Closer to home, there is further welcome news, this time from the latest FT poll tracker, which indicates that the current support for parties in the UK might be as follows:

The Burnham bounce is continuing. This is coming at the expense of the Greens. What is more interesting, however, is that for the first time in nearly two years the Conservatives are ahead of Reform.

Let me be clear: I have no love for either of these parties, both of which I consider to be racist and profoundly prejudiced against the interests of the majority of the people of the UK. However, the fact that the neofascism of Reform is being rejected by almost all groups within UK society, except for those above 50, and men in particular, is very welcome news. Long made the trend continue.

As I noted in this morning's video, Gen Z are leading a political transformation in many countries around the world. I look forward to that happening here, and to their parents listening. The time for change has arrived. Neither the Tories nor reform do in any way offer anything to that generation, but if young people can lead the swing in opinion against fascism, they will be doing a fantastic job.

Global stocks fell on Wednesday as investors bet that a wave of Democratic victories in the US midterm elections posed a new threat to the AI boom.

They added:

The development of the data centres that are vital to the AI industry has been a flashpoint for voters across America, with investors paying particular attention to the outcome of contests at state level, where decisions on granting permits for infrastructure are made.

Apparently, AI investors worry that Democratic gains, along with big state-level victories in AI hubs such as Texas, could slow the construction of new data centres and even bring about stronger regulation of the AI sector.

The suspicions are probably right. But the very fact that they are worried about this reveals that something is very wrong in the AI sector. They see the people who will be their customers as their enemy, and democracy as the opponent to their power.

That the people have won might be exactly what is required for the redirection of this sector for social purposes. Unless that redirection happens, AI, or rather, those who control it, will continue to threaten us all.

The midterm election results are staggeringly good for the Democrats, and terrible for the Republicans.

As I write this, The New York Times is projecting that the Democrats will hold 55 of the 100 seats in the US Senate, with the Republicans becoming the minority party, with 45 seats.

In the House, the forecast is that the Democrats will hold 256 seats, with the Republicans at 178.

In both cases, the Democrats have overturned Republican majorities.

The swing to the Democrats appears to be over 13% of the popular vote.

The rejection of the Republicans is so strong that in Texas they now have a Democrat governor and senator, which is staggering in a state always known as a Republican stronghold, and the more so because the governor is Hispanic.

As astonishing as that is Kansas electing a Democrat senator for the first time in 92 years.

In the Michigan bellwether Senate election, where Abdul El-Sayed is the Democrat candidate who has been the focus of much attention and racist abuse from Donald Trump, it looks very likely that he will win, with an increase in their vote share.

The rejection of Trump is overwhelming.

The reasons for this are, of course, not hard to see. It was Trump’s error of judgement that resulted in the war in Iran, and the increase in the cost of living, and in particular the price of road fuel and energy in the USA. People are making it clear how angry they are about that. They know that this conflict was not necessary. They know that Trump promised not to get involved in further wars, and did. They know that they are paying a heavy price for that. Their anger is clear.

Whether it can be said with certainty that the result would have been as clear if Trump had not made this catastrophic strategic mistake, at a cost to the USA and the world at large, is not so apparent, but the underlying disquiet is now clearly real.

Whatever the reason, the message is apparent.

Firstly, the tables have turned on Trump. With majorities in both houses, the Democrats can begin to investigate what they rightly feel to be his misdemeanours.

Secondly, although these majorities do not give the Democrats control over the war with Iran, they do give them significant control over the budget and so significant leverage on that issue.

Thirdly, with clear majorities, they can now pass legislation to reverse the abuses of the last two years. Trump can veto these as President, and has said he will, but in doing so he would lay the pathway for a Democrat president in 2028.

Fourthly, the likelihood of a Democrat clean sweep in 2028 would appear to be very high. The probability of Democrats reversing Republican vote rigging in the meantime also seems to be high.

And the good news is that during the course of the night Donald Trump told the New York Times that he would accept these election results, and so clear are they that it would seem very difficult indeed for him to do anything otherwise.

The USA has had the change of course it needed overnight. But it is important not to get overexcited. The Democrats remain a party dominated by corporate interests, and are profoundly neoliberal. What does matter now is the fight for the heart and soul of that party as the 2028 election looms, because what will be needed then is a presidential candidate willing to put people, not corporate power, first. This did not happen during the Clinton, Obama and Biden years. The coming presidential primary elections are where this battle is going to be fought, and where the chance for real change will be determined.

The Democrats can celebrate, and I can be delighted to see the USA turn it back on fascism, but the battle is not won yet. Whilst corporate money controls US politics, the decline of the country, its economy, and its influence will continue.

For more than 40 years, neoliberalism has dominated political and economic policy. It has promised prosperity, opportunity and freedom. But inequality has increased, housing has become unaffordable, public services have deteriorated, and economic insecurity has grown.

Now people are demanding change.

Across Europe and beyond, protests are challenging the political and economic status quo. Young people, particularly Generation Z, are at the forefront. Their demands vary, but the underlying frustration is remarkably similar: the existing system is failing to meet their needs.

In this video, I ask whether these protests could represent a tipping point, when accumulated dissatisfaction finally produces fundamental political change.

I consider the research of Harvard professor Erica Chenoweth into how relatively small movements can achieve extraordinary results.

Then, I explore why changing governments may not be enough when the economic assumptions underpinning their policies remain unchanged.

But there is another question. If neoliberalism is approaching its end, what replaces it?

Rejecting the existing system is not enough. We need a credible alternative.

I argue that this must involve an economics of hope and a politics of care, putting people, democracy and collective well-being before the demands of markets.

So, are we witnessing a historic turning point, or merely the beginning of a much longer struggle for change? Time will tell.

This is the audio version:

This is the transcript:

Is neoliberalism approaching a tipping point? It’s a question I need to ask because, well, it feels like it is, doesn’t it?

Protests are spreading around the world. Young people are demanding change. Neoliberalism has dominated us for the last 40 years, but its promises have failed.

So could its end be approaching? Are we now at the point where there is going to be the momentum to deliver a new political system for the UK, for the USA, for Europe and well beyond? That’s the question of the moment.

And the fact is that people are withdrawing their consent for neoliberal rule. Neoliberalism has created massive disquiet, and people have had enough of inequality. They’ve had enough of austerity. They want security and opportunity, and they want something more than a good government. They want a system that reflects their well-being and their future. And that is why so many young people in particular are now on the streets of countries protesting.

To me, it looks like a tipping point is arriving. What is a tipping point? It’s a moment of fundamental change. Small events can trigger enormous consequences when a tipping point arrives. We never can anticipate precisely what will create this outcome. We can never decide why one particular small event is sufficient to create the momentum for a massive change.

But it happens, and that’s because pressures accumulate over many years, and then change can happen very quickly. Sometimes it can’t be reversed. Could neoliberalism be approaching that moment?

The world is protesting against failed neoliberal policies. France, Germany, Italy, and Portugal, the Netherlands, Spain, and Serbia, India, Bangladesh, and Mexico. All of them, and the UK as well to some degree, are showing signs of discontent.

Generation Z, Gen Z, is helping lead the protests. It is at the forefront of the demand for change because, very obviously, young people can see that neoliberalism is not offering them any form of return in the way it did to previous generations.

And why are young people protesting?

They’re protesting about education in some countries. They want more investment in themselves so that they can partake in society. And why not?

They’re protesting about climate change.

In Germany, they’re protesting about military service.

In Spain and Portugal, they’re protesting about housing costs.

In the UK, people are protesting about Palestine.

The point is, there is no one common theme. The failures are, however, all connected. In every case, the failure is of neoliberalism and its demands of people that they comply with its requirements, when, so obviously, those requirements are not producing desirable outcomes.

Neoliberalism has failed to deliver prosperity. Inequality has increased. Housing has become unaffordable for many. Public services have deteriorated. Jobs have disappeared. Economic insecurity has grown, and people increasingly want something different. They reject the rentier society in which we live, which extracts money from them by way of interest charges and by way of rents. They are upset by monopoly profits. They want genuine opportunities. They’ve had enough.

And as a consequence, politics is changing around the world.

Brazil and Serbia have shown in the last few weeks what political discontent looks like.

America’s midterm elections, the result of which I do not yet know because this is being recorded while people are still voting, will test Trump’s support. As far as we can see, the Democrats are way ahead. But will that be enough to keep people happy? I doubt it.

There is a demand for new politics, and we’re seeing that. We’re seeing the rise of the far-right. We’re also now seeing the decline of the far-right. In the UK, we can see that. Nigel Farage is a busted flush. His moment has been, and it’s gone.

People are fed up with his corruption or what looks to be corruption. We haven’t yet seen it proved, but they don’t like the taint of big money being given to him for his own use as a consequence of his politics.

They don’t like his authoritarian style either. People want freedom. They don’t want to see governments made up of people who are going to tell them what to do and pick on others.

And even the power of big tech is being questioned. Time and time again, people are saying ‘no’ to AI, its data centres and everything that goes with it. They question: what is the value of this technology? And they’re doing that in part because it is so heavily associated with the politics of oppression, which the far-right in the USA and elsewhere are fueling. Elon Musk is the biggest enemy of AI because of how he is using the money that he has earned from it.

And these protests are about the economic system, and they are systemic. They’re not saying we don’t like a party. They’re saying we don’t like any party that subscribes to this style of thinking.

In the UK, I’ve called this the problem of the ‘single transferable party’. The Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats have all sounded similar when it comes to economic policy, and people are saying: ‘Changing government is not, then, enough. We want to change the system itself.’

We want to get rid of markets dominating political decision-making. We want to put people at the epicentre of politics. We want people’s interests to be at the centre of the concern of any future government. And they understand that at this moment they could, by their actions, make a difference. They could topple the neoliberal regime in all its forms.

Now, Erica Chenoweth has created a theory around this. She’s a Harvard professor, and she’s looked at how small movements can create enormous change. This is the theory of the tipping point. And her research has identified that when 3.5% of the population participate in a pattern of demand for reform, that demand can be sustained. And, as a consequence, change happens.

There are some important criteria to fulfil, though. Sustained organisation matters as much as numbers, and clear demands help make movements more effective.

So could today’s protests become those that create the tipping point in accordance with her theory? Well, they might.

But the question is, what replaces neoliberalism? Rejecting it is not enough. People need a credible alternative. The economy must meet people’s needs in the future, and public services must take priority over market outsourcing. Government must reclaim its economic role to keep people happy, and democracy must replace the rule by markets and those who dominate large companies and their finance.

So, is the tipping point approaching? Is the coherence of the argument for the alternative good enough as yet? I don’t know. It may be. We could be on the cusp of a tipping point, and protests clearly show that there is a growing sense of rejection of what we’ve had. Young people are demanding something better, and the existing political consensus is weakening, as is the far-right challenge to it.

So a shared alternative could trigger fundamental change. But are we really witnessing that process at the moment? Are we looking at the end of neoliberalism? Or are we just looking at the beginning of that end, where the awareness has finally arrived that we must have something else, but we have yet to give rise to the arguments?

And what happens then? Do we go through a period of an interregnum where the old neoliberalism is dead, but the new has yet to be born? That’s a Gramscian phase, I’m well aware, but the point is we could go through that turmoil. We might have several years where we do not know where we’re going.

But the fact is, this is the moment where I think we need an economics of hope, hope for people, in other words, and a politics of care. And that means everybody matters. That has not been true in the economy we’ve had.

We need to build those two things, economics of hope for people and the politics of care for those who would otherwise be left behind, so that we have an inclusive society in which everyone from Gen Z upwards, and indeed those who follow them, can believe they have a chance in the world in which we live.

That is where we are. That is what I think is our direction of travel.

But that’s what I think. What do you think? There is, of course, a poll down below.

Poll

I commented on the viciousness of the US midterm elections yesterday.

There is nothing to add about the fact that Australia has increased its base interest rates for the fifth time in a year, and that its inflation is still rising because there is no link between the two.

And was there anything to really say about the fact that the Nasdaq 100 index in the USA, which reflects the valuation of tech stocks, fell a further 1.4% yesterday, indicating the jitters that exist about the valuation of AI and all related issues? On reflection, I thought not very much.

I did then wonder whether I had any article to write this morning before realising that the story is, as it so often will be when the news is filtered through the perspective of the neoliberal media, what is not being reported rather than what is.

The world got warmer yesterday. Nobody noticed. In itself, the change was very small, but it’s part of a trend that is the biggest threat we face.

Many young people sat in many bedrooms yesterday, most probably in their parents’ homes when they wished to be anywhere else, waiting for anyone to reply to a job application they had made, and their inbox was empty, at least of offers of an interview.

Many people were racially abused yesterday.

Women were harassed for doing nothing more than being.

Neurodivergent people struggled through another day of maintaining the mask of normality.

Crime happened. Victims were created. The police had so few resources available that they could do no more than allocate the event a number.

People juggled debt. Some gave up the struggle.

Babies were born in maternity units where there were too few staff, whilst the pressure on those who were at work became increasingly intolerable.

Teachers and their pupils, back after half term, faced another useless day of learning facts that imparted nothing approaching understanding or the ability to think.

Halloween tat was cleared off shelves, to be replaced by other tat intended to create a superficial air of celebration amidst a sea of desperation.

Countless sedatives, licit and illicit, were consumed to help people survive life in a world which they find alien.

Too few people showed that they cared, because we are not allowed the time to do so in a world where stopping to appreciate, and to say that we do, is not permitted.

And yes, some good things happened too. Let’s not pretend otherwise.

Some people did okay.

Others got a promotion.

Some might have got married to the person they hope they will live with for life.

And against all the odds, some did get jobs, or a thank you that made a difference.

Others took note of the beauty of the world around them and decided to care about it.

These were the real stories of yesterday.

Some should inform our actions, our concerns, and a politics of care.

Others require celebration, even if only for a moment, because if we do not recognise what is good, what is the point of achievement?

None of this got reported in the media, though. And that is my point. The news that is reported to us is, by a very long way, not the news at all. Too often, it is a filtered message of control designed to intimidate, frighten, regulate and provoke.

To see the real world, we need to look out the window, go for a walk, talk to people, share experiences, and say thank you to those who help us.

I will start. Thank you for reading this. I appreciate it.

But what if the crisis they describe does not actually exist?

In this video, I examine the UK government’s own figures for social security spending since World War II. They tell a very different story from the one we are being sold.

Yes, spending has increased in cash terms. But inflation explains much of that apparent increase. And, when we compare social security spending with GDP and total government expenditure, the supposed crisis largely disappears. Nothing justifies the claims that spending is now heading out of control.

The biggest long-term increase has been in state pensions, but that simply reflects a growing and ageing population. We always knew that would happen.

Meanwhile, support for unemployed people, children and low-income families has been squeezed. And whilst disability and sickness payments have increased, the figures need to be understood in their historical and economic context.

So why are politicians demanding further cuts?

I argue that this is not really about controlling spending. It is about scapegoating people who need support, while refusing to acknowledge the failures of an economy that increasingly excludes those who cannot fit its demands.

This is an economic argument by those who make it, but it is also a profoundly moral one.

My argumemnt is that we should be asking how to provide everyone with dignity and security, and not how to make vulnerable people poorer. If we have a crisis, it is because too many people just do not care. That is the issue we really need to face.

This is the audio version:

This is the transcript:

Over the last week or so, we have heard numerous attacks on what is called the ‘Welfare Budget’, but which I like to call the ‘Social Security Budget’ of the UK government.

The attacks have come from Kemi Badenoch, as leader of the opposition, who wants this budget cut. It seems that every newspaper and every television commentator shares the view. I’ve heard Channel 4 challenge Labour ministers on cutting welfare, as they call it. ITN has been doing the same. It’s everywhere.

The claim is that we must cut benefits. But why? Why, at this moment, is it apparently so desperate for the government to set out to make the poorest people in our economy very much harder up? That’s the question I want to ask, and I will tell you now: there is no logical answer to that question. The data doesn’t support the demand.

Let’s look at this chart.

I’ve created the charts in this video from data published by the government on welfare spending, as people now like to call it, but social security spending, as I insisted, is from 1946 onwards. The data is available, published by the government, and this is from their latest publication.

And what it shows is the expenditure on the various headings that make up the total social security budget, plus those that are forecast, but that does not include the latest budget projections: it includes those projected a year ago, but which were known to the government at the time that this particular forecast was prepared.

And the point is, when we look at the right-hand side of this chart in that grey forecast zone, it looks as though expenditure is rising, and quite steeply. And that seems to me to be the reason why we have this paranoia at the moment about the fact that welfare spending is going to rise from a figure of a bit over £300 billion a year at present to something a little less than £400 billion by 2030/31.

Now, the fact is, this does not represent the true picture. There is inflation in this chart. It’s obvious that there is.

Of course, there was spending on unemployment benefits and support for families and so many other things in the 1950s and 1960s and even into the 1970s. I can remember my mother going with what was called the ‘Family Allowance Book’ to the post office to claim the money for me and my brothers when we were very young. There was a payment at that time. My family benefited from it. But the figure hardly appears on this chart, and the reason why is inflation. And our politicians and our commentators are all being confused by this fact.

Now, let’s look at this second chart, which shows social security spending by purpose, as a percentage of GDP.

And this chart is important. There are some odd bumps in here, but overall, let’s look at the trend.

The odd bumps include the period from 2008 to 2011, when, of course, GDP was depressed by the fact that we had the global financial crisis. There’s another bump in 2020. Why? Because GDP was depressed again, and that time it was because of COVID.

But if we look at the overall trend of payments since around 1990, when it was quite high, and that was because of unemployment and a recession at that time, there has been a very slow trend upwards at best. And what is that explained by? That is explained by the bulky blue part of this whole chart, which is pensions.

Pensions have risen. They’re going to rise. That’s because there are more baby boomers in retirement than there have ever been retirees before, and the cost of them is going up. But that is the influence on the forecast.

Now look at that forecast in proportion to GDP.

It’s a very small increase at most. There is no crisis with social security spending in this country at this moment. The evidence does not support any suggestion that there is.

Look at this figure again. This time it’s been redrawn. This time it’s drawn as its percentage of total government spending. And there are some strange phenomena in here, which I will look at in detail in a moment. But again, actually here we see that pensions are not rising dramatically as a proportion of total government spending. It is true that the orange section, disability, sickness, and carers, is growing, but only to levels previously seen, with nothing exceptional overall. And the forecast is for a level of spending as a proportion of total government costs, lower than those from 1990 until the late 2010s. The point is: there is no crisis.

But there has been a very real change in the levels of expenditure. And that is what this chart of those types of expenditure, shown cumulatively on the previous charts, demonstrates.

The cost of pensions in the UK as a proportion of GDP has risen. We’re talking about from 1946 again, right up to date. And the point is that if we look at pensions: in 1950, the total cost of the old-age pension was around 2% of GDP, and now it’s heading for around 5% of GDP. Why is that? We live longer, and the retirement age has not increased proportionately to life expectancy. And so we pay people for longer, and people live longer. The consequence is we spend more.

The question we have to ask, then, is: why are all those who are demanding that the social security costs be cut demanding that people who have an old-age pension should live with less? Because that’s exactly what they’re saying.

And remember that for at least 20% of people on the state old-age pension, that is their total income. They have nothing else to support them. So around £13,000 a year is what they have to live on, and we are seeing politicians demand that they have less.

Now, there are other old-age pensioners like me who also have a private pension or an employer-provided pension as well. And the fact is, yes, I am not totally dependent upon this money, but it was always part of my planning for retirement. And I might still be working now, but this channel does not earn me a great deal of money, let me assure you of that. And the fact is that I am dependent in that sense on the old-age pension as much as most people are. And taking this away would have a material impact upon the well-being of millions of people in the UK.

And let’s be clear about it, because there is a multiplier effect if you remove income from pensioners, because they will spend less, and therefore there will be a ripple-through effect, right through the economy, as a consequence of others not receiving the income that they spend; the consequence of cutting this social security spend would be enormous. And this is the one spend above all else which dominates the total Social Security budget. So the question is: why do politicians want to punish our pensioners for simply being alive?

There’s one other area where, as you can see, costs are rising. But let’s talk about those areas where costs are falling first of all, because I think that matters.

Look at the children and low-paid families section of this chart. It is declining. It is declining considerably. Our generosity to families is simply disappearing. And why? Because Universal Credit has punished families. That was its intention. That is what it has delivered. And as a consequence, the spending on families has gone down. So in a neoliberal world where the family is meant to be the centre of life, we aren’t supporting people to live.

We’re not supporting those on low incomes either. Just look at that bottom right-hand grey chart and the figure there is tiny. 0.4% of GDP is spent on supporting people on low incomes, whilst our total expenditure on unemployment has crashed.

Margaret Thatcher created that bubble in the middle of the chart. She deliberately created unemployment in the UK to destroy the trade unions, and we paid an enormous price for that in terms of lost industrial capacity, lost social justice and unemployment at the time. She used the gains from North Sea Oil to pay unemployment benefits, and as a consequence, we had no long-term wealth fund, as a result, either. She did so much harm to this country. It’s almost impossible to count.

But now we spend just 0.1% of total GDP on people who are unemployed. We basically don’t support them at all. So to claim that there are people sitting around doing nothing is just absolutely wrong. People who are unemployed are not supported. They have no choice.

At the same time, the figure to the left of that chart of unemployment is significant. Let’s just look at that. Because Margaret Thatcher sold council houses, and they weren’t available, we had to provide housing support to private landlords. We didn’t supply housing support to tenants of private landlords. We supplied it to the private landlords. The private landlords actually get the payments directly to them. And we’re paying 1.2% of GDP to support private landlords so that people can live in their properties, but they gain no benefit. They previously had council houses. Now they have worse, almost invariably, private-sector accommodation, and the landlord is gaining. This is an abuse of the benefit system. The clearest one there is.

So let’s go back to the other sector where there is an increase in cost, and that is the chart in the middle of this table on the top row, and that is disability, sickness and carer’s payments.

These were around 1% of GDP, or thereabouts, in 1950, when they were more than half of what pensions were, and now they’re heading for 2.7%, which is near-enough half of what pensions are going to be.

So there has been no real change. The cost of supporting people with disability and sickness has risen, but that reflects growing old age. Again, there is a bubble in the 1980s that was the consequence of Thatcher. When she was getting desperate about rising unemployment, she began to encourage people in the late 1980s to claim disability benefits instead, so people came off the unemployment register. Her figures looked better, but people were paid disability allowances instead, whatever the name was at the time.

They then stabilise for a period of time, and now they’re rising again.

We know why they’re rising. We know they have risen post-COVID. We know that young people are one of the major areas of concern here. We know that young people are alienated from the workplace. We know that they are suffering increased levels of diagnoses of autism, ADHD, and other conditions, which indicate that they are actually not able to work. And the fact is: this is not their fault. It’s a measure of the changing workplace.

The workplace used to be able to accommodate these people. Now, the jobs that they used to do are not available, and therefore they need support. Don’t blame young people. We had an economy that used to support people basically from the age of 16 onwards by providing suitable jobs for everyone. Now you have to be a round peg in a round hole, or else you don’t get a job. If you’re a square peg and the hole is still round, you are unemployed. You need support. The problem is not with young people. The problem is with the economy.

But we are paying more as a consequence. But in proportion to the historic record, there is nothing odd about what is going on here, and that is the point I’m making.

This final chart just makes clear how poor the level of support now is for children and low-paid families.

The forecast shows that trends are downwards. There is nothing to be squeezed out of that sector of the economy anymore.

They are already in poverty. I’ve made videos explaining that. Around 40% of people in the UK are, in my opinion, in some form of poverty. 20% are recognised as such. That’s 14 million people and 4 million children. There is no further squeezing that can be done here. Those who are demanding cuts can’t look to this sector to find them.

So if we go back to the first chart, which shows social security spending by purpose, what we can see is that those who are demanding cuts can’t demand it from children. They can’t demand it from those who require unemployment benefits because they don’t basically get any anymore, unlike times gone past, and we can’t demand cuts on low-income support because it’s negligible.

There are only two cuts which these people could be demanding. One is to pensions, and I don’t think they’re going to do that because they have self-interest in this area. So they are demanding that people with disabilities and people who are sick and people who require care support have their services cut.

What we are seeing then is an organised attack on people who need help in our society. This is the ultimate neoliberal agenda. “You must get on with it yourself. You are responsible for your well-being. We are not responsible. If you have disability, that’s your fault,” is the message that is being sent by all these commentators, by all these politicians, and no, it is not.

If you can sense that I’m angry about this, it’s because I am angry about this. I’m very angry about this, because I hate the idea that we’re going to prejudice people through no fault of their own. We’re going to force them into poverty and despair, and that is the reality of what these people are demanding. I do not believe that is appropriate. I do not believe the data supports any form of justification for cutting Social Security.

The fact is, and let’s go right back to that first chart. The fact is that these people are simply terrified by big numbers. What they don’t understand is that if we live in an economy where we have had inflation and where, as a consequence, the value of the pound has fallen, and we continue to have inflation, and as a matter of government policy, we are going to continue to have inflation, that chart, this one of rising costs, is going to be the fact that we’re going to evidence when we get the data after the event.

But it doesn’t mean, if we go to the other charts looking at spending as a proportion of total GDP, or government spending, that we’re actually spending any more in real terms on social security.

So what we are seeing is something that has a name: it’s scapegoating. Those who want to keep more of the cake for themselves are scapegoating those who are on benefits, those who get pensions and who depend upon them, and those who have disabilities, sickness, and are in need of care. And they are most definitely scapegoating them and saying, “Their claims are false.”

They’re not. They’re justified. They’re real. The process of getting them is extremely onerous. It’s tough to get hold of a Personal Incapacity Payment, for example. And the fact is we should not be subjecting people to this amount of pressure to be able to sustain the lifestyle that is essential if they are to take part in our society.

I am horrified by the behaviour of the commentators and the politicians who demand these cuts. They do not understand the reality of life in the UK. I hope I do.

And if I am correctly understanding life in the UK, I’m correct in saying they are wrong. We need to support people in our society. The only problems we have in our social-security system at present are twofold.

One, we don’t pay enough to provide people with the dignity they deserve when they are in need or in old age, or when they have children whom they need to support.

And two, we have a problem with commentators who are either ignorant or callous, and there is no other description of them.

That’s what I think. What do you think? There’s a poll down below.

Poll

That said, I did in one way. I told myself I could relax. I caught a bug as a result.

The ideas did not, however, cease flowing, so I wrote.

Then I looked for feedback, and having gone a day or so without it, I now realise how important it is to me, even though it comes at a cost.

Then, much of the feedback I got on the article on neoliberalism and autism was aggressive, repugnant, and simply nasty. I did not post the offensive items that were offered here. I have not deleted them elsewhere, and have tried to engage with them, whilst trying to control my anger that some are so willing to abuse others.

After posting 26,000 items on this blog, with the one on neoliberalism being the 26,000th, perhaps I should not be surprised. However, after that much writing, at an average of 3.48 posts per day over more than 20 years, it still seems as though there is more to do.

The lesson for me is that I still need to stick with this, but that I also need to learn how to take time off, which, at 68, I still haven't properly mastered.

Congresswoman Haley Stevens, who lost the Michigan Democratic Senate primary to Abdul El-Sayed, endorsed his Republican rival, Mike Rogers, in an extraordinary rebuke of her party’s nominee on the eve of the midterm elections.

Her endorsement came in a video posted to X after she attended an event with Rogers at the predominantly Black Perfecting church in Detroit on Sunday. Stevens’s endorsement was the culmination of an escalating feud between the former primary rivals – primarily over support for Israel – that has roiled one of the most fiercely contested Senate contests of the cycle.

The story is highly significant.

Firstly, there is the racism involved. Abdul El-Sayed has been viciously attacked on racist grounds by Republicans, including by Donald Trump, who casually calls him Mohammed, which is not his name, which name is being used by Trump as a form of abuse at multiple levels.

Secondly, there is the role of Israel and its power to divide, in the creation of which division Israel is an active participant. No state might ever have gained as much influence over the politics of other countries without having occupied them as Israel under Benjamin Netanyahu now does. And I stress, this is a comment about politics, the particular role of the current Israeli government, and nothing else.

Thirdly, there is neoliberalism. Abdul El-Sayed challenges it. Haley Stevens is so in favour of it that she is willing to cross party lines and endorse a Republican, and by implication Trump, in what I hope will be a vain attempt to stop a democratic socialist being elected in Michigan, giving rise to an increased level of opposition to the pernicious influence of neoliberalism within the US Senate.

Fourth, there is then the role of the single transferable party, which is a phenomenon we see in the UK when the economic policies of the Tories, Labour, Liberal Democrats and maybe other parties are virtually interchangeable, but which exists just as strongly in the USA, where many Democrats and Republicans share a very clear ideology on most economic issues.

But most of all, and fifth, what is apparent is the dislike of the ‘other’ and the threat that a person who does not represent the established view poses to those who think power is theirs by right, even when, as Abdul El-Sayed has, that opponent has won popular support.

For me, Abdul El-Sayed is a symbol of hope that change is possible. That doesn’t mean I agree with everything he has said, or will say. Politics is never that simple. What he represents is the possibility of change, and when the system we have is rotten to its very core, as protests around the world are proving, the need for change is incredibly high, and the fear of it amongst those with power is very apparent.

That, of course, creates tension. Change would never happen without that.

It also creates risk. Anyone should appreciate that.

But it also creates possibility, and that possibility is what the likes of Haley Stevens seek to deny the people of Michigan.

The apology for both slavery and exploitation is long overdue, and absolutely essential. The abuse of the rights of fellow human beings in pursuit of personal gain has long been considered a grievous affront to human rights and a crime, despite which official recognition of the UK’s role in this activity has still not been adequately forthcoming. It is time that it was.

That said, the question of reparations is a difficult one. The reason for saying so is not that this country did not benefit from the abuse implicit in all aspects of slavery, because the evidence is overwhelming that some within it did. My point is that it was only some who benefited, and to therefore penalise all who live here now for the crimes of a few would appear to be inappropriate and contrary to natural justice.

That said, where it is clear that a link between current wealth and slavery can be established, an expectation of reparations would appear to be appropriate. I think there can be no doubt that the wealth of some people and institutions in this country now can still be quite clearly associated with the gains that they made as a consequence of their forebears’ involvement with slavery, and in that case why compensation should not be required is hard to explain. Working out an appropriate basis for compensation might seem desirable now, and a particular case should be used to set a precedent.

That particular case concerns the royal family.

I think it is impossible to argue that the royal family did not benefit from slavery in accumulating the wealth that they currently enjoy, both supposedly privately and through the privileges the state affords to them.

At a time when their standing has never been lower, and questioning of their values has never been, quite appropriately, higher, this seems to be the moment for a reappraisal of the basis on which they accumulated their wealth.

I am not suggesting that they be left in poverty. I am questioning why so many in that family, who appear to enjoy financial well-being beyond anything that their own activities might have generated or justified, should not be asked at this moment to partake in the payment of reparations, compulsorily enforced if necessary, as a necessary as well as symbolic gesture of the compensation to be made by those with power now for the abusive actions of their forebears.

If the royals might be left with only a house or two as a consequence, and might have to wear some clothes in public more than once as a result, so be it. Their privilege is unearned, and came at a cost to others. Reparations would acknowledge that fact and might also give us all the beneficial opportunity to reappraise their role in the state. That would also be welcome.

All of this is overdue, and now is most definitely the time to do it.

• France – Paris, Lyon, Marseille and other cities.
• Germany – Berlin, Frankfurt, Munich, Cologne and other cities.
• Italy – Rome, Milan, Turin and Genoa.
• Portugal – Lisbon and Porto.
• Netherlands – The Hague.
• Spain – Various cities.
• United Kingdom – London and Edinburgh.
• Serbia – Student-led demonstrations and commemorations.
• India – New Delhi.
• Bangladesh – Dhaka and other industrial cities.
• Mexico – Mexico City and other locations.

Is the world saying it has had enough?

Are Gen Z saying that the neoliberal abuse they are suffering is intolerable and they will no longer accept it?

It seems so.

But there is no clarity as to the direction of travel. The need for a politics of care and an economics of hope is growing.

Both would say enough for a reason. They make people, not profit and the planet, not meaningless consumption, the epicentre of their thinking. And they are radical concepts, as is a Courageous State.

Then I posted two items this morning, on which I realise I want feedback and related discussion.

So, I have comments back on. Fire away....

John Harris has written a substantial and thoughtful article in the Guardian today about the growing controversy surrounding autism diagnoses.

I agree that the issues he raises deserve serious consideration. But I think there is another dimension to this debate that needs to be explored.

Harris asks what autism is, who should be diagnosed with it, and what support they should receive.

I want to ask a different question. Why has our society become so intolerant of human difference that those who do not conform to its expectations are so frequently treated as the problem?

My suggestion is that the answer has a great deal to do with neoliberalism and its assumptions about what human beings are for.

John Harris's question

John Harris' central question is whether the concept of an autistic spectrum has become so broad that it is losing its meaning, or whether we are finally beginning to recognise the diversity of autistic experience.

It is an important question, and Harris handles it with sensitivity, as I would expect of him in general and because I know he has an autistic son. He recognises the very different experiences of autistic people, the difficulties faced by those requiring substantial lifelong support, and the importance of diagnosis to people who have spent much of their lives struggling to understand why they experience the world differently from others. He also explores disagreements among leading autism researchers, including Uta Frith, Simon Baron-Cohen and Francesca Happé, about whether the existing diagnostic framework remains appropriate.

I do not wish to dismiss any of those arguments. The questions about diagnosis, clinical evidence and the allocation of support are real. They deserve serious consideration. But I think the analysis needs to go much further.

My suggestion is that the problem being discussed is not just about autism. It is about what we think it means to be human, and this debate needs to make that explicit.

Humanity and the neoliberal dimension

More particularly, I suggest that the controversy surrounding autism reflects a much deeper conflict between the diversity of human experience and the demands of the neoliberal economic system within which we are now expected to live.

Neoliberalism is not simply a political and economic philosophy that says markets should allocate resources within society with minimal government intervention. It also encourages a particular understanding of human beings and their place within society. Within this worldview, people are increasingly treated as units of economic input. Their value is assessed by their capacity to work, compete, consume and contribute to the production of the financial returns neoliberalism demands as an indication of success.

The ideal person within this system is adaptable, productive, competitive, self-reliant and capable of meeting externally imposed expectations. They are also expected to conform. They must fit into standardised systems of education, employment, assessment and social behaviour. They must accept the objectives set for them, respond appropriately to incentives designed by others, and demonstrate their worth through measurable outcomes. They are not necessarily encouraged to question why those objectives exist, whose interests they serve, or whether the systems they operate within are appropriate. Indeed, questioning the system may itself be treated as a problem.

This is where the issue of autism becomes especially important. Autistic people do not necessarily experience the world in the ways that these systems presume. They may process information differently, communicate differently, experience sensory environments differently, or place different values on the social conventions that others take for granted. Some may find particular forms of social interaction exhausting. Others may question rules that appear arbitrary, resist expectations that seem irrational, or require explanations for things that other people simply accept.

These are not universal autistic characteristics, because no such things exist (in itself a cause of neoliberal confusion on the issue when it assumes the world is uniform), and their consequences vary enormously between individuals. Nor should the substantial disabilities experienced by some autistic people be overlooked. But the underlying issue remains. What happens when people whose lived experience differs from the assumed norm are required to conform to a system that has little tolerance for difference?

The individual is not the problem 

The answer, too often, is that the individual is identified as the problem. The person who cannot tolerate a noisy workplace is considered difficult. The person who questions an apparently irrational instruction is considered uncooperative. The person who cannot sustain the social performance expected of them is considered inadequate. The person who requires different working arrangements is considered less productive. And the person who becomes exhausted by constantly adapting to these demands is expected to find a way to cope.

This is where the concept of masking, the existence and nature of which Frith challenges in an interview noted in Harris’s article, becomes particularly interesting. Whatever questions exist about its precise scientific definition and measurement, the experiences described by people who say they mask raise a fundamental social question. Why should anyone have to devote so much effort to appearing to be someone they are not simply to participate in ordinary economic and social life?

That question is not necessarily confined to autistic people. It is possible that neurotypical people might also experience pressure to conform. They, too, are expected to suppress their preferences, conceal their difficulties, perform socially acceptable roles and meet demands that may have little relationship to their actual abilities or needs. They, too, may as a result experience exhaustion, anxiety, alienation and a sense that their lives are being organised around objectives they might never have chosen.

The difference is that autistic and other neurodivergent people may experience these pressures in particularly intense ways because the assumptions built into our institutions are often especially poorly suited to them. In that sense, their experiences can reveal something about the system that might otherwise remain hidden.

Society is harming human wellbeing

The problem is not necessarily that autistic people are unable to meet the requirements of society. It may also be that society has constructed requirements that are unnecessarily restrictive, intolerant and sometimes damaging to human wellbeing.

This does not mean that autism is simply a social construction or that all autistic disabilities would disappear if society were organised differently. That would plainly be wrong. Some autistic people have profound support needs that would exist under any conceivable economic system. Their needs must be recognised and met. But it does mean that we should distinguish between difficulties arising from a person’s neurological characteristics and those created or intensified by the environments in which they are required to live.

That distinction is crucial. Consider education. An education system increasingly organised around standardised testing, measurable performance, competition and conformity will inevitably struggle to accommodate children who learn, communicate or respond to their surroundings differently. The resulting difficulties may then be attributed to the child rather than to the structure of the educational system.

The same is true of employment. A workplace that values constant social interaction, uninterrupted attendance, rigid working practices and unquestioning compliance may exclude people who could make substantial contributions if their work were organised differently. The issue is not necessarily their capacity to contribute. It is the narrow definition of acceptable contribution.

And the same problem arises in public services, where standardised procedures may be administratively convenient but fail to recognise the different circumstances of the people they are supposed to serve. These are not exclusively questions about autism. They are questions about how we organise society and whose needs we choose to recognise.

Holding the system to account

That brings us back to the controversy Harris describes. If we accept the neoliberal assumption that people must adapt themselves to the demands of existing economic institutions, then differences in their capacity to do so become individual problems requiring diagnosis, treatment or correction. The system itself escapes examination.

But if we begin from a different assumption, that economic and social institutions exist to serve people rather than the other way around, the questions change. We would no longer ask only why some people struggle to conform. We would ask why conformity is required, whether the expectations imposed on people are reasonable, whether institutions could operate differently, and whether the diversity of human experience might be something to accommodate and respect rather than something to eliminate.

This also changes how we should think about the apparent competition for support between different groups of autistic people. Harris is right to take seriously the concern that people with profound disabilities might be overlooked as the definition of autism expands. But another question needs asking. Why should recognising one group's needs threaten the support available to another?

That is not an inevitable consequence of recognising human diversity. It is a consequence of organising public provision around supposedly financially constrained resources, eligibility thresholds and competition between people with different needs. When support is treated primarily as a cost to be minimised, every expansion in recognised need becomes a potential threat to those already receiving assistance.

People are then encouraged to compete for recognition and resources. Those requiring extensive support may fear that their needs will be displaced by those whose disabilities are less visible. Those diagnosed later in life may fear that their experiences will be dismissed because they appear too capable. Both groups have legitimate concerns, but their interests need not be opposed.

Meeting need

The alternative is to recognise that people have different needs, that those needs should be assessed appropriately, and that public services should be organised to meet them. This requires resources, but it also requires a willingness to design services around people rather than expecting people to fit the administrative convenience of services. Most importantly, it requires a different understanding of the relationship between individuals and society.

I think that is what is missing from much of the debate about autism. We are discussing the boundaries of a diagnostic category without sufficiently questioning the social and economic assumptions that make those boundaries so consequential.

We are asking who qualifies as different without asking why difference is so difficult to accommodate. And we are debating who deserves support without adequately questioning why support should be treated as a scarce privilege rather than a normal feature of a society organised around human need.

That means that there is a deeper philosophical issue here. I am suggesting that human beings are not interchangeable units of production. We are individuals with different abilities, limitations, experiences, relationships and aspirations. We do not all understand the world in the same way. We do not all communicate in the same way. We do not all respond to the same environments or find satisfaction in the same activities. Nor, absolutely vitally in my opinion, should we be expected to.

Our relationships with one another are not simply competitive. They are also reciprocal. We depend upon each other, contribute to each other’s wellbeing and create society through those relationships. An economic system that fails to recognise this misunderstands something fundamental about human existence.

That matters for neurotypical people as much as it does for autistic people. The demand for constant productivity, competition, adaptability and conformity can diminish everyone’s capacity to live a fulfilling life. Autistic people may expose the consequences of those demands particularly clearly, but the underlying problem is shared.

This is why I think the debate Harris describes should be understood in a much wider context. The scientific questions about autism are important. We need credible diagnoses, better research in some areas, greater understanding of individual differences and appropriate support for people whose needs vary enormously. But we also need to recognise that diagnosis takes place within a society whose expectations are not neutral. Those expectations reflect pre-disposed political and economic choices. They can be changed.

The fundamental question

That then brings me to what I think is the fundamental question. Should human beings be required to adapt themselves to the needs of an economic system, or should the economic system be organised to meet the needs of human beings?

Neoliberalism has tended to prioritise the former. I believe we should prioritise the latter.

That does not mean denying disability, dismissing scientific evidence or pretending that every difference can be accommodated without difficulty. It means recognising that the purpose of an economy is to enable people to live well, with dignity, security, opportunity and respect for their differences. It also means accepting that no single model of human behaviour can adequately describe the diversity of people who make up society.

Harris concludes his article by quoting Francesca Happé’s hope that the debate might become one in which people assume goodwill and are willing to listen to those with whom they disagree. I agree with her, but I would go further.

We need not only to listen to people whose experiences differ from our own. We need to create an economy and society in which those differences are recognised as an ordinary part of being human.

That is not simply an issue for autistic people. It is an issue for everyone. And it is, ultimately, a question about the kind of society we want to create.

Jacqueline Murphy contributed to my thinking on this issue. 

Speaking on LBC’s Cross Question programme on Wednesday, she discussed what ending neoliberalism might mean. I came across the conversation via a social media clip and had to check what she said, which was, in the context of the Budget:

He said, we’re going to end neoliberalism. And what does that mean? That means you take the private sector out of, you know, every aspect of our life and our public services.

I disagree. Ending neoliberalism does not mean ending the private sector. The two things are simply not the same. In fact, confusing them is what philosophers call a category error. That means treating two fundamentally different things as interchangeable when they are not.

The private sector is a part of the economy. It includes businesses, from the smallest sole trader to the largest multinational corporation.

Neoliberalism, by contrast, is a political and economic ideology. It is the politics of austerity. In economics, it is the belief that private businesses and markets do things better than governments, and that making profits matters more than meeting people’s needs. In practice, this means cutting public spending, privatising public services, reducing regulation and keeping taxes low, especially for the wealthy.

The private sector and neoliberalism are, then,  very different things. Some in the private sector might be neoliberal. At the same time, many neoliberals have never worked in a business and have no idea what they are talking about. There is, then, no perfect overlap between the two. It would be wrong to imply otherwise.

You can have a thriving private sector without neoliberalism. A properly functioning mixed economy requires one. I think that is essential.

Equally, neoliberalism depends heavily on government intervention, as I argue in the morning's video.  Governments create markets, enforce property rights, protect financial interests, subsidise businesses and frequently rescue them when things go wrong. Neoliberalism has never meant the absence of the state. It means using the state to advance particular economic interests. That distinction is fundamental.

I want to end neoliberalism because I reject the idea that supposedly profit-maximising private businesses should determine how our economy allocates all resources. This is because, firstly, in reality no one knows how to maximise profit, making this idea a work of fiction when applied in the real world, and secondly, this idea becomes an excuse for the creation of deep inequality in our society.

But that does not mean I want to end private enterprise, and I admit I have no idea why Faiza Shaheen would say that she does.  I have no problem with private businesses flourishing when they meet real needs, obey the law, provide decent employment, innovate, contribute to society and respect the communities that host their activities, as many do.

At the same time, I also want government to recognise that markets cannot, and should not, determine all outcomes in society. Public services, economic security, environmental protection and the distribution of wealth require political choices based on public purpose, not simply the pursuit of profit.

Getting this right really matters, and if we define neoliberalism as the existence of private business, we make the case against it unnecessarily difficult. Worse, we allow its defenders to suggest that anyone opposing neoliberalism must also oppose business, enterprise and economic freedom. That is simply untrue.

The real question is not whether the private sector should exist. Of course it should. The question is who the economy should serve, who should have power within it, and what responsibilities we owe each other. That is the debate we need to have, and we will not have it successfully if we confuse neoliberalism with the private sector.

I was sorry to hear Faiza Shaheen make the mistake that she did on LBC.  To claim that opposing the corrupting influence of neoliberal thinking requires the removal of the private sector from all aspects of our lives is just wrong.