Over the course of the past fortnight, I’ve found myself arriving at an all too familiar bump in the road. The one where I ask myself: “Why do I care about politics so much?” “Why do I feel so conflicted?” “Why does everything have to be so tribal?” and “Why can we not find a common middle ground?”
I’m going to take you through a chronological timeline of the internal conflicts I’ve wrestled with in recent days, and I think I’m in familiar territory.
The Price-Harbach Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
State Your Name, Comrade!
As a rule, I tend to never talk about work. However, as Shop Steward/Union Rep in a trade union that’s affiliated with Labour, the political aspect of it is unavoidable.
On the ground, politics isn’t discussed. As a HGV-driving, pro-European Liberal Democrat, I’ve felt ostracised by my peers on many occasions. However, my aptitude for politics, along with my core beliefs such as fairness, the right to representation, collective bargaining, and defending workers’ rights, are what got me elected as a Shop Steward in the first place.
Most of our membership is right-wing, and there’s no love whatsoever for Keir Starmer, but when I’m representing a member in a meeting, I act in their best interests, without fear or favour.
Conferences are a different matter. In Blackpool last weekend, USDAW hosted its North West Regional Conference. Soon-to-be Lord Paddy Lillis has since retired, so it was my first opportunity to ask new General Secretary Joanne Thomas a question.
Off the back of the previous week’s budget, I explained that I represent a branch whose members will see their salaries creep into the higher rate of tax because of fiscal drag. Due to the nature of transport and logistics, drivers can’t just “opt out” of overtime; it’s an occupational necessity. I asked the General Secretary if she believes that HGV drivers should be paying the higher rate of tax the second they do overtime.
To my surprise, she agreed. Throughout the Q&A session, she showed a greater willingness to push the Labour Government on getting the best for her members.
The Employment Rights Bill is a case in point. Tory and Lib Dem Lords kept sending the bill back to the Commons because they disagreed with employees being protected against unfair dismissal claims from day one. USDAW comms criticised both parties for their objections but came to a compromise of those protections being in place after six months. Joanne gave her rationale for supporting the compromise in perfect Westminster lingo, explaining parliamentary procedure coherently.
Despite her willingness to challenge Labour, she still wants to do so from within. Past General Secretaries have complained about only being offered a smidgen of lip service when the Tories were in power. Under a Labour Government, they get a direct line to No. 10. USDAW’s unequivocal support for Labour is something I have to live with, but I understand the rationale behind it.
If those in leadership are willing to be pragmatic, that culture should travel down to Shop Stewards. When fellow reps refer to me as “Comrade,” it genuinely makes me cringe, but I can’t be arsed to argue that I’m closer to Clegg than Stalin. Many attitudes on the political left are stuck in a utopian, idealistic chasm, where the slightest deviations can see you purged or exiled due to your lack of purity. You only need to look at the shambles of Your Party’s conference to confirm that.
Strike It Push Your Lucky
I can comfortably live with compromise. The willingness of the Tories to attack trade unions and their right to strike extended to middle-class professions such as barristers and medics. That is why, for me, trade unionism is not merely an extension of the “class struggle.” The British Medical Association has announced a five-day strike for resident doctors, with walkouts taking place between the 17th and 22nd December over pay, conditions, and the availability of jobs/training places.
There are a few reasons why I feel conflicted. This Labour Government has only been in office since July last year, yet one of the very first things they did was offer a 22% pay rise over two years to those who were then junior, but are now resident doctors. This did not compensate for all of the the pay lost in real terms since 2008, but was significantly more generous than those offered by the previous Government.
I genuinely believe that doctors’ pay should be restored, but solely on pay alone, I don’t think there is a great deal of public support for these strikes. As a union rep, I also find it peculiar that doctors were allowed to ballot for a mandate to strike over a period of several months. For all we know, the mandate may not truly be representative of BMA members at this late stage.
The other issues highlighted, however, do demand the public’s attention. It absolutely blows my mind that GPs are being made redundant, there are not enough specialty training places for resident doctors, and there are too many medical school graduates for too few foundation places. Doctors from abroad are also competing for these opportunities. Physician Associates/Assistants recruitment has thankfully stalled following recommendations from The Leng Review.
It is within the Government’s gift to remedy this, yet they seem happy to focus on stopping asylum seekers on small boats much more than the brain drain of our brightest and best to countries such as Australia and New Zealand.
I’ve probably watched too many documentaries or read too many books by the likes of Adam Kay or Dr Julia Grace Patterson💙 to get a properly informed opinion, but given how the NHS has well over 100,000 unfilled vacancies, I don’t know how doctors have the time to train to become competent registrars, never mind future consultants. If pay restoration was put to one side for now, I wouldn’t have to think so pragmatically, but I find myself sitting on the fence.
Pragmatism vs. Populism
It must be absolutely demoralising to be a transgender person in the United Kingdom today, even more so for trans women. The infamous Supreme Court ruling concluded that one’s “sex” is determined by their gender at birth, not by the one they choose to live with. This means a trans woman is not automatically recognised as a woman in law, even if they have a Gender Recognition Certificate. The Supreme Court stressed in its judgment that transgender people are still protected from discrimination under the Equality Act, creating an impossible situation for organisations governing female participation within them.
My own political party, the Liberal Democrats, should arguably be the safest space for LGBTQ+ political activists. However, at our most recent conference, the “Free to be Who You Are” Motion was toxified by anti-trans members. The Lib Dems are a broad church, but some values are so fundamental to our ideology that I question whether our party is for them. Despite liberal values winning the day at conference, just a few weeks ago, midway through our internal party elections, the party had to revisit gender quotas, based on the Supreme Court ruling.
In the last week alone, the Women’s Institute and Girlguiding have taken the decision to ban transgender women from their organisations, against their own wishes, because the risk of legal action is so great. Knowing that a wicked witch who became a billionaire off the back of wizards and magic could easily bankroll a campaign to deny trans women’s existence, it appears that even the most welcoming societies have to be pragmatic to a fault.
That proverbial punch in the gut came after the publication of The Cass Review, which was published before Labour took power. Health Secretary Wes Streeting however, chose to implement its recommendations, meaning that children living with gender dysphoria can no longer access puberty blockers on the NHS. Several researchers have criticised the Cass Review for its bias, methodology, and the expertise of the reviewers themselves. This is as accurate an example one can see of the political right dictating what the centre-left does. Healthcare for transgender children affects a microcosm of the UK population, yet the media coverage is entirely disproportionate.
Now, Wes Streeting is applying a carbon copy strategy to assess whether mental health and neurodiversity are being overdiagnosed.
This is motivated not by a sincere desire to help people; it is motivated by the public purse and a soaring welfare bill. I can tell you from my own experience that people with mental health issues want to work. It brings purpose, structure, and routine, but if one’s working conditions are incredibly volatile, there’s only so much that resilience can do. The same applies to neurodiverse people. It’s bad enough that Wes Streeting has lumped mental health conditions and neurodiversity into the same pot. It’s even worse to suggest that these conditions may be overdiagnosed.
Diagnosis brings protection in the workplace. It allows for reasonable adjustments to be made and funding for adjustments that employers can’t provide. Diagnosis allows neurodiverse people to perceive the world better. If we have an explanation for something we don’t understand, it reduces the risk of worsening mental health, as wonderfully put by John Harris of The Guardian. It’s also a wonderful antidote to the absolute bile written by Hadley Freeman of The Times.
The process was long, but my journey from inkling to formal diagnosis to treatment has truly changed my life. For the Government to say that psychiatrists are over-diagnosing their patients is no different to RFK Jr. ignoring science for political gain. As someone who could be adversely affected by this review, that’s not hyperbole. I’m shit-scared that my protections in law and treatment could be withdrawn in the near future. Maybe that’s why I’m not as pragmatic as charities like Mind and the National Autistic Society, who are quite welcoming of said review.
Say It! I Dare You!
There’s every chance my brain may unravel, but if this country were to reverse the single stupidest decision it has ever made, I think I might die of a dopamine overdose. Brexit was a socioeconomic clusterfuck. The hold of the populist right, Blue Labour, and the Red Wall has prevented the Labour Government from saying the blatantly obvious, but pragmatic baby steps are beginning to emerge.
The Prime Minister spoke about how reckless Brexit was not once but twice in the same day:
I’d like to welcome Keir Starmer to Substack by asking him to please drop his red lines. He remains adamant that rejoining either the Single Market or the Customs Union are red lines. If Labour MPs were whipped to vote for the Lib Dems’ bill for the UK to rejoin the Customs Union, I’d expect the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse at my door, but can we dare to dream? Deputy PM & Justice Secretary David Lammy refused to be drawn into giving The News Agents a definitive answer while simultaneously setting out why Brexit was such a disaster:
This was the major highlight from an interview which focused on significant reforms in the criminal justice system. There is a huge backlog of cases awaiting trial, so Mr. Lammy’s solution is multi-faceted. The bar for what qualifies as eligible for a trial by jury has been set much higher, but there will also be much increased funding for criminal barristers’ legal aid, along with funding for more pupilages in criminal law.
This is a conundrum that is once again dictated by finances, but I can see the rationale behind it. Contrary to popular belief, most trials held in the UK are heard before magistrates, and not juries. Reducing the backlog would bring huge relief to those in limbo. It could mean the difference between a rape victim giving evidence or withdrawing their statement, therefore collapsing the prosecution’s case. It could also bring relief to genuinely innocent defendants whose lives are on hold until they get their day in court.
My concerns are solely based on the works of The Secret Barrister, who has anonymously exposed the justice system’s failings—some of which are so incredulous that if you didn’t laugh, you’d cry. I worry about the extra powers being handed to magistrates and the reduced oversight that comes with fewer jury trials, but this is a pragmatic course of action that has triggered numerous overreactions from the very politicians who significantly reduced funding for the courts in the first place.
The Rest Is Economics
To round off this week’s long-delayed post, Zack Polanski’s interview on The Rest is Politics: Leading caused a huge amount of furore. Many on the left really did not like Rory Stewart’s line of questioning with regards to the economy, but it highlighted a serious issue. Disaffected voters are looking to Zack and the Green Party for a brighter future. People are buying into his vision, with membership numbers soaring, but Zack has fallen into the populist trap: excellent oratory that lacks economic credibility.
Zack not knowing the specifics about Japan’s GDP-to-debt ratio is far too niche, and I do believe that Rory Stewart should cop some stick for asking him something so obscure. However, Zack’s responses had me screaming “Are you insane?” at the radio. Correct me if I’m wrong, but Zack gave me the impression that if he were Prime Minister, he would simply refuse to honour debt interest repayments to the Bank of England. With our central bank acting as our lender of last resort to the banks, wouldn’t this devalue the pound, decrease market confidence, increase interest rates, and with it, the cost of mortgage repayments?
The idea of a Government simply deleting debt to its central bank would also kiss Zack’s desire to rejoin the European Union goodbye. Despite its extensive regulatory framework, the EU is ultimately a capitalist organisation. The EU simply would not countenance a country embracing economic communism.
It is possible to be radical without being reckless. Investment in public services through a wealth tax is much more pragmatic, even if the press say otherwise. Campaigning to rejoin the Single Market or Customs Union is evidently pragmatic, even if the Daily Mail would call it an act of treason. Changing the law in response to the Supreme Court’s ruling regarding sex and gender would be a pragmatic response to protect trans rights, even if Reform would label it as absolute woke nonsense. Trade unions maintaining affiliation to Labour to retain influence on the Government is a bitter pill to swallow. But it’s pragmatic.
Politics isn’t easy. It’s a multitude of trade-offs based on reality and political will. We need to calm down and sensibly scrutinise what our politicians say and do, even if it upsets the more tribal amongst us.
The Price-Harbach Dispatch is a reader-supported publication. To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.
Get full access to The Price-Harbach Dispatch at jackpriceharbach.substack.com/subscribe
