Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Labour Party. Show all posts

18 May 2017

Radicals | What Thatcher and Corbyn have in common

By encouraging people to buy their own home and maybe a few shares in the newly privatised water and energy companies, Margaret Thatcher made little capitalists of us all, but today, the very system Margaret Thatcher thought would popularise her version of capitalism, has in practice, created a situation where most people can no longer afford to get a foot on the property ladder, or find a reasonably priced property to rent.  
 
 
Thirty years on and there's another kick in the teeth is on it's way in the form of the Conservative Party's Social Plan. The very same people that bought into the Thatcher dream are getting older and now find that the Conservatives they voted for want to steal the house they urged them to buy in the first place. The idea is to use the money to pay for NHS and Social Care two key public services that homeowners thought that they had already paid for throughout their working lives. 
I was one of those that fell for Thatcher's Property Owning Democracy argument in the 70s and 80s. Why? Well, I think it's because I didn't realise, at the time, how entrenched and so tightly in control of the economy the wealthiest at the pinnacle of our hierarchical system are? As a young man in my 20s, I thought that by voting for Maggie Thatcher ordinary people like me could somehow rise up and challenge the system? Some have made it to the top, but only a precious few, and, in the UK, as in the US, many working people have been left behind economically, hopelessly watching as the weath of those front of them, shoots off into the stratosphere. 

Inequality really matters to people because, quite apart from it being perceived as unfair, it also damages the economy in the long-run because people lose the will to work. They just never get ahead. Day-to-day struggling to stay in the same position. With average wages falling behind the rate at which prices are rising in the shops, prospects are actually getting worse. UK levels of inequality are now so great that I don't think that dog-eat-dog style of capitalism will produce many more Alan Sugars, or Richard Bransons. There simply isn't enough capital for them to get hold of anymore because it's pretty much all controlled at the top. I'd go even further and say that so hopeless do people feel about their prospects of challenging the elite, that there is a grave danger that people will continue to look behind them to see if there are easier targets to squeeze to improve their lot. The low paid getting benefits, the disabled, the asylum seeker and the much maligned Johnny Foreigner.
This backward looking attack on the vulnerable, because changing things at the top is thought too radical, even impossible, we have experienced a dramatic rise of UK, US and EU Nationalism. Put simply, the task of upsetting the system, bolstered in part and managed, by the capitalist owned press, the vast majority of people no longer believe they have a hope in hell of getting a fairer crack of the whip. To make a difference in our lives I believe we are looking in the wrong place for the problem. We shouldn't take comfort for our lot by hitting out at scapegoats and instead, have the courage to face the real threat to our collective standard of living, which is the interlocked, embedded and widely accepted power of Britain's ruling few - the land owners the fat-cat CEO's earning ten, or even twenty times average earnings at the same time as reducing rights to trade union representation and national collective pay bargaining that help secure better pay across the board.

To reduce inequality in the UK, to make things better for everyone, we need structural change, not a return to the over unionised 1970s, but nonetheless, a change in how we perhaps too easily accept that those in control know what's best for us. Above all, we need to radically rethink how things should done as a community, and try to resist the temptation to view our society as a series of self-interested individuals as Margaret Thatcher appeared to want us to become all those years ago.
At no time since 1983, have the British people had a better chance at a General Election to work towards a more equal and prosperous society. "Greater worker insecurity" (in the words of the Federal Reserve Chairman, Alan Greenspan) was once believed to drive a capitalist economy forwards, but the system isn't working for everyone and we need a radical change of ideology, a paradigm shift. Twenty-first century Britain needs to find something as equally radical as Thatcherism to counteract an unthinking, over- marketised and failing economic system. Jeremy Corbyn, like Margaret Thatcher, is a radical, but unlike the arch, near religious, free marketeer she was, Corbyn will insist that people are paid properly, are treated fairly at work and, unlike Maggie's favourite economist Alan Greenspan, rather than increasing "worker insecurity" to help the UK compete with China, India and their ilk, will get rid of Zero Hours Contracts. You never know, maybe with security at work, UK plc will do better under a radical, Corbyn led, Labour Government than his critics in the press can imagine possible?


Conservative Party Manifesto 
Labour's Manifesto 2017
UK Equality Trust
World Wealth Inequality

29 January 2017

Judge Trump on "what he does" says Pope Francis

When Pope Francis was asked how he felt about Donald Trump's inauguration he said: "We will see what he [Donald Trump] does and judge accordingly". Later, in the same interview with El Pais, Pope Francis talked about Adolf Hitler and his political uprising in Germany in 1933. I couldn't help thinking that the pontiff was trying to draw a parallel between the two leaders?

The forgotten modern day Americans, left behind by the political status quo, may well be craving a saviour as millions of Germans did in the 1930s, but can Trump's meteoric rise, anymore than Hitler's, be attributed to the inspirational ability of one man alone?

Remarkable leaders have a habit of emerging when the need arises: Winston Churchill stepped in to save Britain from Hitler in 1940 who himself had been elected to save Germany from the Weimar Republic and economic oblivion in 1933 and so it is for America in 2017 that Donald Trump has appeared to save America from a thirty-five year Bush-Clinton political dynasty that has, from George Bush senior as Vice President in 1981 to Hilary Clinton, as Obama's Sectary of State until 2016, put a Bush, or a Clinton in the top three most influential political positions in United States government. Agree with Churchill, Hitler and Trump, or not, these strong leaders rose to power because there was a perceived political need for them to do so and, make no mistake about it, no politician can rise to the top of a democracy without significant popular and institutional support for radical change.


The rise of Donald Trump, the far right National Front in France, UKIP, with it's 4 million UK votes and the Labour Party’s return to grass-roots left-wing social activism through Jeremy Corbyn, is evidence of a political need to correct social imbalances created by decades of largely unregulated economic systems. It may well be that in the US, through Donald Trump, that the establishment has the collective wisdom to recognise the impending and potentially calamitous probability of political rebellion and, because of the fear of losing it's position at the top, will, temporarily, organise the sharing out America’s colossal wealth a bit more evenly.

My point is that it's not men like Adolf Hitler, or Donald Trump that the ruling elite have to worry about - it's failing socio-economic systems. Pope Francis is right to warn about the rise of fascism, but no one man, or woman, is sufficiently clever to single handedly mobilise millions of people and overthrow a modern day political system anymore than it was possible for a single French, or Russian subject to reverse 100s of years of absolute monarchy.  The way I see it, it's the failure of government to tackle wealth inequality and the feelings of unfairness that ultimately results in rebellion, civil war and the overthrow of the ruling elite.

Put it another way, there are optimistic signs that, particularly in the US, of an acknowledgement that the only safe way to avoid creeping world-wide fascism is for the owners of capital (i.e. the people who actually control the a country's political and economic affairs) to instruct the government to administer the provision of adequate food, shelter and employment for its entire people. This is what Donald Trump said as he was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States of America:

"For too long, a small group in our nation's capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have born the cost. Washington flourished, but the people did not share in its wealth. Politicians prospered, but the jobs left and the factories closed. The establishment protected itself, but not the citizens of our country. Their victories have not been your victories. Their triumphs have not been your triumphs and, while they celebrated in our nation's capital, there was little to celebrate for struggling families all across our land..." Donald Trump, Inauguration Speech, Friday 13th January 2017.

In a civilised country a more even allocation of wealth should be a basic human right. Pope Francis appears to agree with this when he said: "I am worried about the economic inequalities in the world: the fact that a small group of humans has over 80% of the world's wealth..." Allocation of wealth is determined largely by what the establishment calculates they can get away with, but strange as it may seem, I believe that Donald Trump is the part of an political agenda that accepts the probability that if nothing is done to re-balance a world economy that concentrates 98% of the world’s wealth in the hands of 2% of the population, the ruling elite run the risk that the wars they fight to maintain their place at the top will no longer be fought in faraway lands, but much closer to home and they could, like the French and Russian ruling monarchies before them, lose the lot.

22 September 2015

Corby-phobia and the Daddy-Knows-Best Tories

There's been a lot of chit-chat on Social Media lately speculating why the Mainstream Press won't back Corbyn. There's even speculation among the political classes whether the left-leaning Guardian think it's possible that a Corbyn led Labour Party can win a General Election, so what's going on?  

While no one should underestimate the Mainstream Press's  ability to steer public opinion away from anything remotely anti-establishment, I think there's something else going on within people that explains the aversion to an alternative voice. A psychological something so powerful that many feel unable to turn away from the percieved safety of Conservative Party paternalism. 

For large numbers of voters, the Conservative Party seems to act as a kind of universal comfort blanket used to protect those too timid to allow themselves to think about the malign forces, operating behind closed doors, that organise their lives.  Put simply, it appears to me that too many people are hopelessly happy to leave political affairs to others. It's as if, justice, equality and fairness are non of their business and instead they seek solace in the Daddy-Knows-Best paternalism that David Cameron and the Conservative Party do so well. 

The difficult circumstances people find themselves following the austerity policies of the Conservative Party, rather than causing them to rise up and challenge the system, actually seems to make people cling on even tighter. To the cap-wringing and hopelessly deferential, middle income Tory voter, maybe struggling to run a new business, automatically accepts the decisions "their" Party makes without properly considering the alternative point of view. The way I see it, the difficulty the Labour Party under Jeremy Corbyn faces, is that any idea, or individual articulating opinions in opposition to the status quo, triggers a knee-jerk reaction that, not only stiffles the ideas, it kills rational argument stone dead. Whether it's Jeremy Corbyn choosing not to sing God Save the Queen, or more serious issues, like contracting out National Health Services to private business, alternative opinions trigger a kind of phobia that's going to be very difficult for the Labour Party to extinguish. 

If the Labour Party are to be elected in 2020, it's leadership and their grass-roots supporters need to stick to the arguments, renounce New Labour, forget all about Blair and the Millibands, and I am sure that, day-by-day, the phobic reaction and the aversion to real change in Britain will soften. Only then, in my view, will the value of the policies of Jeremy Corbyn be acknowledged and more generally accepted by the public, if not the Conservative controlled press. 

More on: Jeremy Corbyn and the Labour Party

14 September 2015

What's your question to the Prime Minister?

Jeremy Corbyn, the leader of the Labour Party, is embarking on a new style of politics that actively seeks to do something that politicians really ought to have be doing all along - represent the people.

I remember picking up my first politics text book in the 80s and it informing me that politics is about two things: government and representation. The trouble is that, when I listen to David Cameron he sounds too much like an old fashioned English aristocrat, a man who believes we should trust him to do what's best for us and, frankly, let him get on with it.

This is the way Conservatives do government, it's a political movement that attracts people that prefer politicians to do their thinking for them and are more than happy to defer to the views and obey those, that appear so "naturally" born to rule.

Well, I disagree, David Cameron doesn't know best for me and after failing to win the votes of more than 25% of the people in 2010, has no right, in my view, to impose "what's best" for the vast swathe of individuals, over 75% of which didn't vote Conservative at all.

Jeremy Corbyn is trying to put this failure of our political system, our democracy's failure to adequately represent the people, right. With clever use of technology and social media, Jeremy Corbyn is reaching out to everyone and asking them for their opinions. Put simply, the newly-elected Labour leader believes that he will be in a better position to represent the people in Parliament if he knows what they think. Jeremy Corbyn asks: What do you want to ask David Cameron?  Jeremy will then use your question to inform what he asks the Prime Minister in public and live on TV every Wednesday. If you miss the live BBC broadcast at 12.00 - 12:30pm on Wednesday 16th September I'll upload it here for you:


So, what do I think Jeremy Corbyn should ask the Prime Minister in Parliament tomorrow? Perhaps the trickiest issue of all for the Labour Party and the country at the moment, is whether we should renew the Trident bomb. The cost  to the taxpayer of this nuclear upgrade is 100bn?  To help us decide whether this is good use of public money I have suggested this question for the Prime Minister:

If you want to find out more about Prime Minister's Questions you can find out more here: What is Prime Minster's Questions about:

2 June 2015

Owen Jones | A truthful voice for a change...

Owen Jones | A future Labour leader?
"We have Benefits Street, we don't have Bankers' Street, or Tax Avoidance Street..." Owen Jones.

If the Labour Party, ever again, has the courage to be honest with the British people about the way our lives are organised in the interest of the owners of capital by a tiny group of unaccountable business, political and media elites then I believe Owen Jones will be the next successful Labour leader.



Read articles by Owen Jones

More Politics