The UK General Election was held on Thursday, July 4, 2024 and the British Labour Party stormed home winning 411 of the 650 seats in the House of Commons to take a huge simple majority of 174 seats. The awful Tories were cleaned out well and truly and only managed 121 seats a loss overall of 251 seats. The Liberal Democrats improved their seat holding by 64 to end up with 72 (a rather dramatic reversal after they were shunned for siding with the Tories in past Parliaments). So for those who hate the Conservatives this was, on the face of it a huge win, surely. Not quite. In fact, despite the simple statistics above, Labour only gained a 1.7 per cent swing despite 14 years of shocking Tory rule, while the Tories endured a swing of 19.9 percentage points. In fact, the result highlighted the failed electoral system used in Britain – first past the post – when there are more than 2 parties involved, not to mention the demonstration of national apathy as captured by the 59.9 per cent turnout in the voluntary system, which was down by 7.4 percentage points on the last election. In other words, British Labour, despite all the hubris from the leadership actually performed pretty badly gaining 33.7 per cent of the 59.9 per cent who bothered to vote. And, into the bargain, their total vote dropped from 10,269,051 to 9,708,716. When considered in terms of the total registered voters then Labour was preferred by only 20.4 per cent. From the perspective of an outsider, these numbers are simply stunning and do not resonate with any reasonable concepts of representative government. The joker in the pack was, of course, the entry into the election of Reform UK, which effectively split the conservative vote and in this sort of electoral system grossly distorts the overall outcome. I conclude that British Labour can hardly claim to be in a safe position and less people wanted them to govern than when Jeremy Corbyn was leader.

When I met with John McDonnell on October 11, 2018 at his Embankment office block in London he was then the Shadow Chancellor. The theme of the meeting was dominated by the concerns (near hysteria) about the power of the City of London (the financial markets), expressed by his advisor, a younger Labour Party apparatchik whose ideas are representative of the bulk of the progressive side of politics in Britain. The topic of the meeting centred on the fiscal rule that the British Labour Party chose to apparently establish credibility with the financial markets (‘The City’). I had long pointed out that the fiscal rule they had designed with the help of some New Keynesian macroeconomists was not just a neoliberal contrivance but was also impossible to meet and in that sense was just setting themselves up to failure should they have won office at the next election. Essentially, I was just met with denial. They just rehearsed the familiar line that the British government has to appease the financial interests in The City or face currency destruction. That fear is regularly rehearsed and has driven Labour policy for years. It wasn’t always that way though. As part of preliminary research for a book I plan to write next year I am digging into the history of this issue. What we learn is that the British government has all the legislative capacity it needs to render The City powerless in terms of driving policy. That raises the question as to why they don’t use it. All part of some work I am embarking on. The reason: I am sick to death of weak-kneed politicians who masquerade as progressive but who bow and scrape to the financial interests in the hope they will get a nice revolving door job when they exit politics. A good motivation I think.