Letter of the week: Revival of the leftists

Write to letters@newstatesman.co.uk to have your thoughts voiced in the New Statesman magazine.

Photo by Derek Berwin/Fox Photos/Getty Images

Adrian Pabst (Lines of Dissent, 29 November) misdiagnoses the problem with contemporary liberal and progressive politics. It is not that the left has “become economistic and complicit with the oligarchy of finance and tech”. It is that, for all intents and purposes, true left-wing politics has died a slow and brutal death. Left-of-centre parties became dominated by neoliberals in the 1990s, and these same leaders and figures chose to squeeze any hope of true progressive change when the likes of Bernie Sanders and Jeremy Corbyn failed in the late 2010s. To misdiagnose this issue as a shift in the positions of the left rather than its death is to blame the left for problems brought about by liberal capitalist forces. Rather than a left that has become morally empty and beholden to corporate interests, the early 2020s instead present us with a morally bankrupt neoliberal centre that has replaced the now dormant left. Leftist politics needs a revival to keep up with changing times, but perhaps it should not be the “left-conservative” one Pabst seems to hope for.
Freddie Russell, aged 17, East Sussex

Progress is possible

Adrian Pabst lambasts the contemporary left (Lines of Dissent, 29 November) and states that “nowadays it represents mostly the interests of capital”. He argues that populism is “a blowback against the social disruption produced by [its] progressive policies”. Here, he conflates social liberalism with economic liberalism. It is this ongoing commitment to neoliberal, Third Way thinking that is hindering the left. As Sohrab Ahmari argues in his review of Bill Clinton’s memoirs (Critics, 29 November), “the thrust of Clintonian policy, like its Blairite counterpart… was to detach the left from the working class – indeed, from the notion of class as such. Clintonians bought wholesale the neoliberal idea.”

Yet many on the left reject it. Joseph Stiglitz tells the Democrats to dump neoliberalism; Thomas Piketty tells French progressives the same. Will Hutton and Liam Byrne offer policies that tackle burgeoning wealth inequality. All offer routes to reconnect social democracy with low- and middle-income households. In contrast, Pabst offers vague assertions that ordinary people’s fears have been ridiculed, above all on immigration. He calls for a “left-conservatism” when even Kemi Badenoch says “there is no point in trying to get back to the past or reverse social liberalism”.

The way forward for progressives is not to ape Nigel Farage, but to make a clean break from economic liberalism and develop anti-austerity economics in combination with a progressive social, health and environmental agenda.
Jon Bloomfield, Kings Heath, Birmingham

Stress test

Julia Unwin (Correspondence, 29 November) is right: the benefits system “prohibits a gradual and cautious return to work”. Imagine you’re a person with schizophrenia controlled by medication that has physical and cognitive side effects. You give one maths lesson a week, as “permitted work” – boosting self-worth. You have the opportunity to take a couple more pupils. You’re not sure you can manage this, but would like to try. If you do try, you must report this to the Department for Work and Pensions as a change of circumstances. Any reported change of circumstances can trigger a repeat Work Capability Assessment (WCA). The WCA is notoriously unintelligent; a large number of ill people are found fit for work, and then must appeal the decision. You know the stress of being found fit for work and consequent job-seeking requirements risk triggering a psychotic breakdown. What would actually help you towards work? A period of grace during which, although your benefit may reduce, you are not subjected to a WCA. The risk of triggering one acts as a barrier to work.
Anna Lyndsey, Chineham, Basingstoke

If it ain’t Dutch…

I enjoyed Pamela Dow’s article on the history and impact of HR (The NS Essay, 29 November). But the argument that there is a likely correlation between intensive use of the HR toolbox and poor economic performance falls down, because (as Dow points out) the only country with more HR penetration than us is the Netherlands, a successful country that outperforms us on almost all economic indicators. Maybe a closer look at how the Netherlands does HR might be useful before concluding that the problem is the HR sector in and of itself.
David Garcia, Cambridge

Pamela Dow’s essay echoes my experience of the rise in the influence of HR, not only in the public sector, but also in corporations. My view is that senior managers have been complacent in allowing HR specialists to have too much influence. They have not been proactive in understanding the changes in legislation. They have often relied too much on HR “experts” to interpret the law and put in place guidelines that reduce their effectiveness as leaders. The result can be the loss of trust in a manager’s capacity to provide effective leadership. Dow’s solution to “reduce HR’s expansion and influence” means insisting that managers understand how to work effectively within employment guidelines and by doing so motivate their team members to maximise their contribution.
Glyn Jones, Whitchurch, Shropshire

Powered up

David Reynolds (The History Essay, 22 November) is mistaken in urging Britain to abstain from “delusions of global grandstanding” on the grounds that it is a “mid-sized power”. While grandstanding is rarely advisable, Britain is not a mid-sized power. Algeria or Brazil, for example, are mid-sized powers. Britain is what it has been for the past three centuries: one of the world’s half-dozen or so most powerful states. This is a burdensome position for a small country with a relatively small population. It is also burdensome that Britain is today western Europe’s leading military power for the first time in its peacetime history. We should grasp these simple facts. It might save us from subservience to other states, and help our politicians to form a rational view of our responsibilities and interests.
Robert Tombs, St John’s College, Cambridge

Snap judgement

Wolfgang Münchau (Lateral View, 29 November) writes that “snap elections are scheduled for 23 February”. I should be very grateful if he could give us some idea of what leisurely elections would look like.
Jonathan Hayward, Nempnett Thrubwell