Britain’s Political Economy is Changing. Labour needs to become relevant.

A couple of weeks ago I wrote how globalisation itself was fraying, driven partially by the rising political anger of its losers. The people who live under the “elephant trunk”.

It’s been clear for a while that the tensions between globalisations winners and losers in the UK — tensions papered over for a couple do decades by easy credit — are rising. After Thursday’s vote, those tensions can’t be ignored.

Yesterday I set out a scenario for how the next few months might play out.

The exact specifics here could well be wrong. But it is now clear as day that Labour has a UKIP problem.

That is itself driven by the rise of “open vs closed economy” as a major political split.

Bloomberg’s very smart Rob Hutton summed in up in 8 tweets.

I worry this is right. That British politics is splitting into open vs closed — the 48 vs the 52.

It could end up looking at bit like Polish politics a centre right, pro openness party facing a further right, nativist closed party.

I think that future of politics looks grim. Labour irrelevant.

But then there’s Rob’s last tweet.

This is what I was getting at, in my post two weeks ago:

the world needs to relearn an old lesson: if you want global capitalism to succeed then it needs to come with a big dose of social democracy.

Or in these tweets:

If open vs closed is a new important cleavage in British politics — then the correct response isn’t to pick a side, it’s to forge a coalition of globalisation’s winners and its losers based on economic openness and redistribution.

Labour has to make itself relevant to post referendum politics. It should be setting out on a different path — one that recognises the virtues of economic openness whilst promising to share the benefits far more widely.

I’m afraid this path seems very unlikely with the current leadership.

Show your support

Clapping shows how much you appreciated Duncan Weldon’s story.