Appreciate your response. Navigating politics with an open mind is tough, especially with social media reinforcing biases. Feeling politically homeless is something many relate to, pragmatism over ideology feels rare. Truth feels contested, but staying engaged matters. And hey, failing upwards is still progress, I guess. Thanks, and enjoy the rest of your day.
Great response, thanks. I'm not yet quite as hostile to Matt Goodwin, but have seen an increasingly disappointing slip into the various rabbit holes where he now seems to be spending his time. Not so long ago I think he would have taken a wider, more rational and balanced view. But, no longer it seems, and some of his short posts now scream clickbait. But back to the subject. I think we probably agree on key overall themes but maybe differ on possible solutions and if I'm honest my own views have changed over the last 12 months or so as I've taken an ever keener interest in politics and SM - though I've always been interested in politics previously - and many years ago did a degree in social sciences. I've just had more time! It's an interesting experience because I have felt myself slipping into the whole thought / bias reinforcement cycle on SM and try to pull back when I do and remain objective. But at some point you have to make value judgements, which I've been thinking about a lot. I guess you'd say I've been traditionally old school left wing leaning but have found myself alienated from what now seems to be considered left wing, and certainly from the Labour Party as it now is - although Corbyn was worse than Starmer. I think I've become what some may call a conservative liberal though I'm now politically homeless. And far away from both the Tories and Reform. I feel like there is a new political reality in many areas of what I would previously have considered our liberal democracy (including whether we really understand what a liberal democracy now is, or needs to be) - but equally the more you think and learn about politics and the UK's political history the more you realise virtually nothing is well planned, well run or well delivered! Perhaps I'm just an older, slightly wiser political realist who wants to see important issues faced up to, discussed openly in all aspects and resolved - or if not resolved, for us collectively at least to have a clearer more honest view.
Good read, like many of your others. Thanks for the time you're putting in. Serious question back to you - whilst agreeing with the main thrust of your article and wider context etc what do you make of Labour's self destruction on winter heating and farmers CGT to save, relatively speaking, very small amounts - but at the same time arguably amounts misaligned with the foreign aid budget? Ie why not trim foreign a little (the same amount) and keep voters and press onside at these early stages?
Thanks for your thoughtful response, you’ve raised an important point. Labour’s early policy choices, particularly on Winter Fuel Payments and farmers’ inheritance tax, are politically risky and poorly communicated. Even if these changes make some fiscal sense, the optics are awful, and Goodwin knows exactly how to exploit that.
But that’s precisely the issue. His article wasn’t about serious fiscal debate, it was about feeding public anger while avoiding the real economic question: why are we always debating where to cut, rather than who should pay more in?
Goodwin thrives on misdirection. He riles up frustration about government spending, but never once addresses why Britain’s finances are in this position to begin with. Instead, he uses classic populist scapegoating: blame foreign aid, welfare spending, and progressive initiatives, rather than asking why billionaires, corporations, and financial elites continue to benefit from a system that disproportionately burdens working people.
This is the oldest trick in the book. Instead of a real discussion about wealth distribution and fair taxation, Goodwin delivers a neatly packaged enemy, one that stokes nationalistic sentiment and fuels resentment without ever challenging the people who actually hold economic power. While he shouts about foreign aid, he never mentions the billions lost to corporate tax avoidance, the influence of money in politics, or how decades of economic policy have prioritised the interests of the ultra-wealthy over those of ordinary taxpayers. He won’t ask why billionaires and multinational corporations continue to enjoy tax loopholes while pensioners lose their winter heating support. He won’t ask why the tax burden keeps shifting downward while wealth accumulates at the top. That would require him to challenge the very structures that sustain the economic imbalance he pretends to be angry about.
Labour has only made it easier for Goodwin to push this narrative. The decision to cut Winter Fuel Payments while keeping the foreign aid budget fully intact was a communications failure. The tax changes on family farms might have been well-intentioned but, without a clear strategy to soften the blow, they have allowed the right to frame the issue as an attack on rural communities. None of this exists in isolation, but Labour has failed to defend its choices effectively, making it easy for Goodwin to paint a picture of betrayal.
The real conversation we should be having isn’t about whether to cut foreign aid or domestic welfare. It’s about why the successive governments have not collected enough revenue from those who actually have the money. Instead of squeezing pensioners and farmers, the priority should be closing corporate tax loopholes, ensuring billionaires contribute fairly, and addressing the inefficiencies in government spending that allow waste to pile up in areas that never make the populist headlines.
That’s what makes Goodwin’s argument so insidious. He doesn’t actually want to talk about ensuring billionaires contribute fairly. He wants to create an easy villain, a shallow but emotionally charged enemy that directs public frustration anywhere except the people truly benefiting from the current system. He thrives on anger, not solutions.
Labour’s mistake isn’t just in policy, it’s in allowing this kind of rhetoric to dominate the conversation. A serious government should be able to explain why tax policy needs reform, why social protections matter, and why tackling economic inequality at its source is more important than making reactionary cuts that only fuel resentment. Instead, they’ve left themselves open to attacks that, while disingenuous, resonate because they tap into real frustration.
That’s why I don’t buy Goodwin’s argument. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. It’s about weaponising economic anxiety for clicks, not solutions.
Would love to hear your perspective, where did you see common ground prior to my reply? And what do you think Labour (or past governments) could have done differently?
Appreciate your response. Navigating politics with an open mind is tough, especially with social media reinforcing biases. Feeling politically homeless is something many relate to, pragmatism over ideology feels rare. Truth feels contested, but staying engaged matters. And hey, failing upwards is still progress, I guess. Thanks, and enjoy the rest of your day.
Great response, thanks. I'm not yet quite as hostile to Matt Goodwin, but have seen an increasingly disappointing slip into the various rabbit holes where he now seems to be spending his time. Not so long ago I think he would have taken a wider, more rational and balanced view. But, no longer it seems, and some of his short posts now scream clickbait. But back to the subject. I think we probably agree on key overall themes but maybe differ on possible solutions and if I'm honest my own views have changed over the last 12 months or so as I've taken an ever keener interest in politics and SM - though I've always been interested in politics previously - and many years ago did a degree in social sciences. I've just had more time! It's an interesting experience because I have felt myself slipping into the whole thought / bias reinforcement cycle on SM and try to pull back when I do and remain objective. But at some point you have to make value judgements, which I've been thinking about a lot. I guess you'd say I've been traditionally old school left wing leaning but have found myself alienated from what now seems to be considered left wing, and certainly from the Labour Party as it now is - although Corbyn was worse than Starmer. I think I've become what some may call a conservative liberal though I'm now politically homeless. And far away from both the Tories and Reform. I feel like there is a new political reality in many areas of what I would previously have considered our liberal democracy (including whether we really understand what a liberal democracy now is, or needs to be) - but equally the more you think and learn about politics and the UK's political history the more you realise virtually nothing is well planned, well run or well delivered! Perhaps I'm just an older, slightly wiser political realist who wants to see important issues faced up to, discussed openly in all aspects and resolved - or if not resolved, for us collectively at least to have a clearer more honest view.
Good read, like many of your others. Thanks for the time you're putting in. Serious question back to you - whilst agreeing with the main thrust of your article and wider context etc what do you make of Labour's self destruction on winter heating and farmers CGT to save, relatively speaking, very small amounts - but at the same time arguably amounts misaligned with the foreign aid budget? Ie why not trim foreign a little (the same amount) and keep voters and press onside at these early stages?
Thanks for your thoughtful response, you’ve raised an important point. Labour’s early policy choices, particularly on Winter Fuel Payments and farmers’ inheritance tax, are politically risky and poorly communicated. Even if these changes make some fiscal sense, the optics are awful, and Goodwin knows exactly how to exploit that.
But that’s precisely the issue. His article wasn’t about serious fiscal debate, it was about feeding public anger while avoiding the real economic question: why are we always debating where to cut, rather than who should pay more in?
Goodwin thrives on misdirection. He riles up frustration about government spending, but never once addresses why Britain’s finances are in this position to begin with. Instead, he uses classic populist scapegoating: blame foreign aid, welfare spending, and progressive initiatives, rather than asking why billionaires, corporations, and financial elites continue to benefit from a system that disproportionately burdens working people.
This is the oldest trick in the book. Instead of a real discussion about wealth distribution and fair taxation, Goodwin delivers a neatly packaged enemy, one that stokes nationalistic sentiment and fuels resentment without ever challenging the people who actually hold economic power. While he shouts about foreign aid, he never mentions the billions lost to corporate tax avoidance, the influence of money in politics, or how decades of economic policy have prioritised the interests of the ultra-wealthy over those of ordinary taxpayers. He won’t ask why billionaires and multinational corporations continue to enjoy tax loopholes while pensioners lose their winter heating support. He won’t ask why the tax burden keeps shifting downward while wealth accumulates at the top. That would require him to challenge the very structures that sustain the economic imbalance he pretends to be angry about.
Labour has only made it easier for Goodwin to push this narrative. The decision to cut Winter Fuel Payments while keeping the foreign aid budget fully intact was a communications failure. The tax changes on family farms might have been well-intentioned but, without a clear strategy to soften the blow, they have allowed the right to frame the issue as an attack on rural communities. None of this exists in isolation, but Labour has failed to defend its choices effectively, making it easy for Goodwin to paint a picture of betrayal.
The real conversation we should be having isn’t about whether to cut foreign aid or domestic welfare. It’s about why the successive governments have not collected enough revenue from those who actually have the money. Instead of squeezing pensioners and farmers, the priority should be closing corporate tax loopholes, ensuring billionaires contribute fairly, and addressing the inefficiencies in government spending that allow waste to pile up in areas that never make the populist headlines.
That’s what makes Goodwin’s argument so insidious. He doesn’t actually want to talk about ensuring billionaires contribute fairly. He wants to create an easy villain, a shallow but emotionally charged enemy that directs public frustration anywhere except the people truly benefiting from the current system. He thrives on anger, not solutions.
Labour’s mistake isn’t just in policy, it’s in allowing this kind of rhetoric to dominate the conversation. A serious government should be able to explain why tax policy needs reform, why social protections matter, and why tackling economic inequality at its source is more important than making reactionary cuts that only fuel resentment. Instead, they’ve left themselves open to attacks that, while disingenuous, resonate because they tap into real frustration.
That’s why I don’t buy Goodwin’s argument. It’s not about fiscal responsibility. It’s about weaponising economic anxiety for clicks, not solutions.
Would love to hear your perspective, where did you see common ground prior to my reply? And what do you think Labour (or past governments) could have done differently?