote; and an unpopular government that has alienated many of its supporters leading them to abstain on the big day. Reform lack any real heartlands (seaside towns are literally too marginal to play this role) and their core support is found mostly in traditional Tory constituencies, not in the fabled Red Wall. They are very good at undermining the Conservative vote, because they are mostly Tories, but there is little evidence that they can have a similarly destructive impact on Labour's support. If people are turning away from Labour, it isn't because they've suddenly discovered that they like Farage, it's because of the Labour government's record in office and the unapologetic rightwing tendencies of the faction that controls the party apparatus.

If the Greens continue their upward ascent until the next general election, Labour could find itself suffering from the factors that kyboshed the Tories in 2024: its vote eroded by both desertion on the left and abstention. This won't put Nigel Farage into Number 10 for the simple reason that the vote on the right will still be split. The Conservative Party isn't about to pack up and retire to the country and Farage isn't about to give up his earnings potential by agreeing to a merger. An electoral pact is an existential impossibility for the Conservatives, so the nationwide split must remain. The nightmare scenario for liberal commentators is a fragmented parliament, which is ironically what they have long hoped for with their support for rootless centrist parties like the original SDP and more recently the farce of Change UK. If that does transpire, it will be because the electorate splits not only on the right and in the centrre but also on the left, which means Labour losing out to the Greens. Corbyn and the left independents may well hang onto their seats, but there seems little likelihood of them increasing their number of MPs if the Greens present themselves as the only viable nationwide left offering, which is surely what they have to do.

In some respects the UK now appears to be facing what France experienced in 2022, and which was reinforced by Emmanuel Macron's ill-advised decision to force another Legislative Assembly election in 2024. The real liberal nightmare is not a Reform government but the Greens, or perhaps a left-Green alliance a la NUPES/NFP, winning lots of hitherto safe Labour seats in the cities. Keir Starmer lacks Emmanuel Macron's constitutional power to ignore the Commons in order to prop up the centre, but that just makes me suspect that he might be the most likely leader of a reconfiguration of the cartel. He isn't a career politician and has shown little respect for the traditions of parliamentary government, let alone Labour history. And as the proscription of Palestine Action shows, he remains fundamentally a creature of the security state. Liberals still appalled at Boris Johnson's arsing around over the prorogation of Parliament are, as usual, oblivious to the real danger. What form this reconfiguraion would take is hard to predict, but if the parallels with Macron hold true, don't be surprised if a national government, including Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems, emerges. It's happened before, after all, and the centenary is fast approaching.

Linehan's Law

When Graham Linehan was detained by the police at Heathrow Airport recently it generated some predictable warnings about the chilling effect of hate-speech laws on the exercise of free speech, which was ironic given the amount of media coverage then given to his tweets and his defence of them. The event was also marked by his supporters' hyperbolic claims, such as JK Rowling describing the UK as a "totalitarian state." The fact you can make the claim without consequence suggests the opposite. Now that the dust has settled, it's worth going back to the incident and reviewing Linehan's reaction to the police officers: "You know what this country looks like from America? I am going to sue you into the ground, I am going to sue you into the ground. Fucking bastards, how dare you. I won’t fucking calm down." What stands out here is not just his sense of entitlement (I'm surprised he didn't say "Do you know who I am") but his insistence that what matters is how this looks from the US, where he has now apparently relocated permanently.

The significance of that perspective becomes apparent when we consider the reaction to the assassination of Charlie Kirk, the American rightwing provocateur. This led British politicians, including the Prime Minister, to decry political violence and offer condolences, despite Kirk being a nobody on this side of the pond. Insofar as Kirk had a British audience it would be a subset of the far right groups that coalesced on Saturday for the "Unite the Kingdom" march in London organised by Tommy Robinson and graced by a video-call from Elon Musk who called for the overthrow of the government. This predictably led to violence directed at both anti-Fascist counter-protestors and the police. For Robinson's supporters, violence is a form of expression. They believe that they have a God-given right to get bevvied-up and chuck bottles at other people. Again, what we're dealing with here is a monstrous sense of entitlement. The flags that have been such a feature of the summer in England aren't symbols of inclusive patriotism but of exclusive ownership: this is ours; keep out.

Linehan was in the UK to defend himself in court against a charge of harrassment arising from another set of abusive tweets he had sent. In a prepared statement, he described himself as a "journalist", presumably not because he's actually doing journalism in any normally-accepted sense of the word, but because he imagines that journalists have a special dispensation that allows them to circumvent the laws on hate-speech. When you look at British newspapers, you can understand why he might have thought that. Alison Pearson's crusade in the Daily Telegraph to have Lucy Connolly, a self-confessed criminal racist, recognised as a political prisoner is a recent example of how mainstream conservatism in Britain has now imported the American right's instrumental contempt for the law. Two-tier justice is real, but it's an aspiration rather than a criticism, and one still best captured in Wilhoit's Law: "Conservatism consists of exactly one proposition, to wit: There must be in-groups whom the law protects but does not bind, alongside out-groups whom the law binds but does not protect."

The undercurrent of a number of recent "political" cases has been the idea that the law should recognise and reinforce particular hierarchies, such as the superiority of biological women and the inferiority of trans women. This has even led to inverting class hierarchies. For example, in the Sandy Peggie case it is the traditionally subordinate nurse who is deemed to have superior rights to the doctor because of her biology, thus justifying her impertinence. This highlights that the right are instrumental in their defence of established hierarchies, just as they are selective in their observance of the law. The division between the far-right in the streets and in electoral politics reflects not simply a sociological gulf - former football hooligans versus former Conservative Party activists - but a strategic division of political labour based on the prioritisation of different hierarchies. On the street, the dominant hierarchy is race, with religion as a proxy. In the media, the dominant hierarchy is class. For all the focus on immigration, Reform's programme is fundamentally Thatcherite, and for all their vocal anti-racism, liberal commentators cannot hide their contempt for the street. 

The problem with this race/class dichotomy is not that it creates a fatal tension between Tommy Robinson and Nigel Farage - the far-right has always melded the street and the legislature - but that it is destabilising of mainstream conservatism, for which political violence must remain a monopoly of the state. Just as middle-aged "lads" imagine that being draped in an England flag means that rucking with the police is patriotism, so the traditional hierarchies that conservatives defend can quickly be compromised when other hierarchies come to the fore. The incident of an almost parodically articulate young middle class man being chased by working class louts, forced to seek refuge at a refugee processing centre, is an example of how events can spin out of control. Lucy Connolly saw asylum-seekers as inferior to herself and thus their lives of little value. Alison Pearson's framing of her as a politcial prisoner is an attempt not only to obscure this bigotry but to re-establish the authority of the upper middle class to define our politics for fear that rage against the "liberal elites" might wash over the rest of the establishment. You can punch down but not up.

No British government is going to curtail immigration, or commence deportations, to the extent that would satisfy the far-right. As a result, the cross-party strategy appears to be to indulge and hopefully contain racist protest. This goes beyond legtimising "concerns" to turning a blind eye to low-level violence and intimidation. Starmer's eventual condemnation of Saturday's aggro as a defence of the flag was telling. Holding a sign saying "I support Palestine Action" will get you arrested. Shouting "paedo" at anyone who supports refugees won't. The political issue of the moment is the collapse of the Conservative Party under pressure from both the far-right (which it vainly apes) and a Labour government keen to occupy the Tories' traditional centre-right space. This rightward shift has been enabled by the political cartel's refusal to accept the left as legitimate, which has evolved from the false charge of antisemitism to a more sweeping criticism of leftists as "groomers" and "traitors": language no longer limited to the fringe but regularly deployed by the press and increasingly directed at the most conservative Labour government in history. This is a direct import from the US where the bogies of "antifa" and the "radical left" are routinely conflated with establishment Democrats.

Predictably, British centrist commentators responding to the Kirk assassination have been quick to insist that political violence is a problem equally on the right and the left, despite the obvious disproportion between the two. Some have even gone so far as to devote the majority of their attention to the perceived incivility of the left, seeing it as the ultimate cause of rightwing violence, which dangerously echoes the position of Donald Trump and others in the US. What this reaction makes clear is that centrists are also motivated above all else by the preservation of traditional hierarchies: civility is not about your manners but about your authority. But just as the hierarchy of class can be undermined by the hierarchy of race, so the hierarchy of liberal virtue can be swept away in the mistaken belief that dumping the European Convention on Human Rights, in favour of an American-style protection of hitherto illegal forms of hate-speech, is an advance for all of us, rather than just a victory for a minority of angry, middle-aged bigots.

Identity Politics

The case for national ID cards is once more being promoted enthusiastically by the Labour Party and this time by the liberal press as well. And once more the arguments are the same: it will help fight crime, it will reduce benefit fraud, it will squeeze the black economy etc. The suggestion that ID cards will help solve the immigration "crisis" isn't exactly novel, but it is now the headline. What remains fascinating whenever the topic comes up is the complete absence of evidence (speculative assessments by the Tony Blair Institute notwithstanding) to support any of its claimed benefits. What makes it doubly fascinating is that the Windrush scandal has barely passed from memory: an occasion on which the discriminatory interpretation of citizenship led to a cavalier abuse of power and the unnecessary suffering of many people. Bizarrely, some supporters are even claiming that the scandal would have been avoided if everyone had had an ID card; an unprovable counterfactual that completely ignores the actual history of events and the political pressures that led to the performative cruelty of the "hostile environment".

The prominence of immigration has caused some rearrangement of the political forces around the debate. Where once Tory newspapers would have rehearsed both sides of the argument - authoritarian versus libertarian - their opposition to the idea is now muted because of the salience of immigration and their own insistence on the existential threat that it poses to the nation. The Observer, which was previously firmly in the libertarian camp (it ran a "Liberty watch" campaign during the New Labour years), looks like it will provide the forum for the latest debate, though its editorial view, as it shifts further right, is now predictably blithe about the risks. Kenan Malik, for the libertarians, recently outlined the danger of dividing sheep from goats: "Mistreating and abusing citizens is not morally more reprehensible than mistreating and abusing those deemed “illegal”. What it reveals, though, is that if we turn a blind eye to such treatment on the grounds that “it’s only illegals being treated this way”, it will not remain “only illegals”. And once such forms of policing become acceptable, they can easily be transposed to dealing with other groups deemed a social menace, such as strikers or protesters." 

In contrast, Will Hutton has nailed his flag firmly to the authoritarian mast: "Immigration above any other issue fuels populism. Part of the fightback is to douse these flames – say, by introducing universal ID cards so we know who is here, building special purpose centres to house illegal migrants, and processing claims and necessary deportations fast and visibly. This should never be presented as a concession to implicit racism. Rather, it is to keep rules and be fair." While Malik is fairly indirect in his approach, leaving it to the reader to note the implicit mission creep of any ID scheme, Hutton is bracingly direct in his solutionism, which tells something about the respective confidence of the two camps but also about the uncertainty that besets liberals who have hitherto warned us of the danger of identity politics. A national ID scheme appears to flatten the population into a single mass, but it is also identity politics writ large: an extreme form of imagined community. The problem is that while the geographical borders of the country are clear, its demographic limits are not.

We know from the Windrush case that there isn't a clear, dividing line between citizen and non-citizen - between "them" and "us" - so all the talk of rules fairly applied is just hot air. What matters is the political direction and the operational practices of the Home Office. But what Hutton's contribution does make clear is that the introduction of ID cards is the necessary precursor for the mass deportation of people who have been in the country for years. His blunt advocacy is wrapped up in the usual panegyric to Enlightenment values, but it's one that does serious injury to history. Consider this: "The BBC, for example, was established as a public body to use the new broadcast media to disseminate impartial information better to inform and educate British citizens." The corporation was established as a commercial company in 1922, under licence by the GPO, by a cartel of radio manufacturers to provide "orderly management" of the radio spectrum and boost the sale of radio sets. It quickly acquired a political colouring when the establishment realised the benefit in terms of controlling public opinion, notably during the General Strike of 1926. In 1927 it was reconsituted as a public corporation and informal government censor. These facts are well known.

You might wonder why Hutton has dragged the BBC into the debate. The intention is to convince us that a British ID card scheme would be as reassuring as "Auntie". It appears he hasn't been watching BBC TV or listening to the radio of late. If the Tory press sets the agenda for the national broadcaster, don't be surprised if it sets the policy of the Home Office. According to Hutton, "The Overton window of what is acceptable has been moved so far to the right by the populist upsurge." But this confuses cause and effect. It is the political centre - supposedly the repository of Enlightenment values - that has pushed politics to the right since 1980, long before any "populist upsurge". Inevitably, he must drag in the newspaper's obligatory criticism of social media: "But just as the Enlightenment was propelled by a quest for truth and fact, today’s anti-Enlightenment populists are fuelled by social media and disinformation. ... Reform could never have climbed so high, so fast, without a credulous public deluded into thinking social media carries truths that mainstream politicians and media conspire to disguise."

The Enlightenment exploited the novel media of the day to advance its ideas: The Marriage of Figaro being a famous example. Even more pertinent to Hutton's claim was the rise of the scabrous anti-establishment pamphlets that did so much to stoke the French Revolution. Though there is a long tradition of liberals decrying 1789 as the wrong turn that would lead to the gulags, there is no doubt about the central role that Enlightenment ideas had in its gestation and development. The area where Hutton finds common cause with Malik is in the criticism of identity politics: "Have liberals made mistakes? Undoubtedly. Tolerance has mutated into advocacy of minority rights so fierce that the majority feel actively menaced. The charge of being “woke” has some legitimacy." At this point Hutton could be writing for the Sunday Times or Sunday Telegraph. What he cannot apparently see, while Malik shifts uneasily in his seat, is that there is no "majority" defined by their exclusion from minority rights. To suggest otherwise is to drift perilously close to the kind of politics that sees road signs in Welsh or Gaelic, or the mere existence of trans men and women, as an affront.

In the liberal lexicon, populism has always been a synonym for democracy, but in offering ID cards as a counter to it Hutton is reducing it to mere bigotry: that "implicit racism". But even the academics who have made a career out of analysing the subject agree that the primary fuel is economic stress, hence the current wave of populism can be traced to 2008 and its reverberations, notably austerity. It is a common observation that anxiety over immigration is simple displacement, hence it fluctuates in response to media prominence and is often highest in areas with the fewest immigrants. Other factors that have stoked populism include the cartelisation of politics and its related ideological convergence and corruption. Immigration may be seized upon as an issue, but it is not a significant explanatory factor. After all, the great wave of postwar immigration did not lead to more than a few isolated and evanescent cases of populist political advance, and many of those, e.g. Poujadism, had very clear economic roots.

Hutton believes that we, that nebulous "majority", should "go on the front foot to argue for Enlightenment principles, from vaccination to the environment. The entire anti-Enlightenment, anti-truth, disinformation biases of social media must be contested. The success of the Online Safety Act in dramatically lowering harmful content should be built on. Take on the tech giants. Insist information on their platforms is mediated, that anonymity is impossible and that standards of fact in the analogue world are reproduced in the digital world. Even consider launching public social media platforms, reproducing the same thinking 100 years later that justified the BBC." As with his potted history of the Corporation, this is misleading. The Online Safety Act has not dramatically lowered harmful content. It has simply led to the increased use of VPNs. Hutton's suggestion that all online content be mediated and that there be no anonymity is obviously absurd, but making such unrealistic demands is simply seasoning for the less palatable dish that he offers, namely a national ID card that would undermine the traditional liberties that were central to the British conception of the Enlightenment.

Liberal Preferences

Chris Dillow, building on a post by David Allen Green, notes that UK politics is in crisis because "destabilizing forces have strengthened and stabilizing ones have weakened." What he means by this is that the tendency to rein in the extremes is no longer instinctive among the main parties (obviously stamping on herbivorous lefties is another matter). He gives a good example in the relative treatment of Enoch Powell after his Rivers of Blood speech (sacked by party leader Ted Heath) and Robert Jenrick after thoughtlessly hobnobbing with Fascist activists (not a hint of disciplinary action from Kemi Badenoch). Instead of negative feedback, we get positive feedback as bigotry is mainstreamed, urban myths are cast as legitimate concerns, and someone who incited racial hatred and advocated burning people to death is hailed as a political prisoner. Elsewhere, economic illiteracy is promoted by both politicians and the media because they believe the electorate is ignorant and can only be appealed to through crass simplifications such as the nation's "maxed-out credit card".

As Chris explains, "All I'm doing here is spelling out a few mechanisms in support of David Allen Green's recent attack on the complacent idea that 'unpleasant situations will resolve themselves' and that balance will be restored. For this to happen, there must be negative, stabilizing, feedback mechanisms. But our political-media class has weakened these, preferring to pander to racism. I'm not surprised that so many in this class choose barbarism over socialism. What is surprising is that they choose barbarism even over liberal democracy." So why do they make that latter choice? One place to seek an answer is the house journal of British liberalism, The Guardian. I would argue that its most typical columnist is John Harris, who can be characterised as a liberal pessimist in that he regularly chides "progressives" for not doing enough to resist racism or improve public services, but whose only solution is vapid symbolism and otherwise cultivating your garden. There are others who are more optimistic (Polly Toynbee) and more pessimistic (Rafael Behr), but Harris is representative because he tends to sway between those poles, like a depressed ruminant who spots a buttercup.

He certainly wasn't an advocate of Labour's shift to a more genuinely progressive politics under Jeremy Corbyn, though his attempts to parse the upswell of enthusiasm that gave rise to it between 2015 and 2019 are interesting precisely because of his need to welcome that progressive intent while dismissing the left as a viable vehicle for it. Thus during the leadership contest in 2015 he welcomed that Corbyn offered clarity, but by the time the 2017 general election came into view, he was dismissing a Corbyn-led Labour Party as deeply irrelevant. Immediately after the unexpectedly positive result for Labour, Corbyn was apparently chiming with the times. By 2019 Harris was fully on board with the hunt for antisemites, insisting that Labour's only hope was to ditch its fringe views and toxic culture, and even adopt his favoured panacea of localism for good measure (nothing fringe about that). Viewed rapidly like a flip book, what we see is a liberal, keen to avoid the charge of being an out-of-touch curmudgeon, frightened by the prospect of a government promising mild social democracy.

In his latest contribution to the discourse, Harris claims that while the far-right protests outside hotels housing asylum-seekers have been damp squibs, progressive forces are "so dumbfounded and confused by what is happening that they seem almost completely unable to respond". What he fails to acknowledge is that the left is not silent, it is merely marginalised by the media (the larger counter-demonstrations have been barely reported, and when they do appear in the Guardian it's as likely to be an opportunity for tone-policing). The real culprit here is the Labour government, which has provided rhetorical cover for street-level racism while simultaneously curtailing the rights of protest by anti-racists. And it is the media that explains how protests with minimal support on the street beyond the old Fascist right can dominate politics. Indeed, if you're looking for a "new right" you should start with the increasing derangement of newspaper columnists like Allison Pearson and Melanie Phillips, not with the latest neo-Nazi groupuscule to emerge from under a rock.

Harris's prescription in the face of an increasingly Fascist press, and a complacently centrist TV insisting on impartiality between truth and lies, is nostalgia, and specifically the symbolic power of Rock Against Racism. What he doesn't appreciate is that RAR and the Anti-Nazi League reflected a wider revolt against the political establishment in the late-70s and early-80s that notably roiled the Labour Party. What Harris wants is the free concerts, not Tony Benn bidding for the Deputy Leadership or Ken Livingstone defying the Thatcher government. His claim that "The prominence of Palestine flags at this year’s festivals proves that music’s radical edges have not been completely blunted" is an admission that he sees this radicalism (of the music note, not the people) as purely symbolic, otherwise he might wonder whether there was any connection between opposing genocidal racism abroad and defending migrants at home.

Chris Dillow's model of stablisation through negative feedback depends on authority. When Ted Heath sacked Enoch Powell he not only had the authority of his position as Conservative Party Leader, he was also the representative of an establishment that still commanded popular respect, despite the downward trend since the Suez crisis, not least because of its eventual resistance to Nazism (Heath himself had opposed appeasement in the 1930s). The establishment has lost a lot more respect since the 1980s, due to the secular failure of its preferred economic policies, the decay of the public realm, and because of specific scandals of trust, from Iraq to MPs' expenses. As the establishment's man, Keir Starmer has clearly failed in his goal of restoring the authority and gravitas of government after a decade and a half of disastrous Tory rule. Yet his political strategy, to occupy the centre-right of politics and marginalise both the far-right and the left, remains unchanged, largely because the Conservative Party has fallen apart in the face of Reform's rise, leaving the ground clear to Labour. He has the field, but the battle may already be lost.

Starmer's problem is that his centre-right offer acts as positive feedback to Reform, which encourages right-leaning voters to go for the full-fat version, while it alienates both centrists and soi disant progressives like John Harris because it fails to reflect their self-image as rational and virtuous. Who can provide the negative feedback to arrest the rightward drift of politics in such an environment? Harris may posture about that drift, but he has played his own part in it. Consider this classic of the legitimate concerns genre from a couple of weeks ago: "Just to be clear, the grim scenes that have materialised at those hotels are the signs not just of far-right activism and provocation, but broken policy. No one should underestimate how much the grooming gangs scandal has given many people a deep fear about the safety of women and girls, not least in places that have long felt ignored and neglected". The roots of the grooming scandal lay in the habitual contempt shown by the police and social services to working-class girls, not in the shortcomings of asylum policy.

The problem then is that liberals are not defending liberal democracy and are happy to accept the right's framing of social ills. One way of explaining this is to note that centrists, the largest component of the British politico-media class, aren't actually liberals, neither in the broader sense of defenders of civil liberties against authoritarianism, nor in the narrower sense of advocates of free markets (their's is a capitalism of managed markets and corporate graft). That broader sense is still prevalent in British society, but it has no real political articulation at present, and its more vigorous proponents regularly find themselves marginalised as extremists by the media and even criminalised by the state. At this point we have to ask if the UK is actually a liberal democracy in any meaningful sense. The classic definitions of the term usually focus on the mechanics: fair elections, an independent judiciary, the separation of powers etc. But the acid test is arguably equal protection under the law. This is, for example, why Israel cannot be considered a liberal democracy. 

In the UK we have not gone so far as to pass a basic law that guarantees superior rights for certain groups, and thus inferior rights for others, but that may well be on the cards should Reform get into government and withdraw us from the European Convention on Human Rights (both the government and media are already assessing Farage's mass-deportation promise in terms of achieavability rather than morality or civil rights). But this won't be a sudden lurch away from liberal democracy. The current government's unwillingness to secure the rights of trans people, and its proscription of Palestine Action on the flimsiest of pretexts, are clear indicators of the direction of travel. And before that, we can see a common thread of contempt for those who resist the politico-media consensus running backwards through the Labour antisemitism nonsense, via Brexit and the dismissal of the Iraq War protests, all the way to Thatcherism. British centrists chose barbarism over liberal democracy a long time ago.

A Taxing Issue

The United Kingdom is richer today than it has ever been, both in the material sense of stuff (the conversion of natural resources into useful things) and in the accounting sense of the ratio of measurable wealth to GDP. It is estimated that household wealth is now six times GDP, having risen from four times before the millennium. There has been a clear trend since 1980 of rising household wealth, to a large extent property and to a lesser extent financial assets (shares, savings etc). This rise has mainly been passive - i.e. the result of rising property and asset prices rather than any increase in direct productivity or trade. Average household density is actually in decline. Together with rising rents and mortgage costs, this means that "housing services" now cost much more, even allowing for inflation. Meanwhile, houses and flats are exportable only in the sense that a foreigner can buy one, but this does not lead to the production of more houses over-and-above domestic demand, because those properties are typically recirculated into the rental market. 

It is generally accepted among economists that we should tax wealth more than income, essentially because the one is potentially inactive (if not invested in productive use) while the other is invariably active (you must be producing value to command a wage). In other words, wealth may be a wasted opportunity and tax is a way of incentivising its productive use. The problem arises because wealth is also a way of building financial reserves for future use, whether in the form of anticipated capital projects or a fund for future expenditure. This is why we give tax-breaks for certain types of saving as well as for investment. The problem that bedevils the discussion of the taxation of property is the extent to which it represents a simple store of value, like gold, versus a savings account. In other words, is your house (in whole or in part) a luxury good or is it your pension? 

The foundation of popular neoliberalism has been the financialisation of both domestic property and precautionary savings. The first has meant treating your home as an investment in the hope of rising property values, which has inexorably led to a political consensus that has constrained housebuilding while loudly claiming to be in favour of more homes. The second has meant excising the role of the state in providing collective insurance, instead relying on the individual negotiating with impersonal markets, which at the margin leads to an appetite for high-risk/high-reward shortcuts such as crypto. The two intersect in the idea that your house - or your other house if you're a buy-to-let landlord - is also your pension, though one of the things declining household density tells us is that many older couples, notably those who secured defined benefits pensions before the shutters came down in the 1990s, are in no hurry to liquidate their prime asset and downsize.

Despite this massive increase in the nation's wealth, we are repeatedly told that the current Chancellor of the Exchequer is "desperate to find money". Because of the government's promise not to increase income tax (perhaps the only promise it will keep over the life of the parliament), attention has turned to the taxation of wealth, first through inheritance and now through property. The candidate mechanisms being discussed include the replacement of Stamp Duty Land Tax (SDLT) with an annual levy proportionate to value and the extension of capital gains tax (CGT) to the sale of higher value properties. Inevitably, there is also talk of finally fixing council tax, whether by folding it into the annual levy or simply revaluing the existing property bands to address the current inequities. Many of these ideas have emerged from the centre-right of the political spectrum where there is clearly anxiety that without reform more radical measures may become popular (a land value tax, equalising CGT with income tax etc). But unpicking the Thatcherite dispensation takes delicacy, because of the intersection of property and savings.

Tim Leunig of the think-tank Onward is one of the leading lights of this tendency, proposing a "horizontal split" between local and central government tax receipts. The former would be funded by a local tax based on property values up to a maximum of £500,000 - i.e. a house worth £1 million would be assessed for tax as £0.5 million. Owners (not residents) of properties over that value would additionally pay a national annual levy based on the most recent sale price, the receipts of which would go to central government. This would be immediately advantageous to owners of high-value properties in terms of a lower local tax. In theory, that gain is more that wiped out by the national tax, but that depends on when the property was last sold, leading Leunig to propose a further supplement to balance the tax burden in the case of properties not sold (e.g. repeatedly inherited). At this point it becomes obvious that there are too many potential loopholes, and too much reliance on adjustment by HMRC, which creates opportunities for the tax advisors of the wealthy to exploit.

Leaving aside its chances of adoption, the notable feature of Leunig's scheme is its crude division of society by wealth into two classes. His attempt to justify this by splitting the receipts between local and central government is hardly convincing given that the latter still has to fund the former through grants: no local authority is wholly self-financing. The Thatcherite dream of full accountability to local taxpayers, which drove the Poll Tax, was always in tension with the desire to emasculate ideologically hostile councils through Whitehall diktat. The fundamental problem for our society remains the anticipated decline of income tax receipts as a share of government revenue due to demographic change: more elderly and fewer working-age people in the population. The secular growth in wealth, and the potential to tax it, offers the only real solution to address this trend as further taxes on consumption (e.g. VAT, fuel duty etc.) would be inflationary and hugely unpopular. Worrying about the division of receipts between local and central government is a distraction.

Others have taken a more overtly divisive tack. For example, Phillip Inman in the Guardian sees it in generational terms as the boomers versus the rest. That many boomers are not wealthy, while some millennials are (often due to inheritance), does not lead him to qualify the explicit threat: "If boomers cannot bring themselves to act collectively and patriotically for the greater good, as seems unlikely for many reasons, then it will be legitimate for the government to pursue their lottery winnings with higher property and pension taxes." This is unhelpful because it personalises the issue of wealth ("lottery winners"), though it should be said that Inman's critics fall into the same trap in talking about virtue. The reality is that boomers were simply those in residence when the financialisation of property and pensions took off: some benefited, some didn't. That unearned wealth will now pass down the generations. To address that inequity means addressing the wealth, not blaming the individual.

Wealth can be divided into two classes: land and money. The former is easy to tax because it is immobile and relatively straightforward to value. The latter takes two forms: accumulated money (e.g. a bank deposit) and transacted money (e.g. a payment or a receipt). Accumulated money is difficult to tax because it can be hidden or offshored. Transacted money is relatively easy to tax at the point of the transaction, hence our reliance on VAT, PAYE, CGT, SDLT etc. The problem with this is not the levying of tax but the rates chosen. For example, we levy higher rates on earned income (income tax) than we do on unearned income (CGT or dividends). The rationale for this differential is to avoid discouraging transactions, but that makes little sense in the real world. The reason we don't put VAT on food is not because we think doing so would lead to everyone dieting. Likewise, investors who rely on capital gains to provide an income aren't going to sell up and take jobs instead. After all, who would they sell to?

The obvious solutions to the Chancellor's problem are a land value tax (LVT) and the extension of income tax to all unearned income, e.g. capital gains, dividends and inheritance. The first would give us a more efficient tax system: receipts would be predictable (SDLT is not); avoidance minimal (assuming the government doesn't grant exemptions); and the tax itself progressive (on the reasonable assumption that there is a correlation between land ownership and wealth). The second would also have the advantage of simplicity; would discourage avoidance (e.g. individuals masquerading as a company to treat wages as a dividend); and would also be progressive (the people who make capital gains and earn dividends tend to be wealthier). Neither has any realistic chance of being adopted, precisely because they would shift more of the burden of tax onto the truly wealthy. The most realistic outcome at present remains a revaluation of council tax as this would spread the pain across most of society. We remain trapped in Thatcher's legacy, despite the obvious failures of popular neoliberalism.

Conservative Pessimism

In last Monday's Guardian you could read both John Harris describing his dismay at the right's "ballooning narrative about complete social breakdown" and Nesrine Malik noting that the call for the deportation of immigrants has become mainstream. Harris inevitably felt the need to drag in the left as a pointless comparison: "Just as people on the left have been predicting for at least 150 years that capitalism is about to chaotically implode under the weight of its own contradictions, so some of the loudest voices on the post-Brexit right have come up with their own version of a similarly historic meltdown: a vision of the immediate future in which rampant wokery, crime, failed immigration policy, weak policing and general establishment decay and corruption will lead inexorably to what Nigel Farage calls 'societal collapse'." Leaving aside the crude strawman, not to mention the plentiful evidence that capitalism is trashing the planet, the point to note here is Harris's belief that this is a new development on the right, with the none-too subtle hint that the left remains trapped in the past so we shouldn't look for any answers there.

Similarly, the normally acute Malik falls into the trap of assuming that the calls for mass deportation are novel. She is correct that this language has been amplified by politicians in recent years, notably by Keir Starmer, but she is mistaken in claiming that "the last time a member of a political party even hinted at any sort of deportation policy was in the late 00s, when British National party leader Nick Griffin ... stated that he would 'encourage' voluntary repatriation of legal migrants and 'those of foreign descent to return to their lands of ethnic origin'." There been plenty of hints in the interevening period. After all, what do you imagine most people think when they hear the phrase "one in, one out"? And repatriation was never limited to the neo-Nazis, as Enoch Powell's many supporters proved. In fact, both ideas - that society is coming apart at the seams and that immigrants should be "sent back" - have been common among Tories since the 1960s when the Monday Club was founded. The views may not have been considered respectable by many Conservative grandees, but they were common among the rank and file. Margaret Thatcher's victory in 1979 owed much to both: the belief that the country was falling apart during the "Winter of Discontent" and the perception that immigration left many people feeling, as she put it, "swamped".

Going further back, in 1945 Winston Churchill infamously predicted that a Labour victory under Clement Attlee would lead to the creation of a British Gestapo. This wasn't a lunatic exaggeration fuelled by too much champagne but simply the continuation of pre-war practice. Between 1919 and 1924 the Conservative Party defined itself primarily around the anti-Bolshevik "Red Scare", culminating in the notorious Zinoviev letter, a forgery published by the Daily Mail to (successfully) damage Labour's chances in the general election. The mainstream right have always been hysterical when out of power, or facing that prospect, and the form this takes is invariably hyperbolic warnings about threats to our way of life emanating from a coalition of foreigners, traitors and idiot do-gooders. In its contemporary guise, Bolsheviks and sandal-wearing vegetarians have been replaced by rapacious asylum-seekers and trans rights activists. There's nothing novel in anything that either Nigel Farage or Robert Jenrick has said lately, though there is an important difference in their manner of delivery.

Pessimism is the natural tenor of conservative thought. The roots of the right's philosophy lie in the Hobbesian vision of a war of all against all, not in Edmund Burke or Michael Oakeshott's eulogisation of the small platoons and the familiar. Burke was actually a stinging critic of the Ancien Regime, along with Joseph de Maistre, precisely because he feared it lacked the rectitude and courage to defeat revolution from below. It is fear that is central to conservatism, and that fear routinely manifests as a belief that the country is going to the dogs and that we are being invaded by grasping foreigners. In this context it's worth noting that revolution from above, in the sense of the elite restoration of tradition in the face of such threats, is not only countenanced but seen as exemplary: hence the eulogisation of the Glorious Revolution of 1688, which apparently saved the country from absolute monarchy, Catholicism and foreign fashions. 

In contrast, the common thread that runs through the political philosophy of the broad left, from incremental liberals to ecstatic insurrectionaries, is optimism: the belief that things can get better and that politics can effect change. Even John Harris's crude caricature of the Marxist left gets this right: the certainty that there will be another crisis and thus another chance for progress. One way of thinking about Labour's current troubles is that despite expelling most of the left, the PLP remains divided between the optimists - e.g. Blairites insisting that AI will solve all our problems - and the pessimists - the authoritarians insisting that if we don't stamp down hard on little old ladies with cardboard signs Vladimir Putin will be strolling up the Mall tomorrow. Starmer is clearly in the latter camp. His fundamental mistake is the failure to understand that the "conservative" voters he is trying to attract are motivated by optimism as much as pessimism, hence the talk of hard choices and the need for crackdowns has failed to win them over.

Michael Oakeshott's famous quote reflects the instinctive pessimism of the Tory elite: "To be conservative, then, is to prefer the familiar to the unknown, to prefer the tried to the untried, fact to mystery, the actual to the possible, the limited to the unbounded, the near to the distant, the sufficient to the superabundant, the convenient to the perfect, present laughter to utopian bliss." But success in democratic politics requires a mix of optimism and pessimism. Since 2016, voters in Britain have, perhaps paradoxically, tended towards optimism: displaying an appetite for the unknown and untried that led first to Jeremy Corbyn's ascent and then to Boris Johnson's victory in 2019. While Nigel Farage may currently lay on the horror stories of national decline with a trowel, it is his cheerful optimism that garners support for the mystery that is Reform, and it is Starmer's ingrained pessimism that means Labour's hopes of attracting conservative voters, or even retaining left-leaning ones, will likely continue to be frustrated.

The Zone of Uninterest

Corey Robin recently published a post about how opinions on Israel are rapidly changing among Jews. It is heavily ironised, and stands at the intersection of the literary traditions of awakening conscience and the Jewish-American experience (his own style owes not a little to Philip Roth), but the essential point I'd like to focus on is his recognition of that rapidity: the sense that there has been a sea-change in opinion and understanding. He quotes a number of statements by prominent Jews, introducing them as follows: "I’m posting these statements here just to give you a sense of how quickly opinion is changing. And it’s not Israel-haters and antisemites or self-hating Jews who are voicing the alarm. Most of these individuals below continue to identify as Zionists, as liberal Zionists, and of those who no longer identify as Zionist, they come by their positions honestly, as I hope you will see."

What changed in recent weeks was the incontrovertible evidence that the Israeli government is engaged in a deliberate policy of starvation, with some members of the cabinet openly advocating the ethnic cleansing of Gaza, an intent reinforced by Benjamin Netanyahu's current proposal for the IDF to occupy the entire territory for an indeterminate period of time. What changed was the IDF murdering Palestinians queuing for food in what can only be described as a killing field. The decision of a number of Western countries to signal their intent to recognise a Palestinian state next month, along with the long-overdue and still tentative steps towards an arms embargo by the likes of Germany, have been symptomatic of this wider sea-change, rather than contributory factors. They are evidence of the realisation of governments that have willingly supported Israel that they are way out of line with their own electorates, and are increasingly out of line with liberal Jewish opinion globally.

Many of the people cited by Robin discuss the issue in terms of crossing a line: that Israel has gone too far, and risks losing its soul in the process. Perhaps the most interesting citation is of Avrum Burg, a former interim President of Israel and Leader of the Knesset who is prepared, at least rhetorically, to address the more existential issue - essentially the entire history of the state since 1948 - but who frames this in terms of Israeli/Jewish loss: "Could it be that the current State of Israel, that its body stronger than ever and its spirit deader than ever, no longer deserves to exist? Not because of what happened on October 7, but because of everything that came before, and everything that has erupted since….The destruction of Gaza is a damning indictment of Israel’s moral bankruptcy. And we must face the truth: Israel without an ethical foundation has no justification to exist."

There is a well-worn trope in the literary treatment of Nazism and the Holocaust of the cultured German officer listening to Schubert after a hard day's work overseeing the gas ovens. Beyond the inherent class bias in this image, which assumes the ordinary German soldier was an unthinking brute in comparison, there is this idea of loss: how could a culture that produced Schubert lead to the Final Solution? Where did Germany's soul go? The problem with the "crossing a line" framing is that it suggests a step back could be taken across that same line, like the German officer coming to his senses as he listens to Erlkönig, feeling pity for his victims and understanding that he is the evil-doer. But that is obviously absurd. While some Germans bravely resisted the Nazis, most did not, and those officers in the camps were selected precisely because they were true-believers who would feel neither shame nor guilt. 

In Eichmann in Jerusalem, Hannah Arendt (another writer Robin has long engaged with) famously wrote of "the banality of evil". The book caused a furore (and continues to divide historians) both because it described Eichman primarily as a careerist rather than a fervid antisemite, and because it highlighted the complicity of some Jews in the facilitation of the Holocaust. The first charge is problematic because it suggests Eichmann's behaviour was the result of incentives, rather than any commitment on his part over-and-above career advancement. At the close of Jonathan Glazer's 2023 film The Zone of Interest we see the Auschwitz camp commandant Rudolf Höss retching as he descends the stairs of a deserted palace into the darkness. Is this his conscience rebelling? In reality Höss claimed to have realised the enormity of his crimes only days before his execution. Prior to that, his attitude when challenged was described as "apathetic" and having "a lack of empathy". I can't be the only one who saw a parallel between the film's scenes of mundane looting and videos of IDF soldiers cavorting with children's toys and women's underwear in the ruins of Gaza.

Western governments have gone out of their way not merely to support Israel's military actions but to provide it with every possible excuse to step back over the line: to be applauded for restoring a status quo ante bellum in which Gaza was already a concentration camp, blockaded and rationed to punish the Palestinians as a people. Keir Starmer's pompous conditionality is simply a route that Netanyahu can take, with minimal inconvenience, to ensure that the recognition of Palestinian statehood is once more deferred and Israel reaffirmed in the community of the Western powers. In reality, the momentum of events and the wider anger in Europe may see the UK isolated in September, perhaps only lining up alongside Germany, a country whose Staatsräson requires that it expiate its guilt over the Holocaust by giving Israel carte blanche (the embargo on arms that "could be used in Gaza" is obviously little more than a gesture).

But is it possible to step back over that line? It clearly wasn't in the case of Eichmann and Höss. You can't simply say "Sorry, we went too far" after committing a deliberate genocide. Robin quotes the academic Lihi Ben Shitrit: "As psychologists note, shame and guilt are similar and often appear together, but there are crucial differences. Feeling shame is associated with embarrassment over the actions of members of our group that we think negatively reflect on our group’s identity. Guilt occurs when we feel collective responsibility for the negative actions of our group members. Shame leads to avoidance — hiding, denying or looking away from such actions. Guilt, on the other hand, motivates reparative or restorative responses. Liberal Jews like myself need to overcome our shame, which pushes some of us to avoid or even deny the reality of Gaza. Instead, we must grapple with guilt; guilt not in the sense of personal culpability, but rather in our collective responsibility."

Jonathan Freedland in the Guardian provides an object example of that liberal avoidance, even going so far as to claim a "moral case for escapism", and thus superior virtue: "For it’s when we feel ourselves plunged into the abyss, when our despair at our fellow human beings pulls strongest, that we most need to look upward – and glimpse the stars." What Freedland is implicitly saying is that his shame will never become guilt, in Ben Shitrit's terms. In other words he will neither question the existence of the State of Israel, like Avrum Burg, nor concede that collective responsibility means that Western governments, complacement liberal media and Israeli society generally must be deemed as guilty as Netanyahu, Smotrich and Gvir. As with the reaction to Eichmann in Jerusalem, it is that second charge, of collective responsibility, that sticks in his craw.

Conditionality

The two-state solution to the Israel-Palestine conflict remains a polite fiction, urged mostly by European governments that have no intention of taking active steps to implement it. The US long ago gave up on even the fiction, preferring to make clear its support for a maximalist policy by Israel. The decision to bomb Iran in June was an endorsement of its client state's insistence that its area of authority is all of the Middle East, with only Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states (currently) off-limits. So long as Israel remains America's regional proxy, which it will do regardless of who is in the White House, there is no possibility of its territorial integrity being called into question by a land-for-peace deal with the Palestinians. That the fiction of the two-state solution is once more in the news does not indicate some tectonic shift in the geopolitical plates, despite the breathless coverage in the media. The proposed recognition of a Palestinian state in September by France, the UK and others is merely the latest attempt to preserve the fiction with the minimum of effort and consequence.

The conditions outlined by Keir Starmer are obviously intended to give himself sufficient room for manoeuvre to once more renege on a promise, even if Isarel truculently refuses to oblige by agreeing to even a temporary ceasefire. But they are also intended to revive the value of the "card" of formal recognition, and thus of the two-state solution itself, after years in which it has dwindled to almost nothing. To switch metaphors, by solemnly reviving the carrot as the centrepiece of his strategy he hopes to avoid questions over why the UK government has not thought fit to deploy the sticks of sanctions and arms embargoes in the face of what even centrist commentators are now admitting amounts to genocide. I have no idea whether Starmer will find himself obliged to recognise a Palestinian state in September, or whether he will find a way of wriggling out of it (the absurd conditions laid on Hamas - disband, have no future role etc - might well do the trick), but I do know that his decision will amount to little either way so long as the material and political support that the UK offers to Israel continues.

Patrick Wintour in the Guardian referred to the emerging division "between the moderate and extremist visions for the future of Gaza and the West Bank once the war finally ends." But he immediately emphasised that the former is premised on the Palestinians submitting to foreign interference - "a radically reformed Palestinian Authority governing without Hamas" - which makes clear that what will be recognised is closer to the pre-1948 British mandate than an independent people. Critics who insisted that the right of statehood cannot be qualified were forgetting that such qualifications were central to the operation of British imperialism during the twentieth century and it appears that muscle memory has kicked in, even though the UK simply doesn't have the power to impose its will in the way it did 100 years ago. This is why Starmer's conditions have a slightly ridiculous air of pomposity about them: I found myself hearing the voice of Neville Chamberlain talking about having sent the German Chancellor a "final note" as the current Prime Minister stood at the lectern. 

The conference in New York this week, hosted jointly by France and Saudi Arabia, employed similar language, insisting that "a transitional administrative committee must be immediately established to operate in Gaza under the umbrella of the Palestinian Authority". Given the corruption of the PA, this simply looks like a change of jailers for the people of Gaza and the West Bank. What is singularly lacking is any reference to the 1967 borders, which can be the only viable basis for a territorial settlement. According to Wintour, "The reality is that Israel in the wake of 7 October has moved further and further away from notions of a two-state solution." In fact, Israel had been steadily moving away from the idea since before the collapse of the Oslo Accords and the assassination of Yitzhak Rabin. Illegal settlements have been created with state support since 1967. Indeed, you could argue that the Accords lasting influence was to confirm that Israel had no interest in an equitable peace, seeing Palestine as "less than a state", in Rabin's words, and the Palestinian Authority as mere collaborators.

For Jonathan Freedland, the Guardian's chief apologist for Israel, the problem remains Netanyahu ("Steadily, the Israeli public is coming to see the price of the pariah status that Netanyahu has all but cultivated.") If world opinion has (reluctantly) concluded that Israel has crossed a line, there is no recognition by Freedland that the actions of the government are a faithful reflection of the society that elected it. But while he ignores the reality of Israel he is happy to recyle Number 10's crude interpretation of Hamas: "That group is not interested, they say, in a Palestinian state on the West Bank and Gaza, living alongside Israel. Hamas is not in the two-state business, but rather seeks to rule over a single, jihadist state across the entire land, from the river to the sea." Freedland's understanding of the region, which accurately reflects British centrist opinion, is premised on the myth that most Israelis are liberal and secular, and that most Palestinians are religious fundamentalists who wish to wipe Israel off the map. It is this idea that informs the "moderate vision" that Wintour speaks of. 

Implicit in this vision are a number of assumptions: that the Palestinians must be actively policed to guarantee Israel's security (and not vice versa); that the Palestinian Authority must be answerable to Israel and the international community, rather than just the Palestinian people; and that Palestine must be "less than a state", lacking such accoutrements as an army or an independent foreign policy. It is a mindset that reflects the persistence of colonial thinking among Western governments in which certain peoples are deemed unfit for self-rule. Genocide never occurs out of the blue. It arises against a background narrative in which an entire "other" people is seen as a threat that must be expunged to guarantee the security of the nation. And in the context of Israel-Palestine, it is the "moderate" vision as much as the extremist that is responsible for that narrative. This was a genocide long-foretold because it is a narrative we have long been conditioned to.

The Rage of the Centrist

The evidence that Israel is deliberately starving the Gazan population if not to death then to a state of extreme malnutrition that will scar it for generations is now irrefutable. This has led to some predictable hand-wringing by centrist commentators, such as Gaby Hinsliff demanding a more virtuous response from a UK government that has not only been complicit in Israel's genocidal war but has actively criminalised principled opposition to it. We are told that pressure is mounting on Starmer to recognise a Palestinian state, even though this would do nothing to alleviate the suffering. If Emmanuel Macron thinks it's a good idea, you can be confident it's an empty gesture. In reality, the UK government is never going to recognise a free Palestine, something that the cabinet ministers briefing the press about their support for it know perfectly well. They are trying to protect their career prospects, or at least avoid being sacked by the electors, by crying crocodile tears for starving children.

What is notable is not just the abject cowardice of the response by centrists like Hinsliff but their refusal to accept that the time has come for the UK government to take meaningful steps, such as an arms embargo or sanctions against Israel. This is not just a transparent attempt to obscure their failure to advocate a stronger line months ago, when the direction of travel was obvious. It also highlights their own commitment to what we really should start calling the final solution of the Palestinian problem. Just as the government will never recognise an independent Palestine, so the commentariat will never admit that the goal all along has been the erasure of the Palestinians as a people with a land. You might as well ask them to admit that the Labour Party wasn't riddled with antisemitism between 2016 and 2019, and wholly free of that bacillus before and after.

This refusal to face the reality of their choices creates a psychic burden that needs some form of release. To no one's great surprise, as the evidence of genocide and the strategic use of starvation has mounted, so the centrist hatred of the left has reached an even more hysterical pitch. While Paul Mason insists that the new party mooted by Jeremy Corbyn and Zarah Sultana would be the re-embodiment of the German Communist Party, paving the way for Hitler/Farage, Nick Tyrone, a self-styled centrist dad and think-tank wallah, opined that "literally anyone" would be better in government than the two former Labour MPs. You might think this was mere hyperbole, rather than literally meant, but the point is that he really would prefer Nigel Farage, or (for that matter) Boris Johnson or Liz Truss. These people have never been shy about admitting their hierarchy of acceptable politics.

Mason at least professes to abhor Farage, but that's really just to maintain his anti-Fascist credentials among credulous liberals and his self-deluding image as a latterday SPD street-fighter that the Labour Party would be foolish not to select as a prospective parliamentary candidate for a seat in the North. Tyrone is honest enough to admit that the political centre in this country is occupied by people who would much rather see Farage in Number 10 than anyone happy to self-describe as a socialist, which funnily enough is a more accurate historical echo of Germany in 1933, when the centre-right paved the way for Hitler, than Mason's crass analogy. Another example of centrist fantasy, built to obscure the reality of right-leaning preferences, comes from the journalist Ian Dunt. 

The "soft left" in Labour barely exists outside of the media's imagination and is certainly not organisationally robust enough to fight anyone. The mystery of the missing "soft-right" is easily explained: they're all in the Labour Party furiously fighting the left. In simple terms, the political establishment, which is coterminus with the widest definition of "the centre", has decided that it will not fight the far-right because the electorate is made up of incorrigible racists. The protestors outside asylum hostels must be placated with guff about "legitimate concerns", until they overstep the mark at which point they become suitable fodder for a crackdown. Meanwhile, Nigel Farage must be indulged not only by the rightwing press and a complacent BBC but by the political establishment as a whole. Instead, attention must be focused on the threat from the left, who must be stamped on hard along with anyone deemed a proxy, such as trans men and women or protestors against genocide.

Centrist commentators who loudly gave Israel the benefit of the doubt for years, and who now regretfully inform us that they may have been wrong to do so, are demanding that they be applauded for changing their minds. There is no humility or contrition, merely a testy anger that they have been bested in analysis by ageing hippies and pink-haired kids. Some have even taken to aggressively denouncing the left, who have been proved right, for not welcoming them into the big tent of bien pensant opinion, insisting that in the face of starving children what matters is civility and tone. What these sociopaths are ultimately defending is their authority within the politico-media complex. To that end, it is necessary that they continue to construct a leftwing bogey that can act as the scapegoat for the projected charges of naivety and delusion. For many of them, the launch of a new party by Corbyn and Sultana is a blessing.

What Determines Rent?

The popular discussion of economics divides into macro and micro, with those familiar with the former tending to adopt a slightly patronising attitude towards the latter (the legacy of Keynes' de haut en bas style), which in turn sees them map onto a left-right spectrum. This is misleading, not only because macroeconomics has historically been an attempt to reconcile classical liberalism with the reality of the state as an economic actor, thereby excluding the need for a socialist or Marxist analysis, but because it tends to omit large swathes of the real economy. A famous example was the lack of attention paid to finance and banking as a systemic vulnerability prior to 2008. But an even more prevalent omission in the popular macroeconomic discourse, which was once central to economics in the days of Adam Smith and David Ricardo, is the role of rent.

Smith laid out the basic proposition: "The rent of land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give." Ricardo formulated this as a general law, to wit that the rent of a piece of land will equal the additional monetary gain of its productive use relative to the production of a rent-free piece of land. In other words, tenant farmers will desert high-rent land if the rent exceeds the marginal loss they would incur by farming a rent-free piece of land. 

This theory was useful in an era when many people were tenant farmers and when colonialism was bringing marginal (i.e. rent-free) land into production, so the idea of farmers upping sticks to find a more economically advantageous plot wasn't as unrealistic as it seems to us today. Obviously the externalities of colonialism were ignored while rent was seen as a product of natural endowment - the gift of heaven -  and the industry of white colonisers (cf Locke). Subsequent attempts, e.g. by Marx, were made to focus on the capital investment of land, its improvement in Smith's terms, and how natural endowment in reality gives rise to rentierism, i.e. monopoly exploitation, notably in the area of patents and technical innovation (as theorised by Joseph Schumpeter).

The one area of rent that has tended to receive far less attention from economists, in terms of explaining what determines its price, is the rent of property, and specifically houses and flats. This might seem odd given how large rent looms in our lives. Even if you have bought a property or are currently paying a mortgage to do so, you are subject to rent insofar as house prices will always reflect the equivalent contract rent - i.e. what you could get if you let it over the same period as a typical mortgage (hence buy-to-let). Many people assume that the dynamic of this relationship works in the opposite direction: high house prices lead to high rents, and that rising house prices are simply the consequence of demand outstripping supply, hence the arguments that we should ease planning restrictions or curtail immigration, but this ignores that there is no shortage of empty or under-occupied houses and flats across the country. So what determines rent?

The law of supply says that more goods will be produced at higher prices. In other words, if demand for a commodity grows, thereby pushing up the price, producers will increase output to take advantage of the larger demand and thus fatter profit margins. The law of demand says that at higher prices demand falls. So once supply of that commodity exceeds demand, following that increase in output, prices will fall back to their notional equilibrium level. This simplistic model obviously ignores a lot of real world frictions and contraints. For example, not all commodities can be rapidly produced at a higher rate, e.g. by adding shifts or converting existing production lines. Likewise, if the market is cartelised there may be a reluctance among producers to increase output excessively. OPEC is the obvious example here.

In the case of housing, there are real constraints such as restrictive planning regulations and limited real resources (builders and building materials), but the biggest determinant is the reluctance of volume builders to over-supply the market and so depress prices. In this context, the state is a volume builder that has taken a self-denying ordinance to maintain house prices, both for owner-occupiers and landlords, which is why the UK government is so reluctant to build council houses despite the pressing need, and why US liberals like Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson argue that "abundance" can be achieved by simply rolling back regulations and striking out building codes, which provides an easy excuse to ignore capitalist realities in favour of a technocratic can-doism.

The "law" of demand is also undermined by necessity. In other words, there are certain things we have to buy, at least at a minimal level, such as shelter, food and clothing, lest we risk injury or death (self-sufficiency is not a practical strategy for most people and a return to a subsistence economy would result in mass starvation). We cannot realistically choose not to buy shelter, preferring to spend our money on first editions or champagne, so demand cannot fall to such low levels that prices must drop. Equally, we cannot easily cut back on the amount we spend on shelter, unlike certain other necessities such as food or clothes. We can skip meals or wear socks with holes in them, but we can't decide to move to a cheaper flat for a month and then back again to ease our cashflow.

When we talk of "the housing market" (singular) we are dealing in a fantasy. In reality, there are hundreds, if not thousands, of geographically limited housing markets, which estate and letting agents understand only too well. Goods (i.e. houses and flats) cannot be moved from one market to another, so prices must always reflect local circumstances. We also cannot easily choose to buy from alternative suppliers in cheaper markets. If I work in London but can't afford the rent, there's no point renting a flat in Sunderland. And if I got an equivalent job in Sunderland, it might not pay well enough to allow me to rent there either.

When house prices or rents do fall, that is typically because of a relative over-supply in a limited geographical market. But when this happens it is rarely because the quantum of supply rapidly increases. Instead it is because the quantum of demand rapidly falls. The obvious examples are all around us: areas that saw deindustrialisation in the 1980s with the result that the population shrank. But the fall in house prices and rents in those areas also reflects the lower average income of the remaining population: deindustrialisation typically took away above-average wage jobs, and they were above-average in most cases due to the strength of trade unions in heavy industries like coal, steel and shipbuilding. Outside these geographic exceptions, house prices and rents rarely if ever fall, something that cannot be explained away as price "stickiness" or the lower bound of a zero return on capital.

Rents then will always reflect "what the market can bear", which is a polite way of saying that landlords will push prices up to their maximum: the point where tenants can just about afford them, assuming they're willing to limit expenditure on other goods, which may be discretionary, such as entertainment, but may also be necessities, such as food and clothing. The "cost of living crisis" due to the recent spike in food and energy costs shouldn't distract from the fact that the prices of these other necessities are, in real terms, a fraction of what they were 50 years ago. That rents have grown over this period is not because people have felt that housing was a better choice for their discretionary expenditure, despite the relentless media propaganda, but because landlords have, in Smith's words, constantly recalibrated what the tenant can afford to give.