What should Labour's political economy be? In my contribution to "hot essay summer", I argue that Labour should define itself as pro-work, and anti-slop. Good work is productive, the best that slop can be is distracting. Slop gives the impression of frenetic activity, but without creation of real value. This turns out to be a pretty good description of Britain's economy. We've created an economy of rent-seekers and extractors rather than risk-takers and builders. I look at: 🍬 tax-avoiding American candy stores that crowd Oxford Street 📖 the 44,000 page planning document for Sizewell C (33 times longer than War and Peace) 🚄 the unbuilt railway that cost £100 billion 🏦 the cheapening of designs in our public spaces 🏗️ "fire safety" rent seeking that is stopping homes being built The common theme is slop. To escape this, Labour needs a plan to take on slop-generating tech companies, but also other rent-seekers throughout the economy that have made it impossible (or very costly) to build anything of value. Labour was founded to represent workers in the tangible economy: those who were physically building things. Today, 37% of British workers do not believe that their job makes a “meaningful contribution to the world”. Whoever leads Labour must have an answer to this, and it begins with tackling slop. Read the full piece here: substack.com/home/post/p-201…