Yesterday the Independent published an article that claimed Jeremy Corbyn (inexplicably, they seemed to have omitted the customary 'far left' that precedes his name) wished to restore Clause IV, the commitment to “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.”
They published the interview under the not-exaclt-ambivalent headline, "Jermey Corbyn to Bring Back Clause IV."
Clause IV was removed from the Labour Party constitution under Tony Blair.
The Indie interview makes it clear that Corbyn was asked directly if he wanted to restore Clause IV. A direct question. He didn't bring it up himself, he was asked about it.
He said, in response, “I think we should talk about what the objectives of the party are, whether that’s restoring clause IV as it was originally written or it’s a different one. But we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways.”
I think it is bloody refreshing that he answered the question openly, and didn't prevaricate in a Blairite manner.
As for his answer, he said he wants a discussion about how Labour should approach public ownership - whether it is the return of the old clause IV or a new version. He doesn't actually indicate his preference, or even if he supports either the old or a new version of Clause IV, merely saying, "we shouldn’t shy away from public participation, public investment in industry and public control of the railways."
That's a long, long way away from a commitment to “common ownership of the means of production, distribution and exchange.”
A statement has been released from Camp Corbyn to clarify his position following the Indie's insanist headline. The Mail, of course, immediately proclaimed this to be a 'backtrack'.
The Blairites and the right are gnashing their teeth like anything over Corbyn's popularity.
They must be frustrated that they can't find any other dirt on him. He's not a hypocrite, unlike Blair; he's not prone to Lear like rages, unlike Brown; even though his climate change denying brother Piers could probably do with a bit of back-stabbing, Corbyn can't be accused of that; and he's scrupulously honest and frugal with his expenses claims.
Even the "terrorist sympathiser" doesn't seem to be sticking. Because, I suspect, most people are happier with the uneasy compromise in Ulster and would probably have had it sooner; and can see that talking to Hamas, like talking to the IRA, might be an unpleasant but necessary step. A bit like talking to the Israeli government, in fact.
They must be fuming.
Showing posts with label Socialism stuff. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Socialism stuff. Show all posts
Monday, 10 August 2015
Monday, 13 July 2015
British Labour - what's the point of it?
So, Harriet Harman has indicated that the British Labour Party should not oppose the government's programme of cuts and caps, which are designed to leave the poorest - even the working poor - worse off.
Let's just pause to consider that statement again. The first unalloyed Conservative budget in 19 years. And the Labour Party will accept it without demur. Even though it is calculated it will hack over 10% out of the income of a family on £20,000.
Harman's justification is that the voters have rejected the alternatives offered by Labour twice, with catastrophic defeats in 2010 and 2015.
If Labour was seriously defeated, so was the government on an ideological level. Thatcher commanded 44% of the vote in 1979. The share won by Cameron is almost the same as Ted heath won in 1974, when the Conservatives were DEFEATED. If Labour is a spent force, so is Conservative.
After all, in a fight over the 'floating voters' in the Conservative camp, the likes of the Mail and the Sun are going to support the Tories in almost every situation. And if the Labour Party does manage to ape the Tories sufficiently well to win the support of the right wing media ... well, we saw how that ended up.
A decade of Blairism was a de facto Tory hegemony for 18 years, followed by the facto version from 2015. The biggest loss of the Blair years, democratically speaking, was the failure to revitalise and energise their voters as a social democratic force, voting positively for a strong, fair and just society. Instead it was taken for granted, neglected and frittered away, until in the end it simply refused to turn up or looked elsewhere for representation.
Three of the leadership candidates have voiced opposition to Harman's attempt to drive the Labour party further into oblivion - Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper have signalled disagreement, though they might be more convincing if they were to stand by these principles and quit the Shadow Cabinet, rather than remaining in. After all, it is easy enough to say you oppose something, far harder to actually do something about it. We've really had enough of politicians mouthing platitudes, chaps. Hitting the poor is not something the Labour Party should be doing, and if you are really opposed to it, then quit the Shadow Cabinet.
Jeremy Corbyn, of course, has the advantage of being the perennial outsider here, and has spoked pretty forthrightly about it:
I think opposition to child poverty would be a profoundly good thing to campaign on. People actually understand fairness when it concerns children. Not many people - not even the 1 in 6 of the electorate who voted for the government, are in favour of child impoverishment. They voted for the Conservatives because they thought it was the better option for Britain; no-one thinks pushing children into poverty is good for the country, however.
Perhaps, in a way, Harman is right. Perhaps she - and several others - should heed her own advice. Labour has been twice rejected. On both occasions they were campaigning as Tory lite, the nicer version of the nasty party. They were rejected,by their core vote, for being too like the Tories, and by the contestable vote for loking like a bunch of hollow, hypocritical chancers.
Maybe Harman should go, and take the revenants of the Blair / Brown years with her and let that strategic blunder fade from memory. Maybe more people will be inclined to vote for the party if they aren't constantly being reminded why they grew to hate it in the first place.
Let's just pause to consider that statement again. The first unalloyed Conservative budget in 19 years. And the Labour Party will accept it without demur. Even though it is calculated it will hack over 10% out of the income of a family on £20,000.
Harman's justification is that the voters have rejected the alternatives offered by Labour twice, with catastrophic defeats in 2010 and 2015.
Labour will not vote against the government’s welfare bill and should not oppose limiting child tax credits to two children, the party’s interim leader, Harriet Harman, has said, provoking a storm of criticism including from some its leadership candidates.Only, of course, the voters did no such thing. In 2015, two thirds of the electorate cast a ballot, and of that two thirds, just over a third cast voted Conservative. Three quarters of the electorate either passive or actively refused to endorse this government, and the Labour Party would do far better appeal to them, rather than competing with the Conservatives for a sliver of the quarter that did.
She said Labour should also not oppose certain conditions in the planned cap on household welfare benefits.
The party simply could not tell the public they were wrong after two general election defeats in a row, she said, adding it had been defeated because it had not been trusted on the economy or benefits.
In what was clearly designed as a watershed interview on the BBC’s Sunday Politics show, Harman seemed intent on shaking the party out of what she fears is a reversion to its comfort zone after election defeat. “We cannot simply say to the public you were wrong at the election,” she said. “We’ve got to wake up and recognise that this was not a blip; we’ve had a serious defeat and we must listen to why.”
If Labour was seriously defeated, so was the government on an ideological level. Thatcher commanded 44% of the vote in 1979. The share won by Cameron is almost the same as Ted heath won in 1974, when the Conservatives were DEFEATED. If Labour is a spent force, so is Conservative.
After all, in a fight over the 'floating voters' in the Conservative camp, the likes of the Mail and the Sun are going to support the Tories in almost every situation. And if the Labour Party does manage to ape the Tories sufficiently well to win the support of the right wing media ... well, we saw how that ended up.
A decade of Blairism was a de facto Tory hegemony for 18 years, followed by the facto version from 2015. The biggest loss of the Blair years, democratically speaking, was the failure to revitalise and energise their voters as a social democratic force, voting positively for a strong, fair and just society. Instead it was taken for granted, neglected and frittered away, until in the end it simply refused to turn up or looked elsewhere for representation.
Three of the leadership candidates have voiced opposition to Harman's attempt to drive the Labour party further into oblivion - Andy Burnham and Yvette Cooper have signalled disagreement, though they might be more convincing if they were to stand by these principles and quit the Shadow Cabinet, rather than remaining in. After all, it is easy enough to say you oppose something, far harder to actually do something about it. We've really had enough of politicians mouthing platitudes, chaps. Hitting the poor is not something the Labour Party should be doing, and if you are really opposed to it, then quit the Shadow Cabinet.
Jeremy Corbyn, of course, has the advantage of being the perennial outsider here, and has spoked pretty forthrightly about it:
If it is proposed that Labour MPs are being asked to vote for the government’s plans to cut benefits to families, I am not willing to vote for policies that will push more children into poverty. Families are suffering enough. We shouldn’t play the government’s political games when the welfare of children is at stake.Frighteningly, the perennial outsider os starting to sound more and more like the voice of sanity in the shambles that is the Labour Party.
I think opposition to child poverty would be a profoundly good thing to campaign on. People actually understand fairness when it concerns children. Not many people - not even the 1 in 6 of the electorate who voted for the government, are in favour of child impoverishment. They voted for the Conservatives because they thought it was the better option for Britain; no-one thinks pushing children into poverty is good for the country, however.
Perhaps, in a way, Harman is right. Perhaps she - and several others - should heed her own advice. Labour has been twice rejected. On both occasions they were campaigning as Tory lite, the nicer version of the nasty party. They were rejected,by their core vote, for being too like the Tories, and by the contestable vote for loking like a bunch of hollow, hypocritical chancers.
Maybe Harman should go, and take the revenants of the Blair / Brown years with her and let that strategic blunder fade from memory. Maybe more people will be inclined to vote for the party if they aren't constantly being reminded why they grew to hate it in the first place.
Saturday, 11 July 2015
Corbyn
It seems the unthinkable is happening and Jeremy Corbyn's quixotic bid for the leadership of the British Labour Party is gaining momentum.
Of course, this is being met with howls of gless rom the right, who are portraying Corbyn as some species of dinosaur that has emerged into the sunlight of the modern world, blinking confusedly and roaring ghastly doctrines of ages past.
Many are claiming (I suspect mendaciously) that they have coughed up the three quid to register as Labour Party supporters with the intention of voting for Corbyn to sabotage Labour's chances in 2020.
(If any are really doing this, they are naive - the knives would be out for Corbyn long before that if he was not succeeding - and the Tories might find themselves confronting the sort of candidate they are trying to block just now. ALso, frankily, if I wanted to sabotage Labour, I'd vote for Andy Burnham - a bit slow, tainted with Blairism, the man rejected in 2010 in favour of Ed Miliband, short ... the opportunities Burnham affords are endless!)
Corbyn would likely appreciate his position in a way Blair did not. He would understand he is at odds with his party. After all, he has been for his entire political career. That's why a Corbyn lead party would not be 1983 all over again.
The Blairites would know they can't stage another SDP style spilt - the example of what has happened to the Lib Dems will warn them off that. Corbyn, if he is smart (and no-one thinks he's stupid, for all some think he's wrong-headed) will run a party based on consensus and finding common ground, rather than imposing the leadership's diktat.
(Though bear in mind 1983 saw the Conservative vote decline, and the combined Labour-SDP vote topped 50%. And Thatcher's 42% of the vote in 1983 seems like a fantasy figure to Cameron and his cabal of unappealing oiks.)
He would not immediately impose collectivism, the nationalisation of corner shops and underwear sharing on the nation. He would have to seek a consensus between the competing ideologies in Labour, which the right wing of the party never had to do after it seized control of the party in the 90s.
It would be a return to a 'first among equals' style of leadership, rather than centrally controlled by a tight clique obsessed with imposing its will on the party.
He wouldn't be able to purge the right, the way Blair purged the left. He'd need to find accommodation and common interest. While a lot of people in Labour disapprove of his opinions, most seem to like the man - so he might well be able to forge such an alliance.
He will of course be vilified in the right wing press. But he's pretty used to that. The problem for the right is that the things they will attack him for are actually solid principles. People will recognise that. And, bluntly, some of the things he'll be attacked for may backfore spectacularly on the Mail and Sun. I imagine he could deal with the Sinn Fein supporter smear simply and directly: "What I advocated in 1984 was policy in 1994. Because of those ten years of intransigence, while mainstream politics caught up, about 850 people were killed. That isn't something to be proud of."
We like principles, even when we don't agree with them. The reason people came to loathe Blair was the perception of hypocrisy - the equivocation on his faith, the wealth, the influence peddling and money worship.
That said, it still seems unlikely he will win. Support for the three neo-Blairite candidates will coalesce as the field of candidates narrows down. And he'll be offered the Deputy Leadership of the party as a sop to the left, as Blair did with John Prescott.
Hopefully, Corbyn would tell them what to do with their sop.
Of course, this is being met with howls of gless rom the right, who are portraying Corbyn as some species of dinosaur that has emerged into the sunlight of the modern world, blinking confusedly and roaring ghastly doctrines of ages past.
Many are claiming (I suspect mendaciously) that they have coughed up the three quid to register as Labour Party supporters with the intention of voting for Corbyn to sabotage Labour's chances in 2020.
(If any are really doing this, they are naive - the knives would be out for Corbyn long before that if he was not succeeding - and the Tories might find themselves confronting the sort of candidate they are trying to block just now. ALso, frankily, if I wanted to sabotage Labour, I'd vote for Andy Burnham - a bit slow, tainted with Blairism, the man rejected in 2010 in favour of Ed Miliband, short ... the opportunities Burnham affords are endless!)
Corbyn would likely appreciate his position in a way Blair did not. He would understand he is at odds with his party. After all, he has been for his entire political career. That's why a Corbyn lead party would not be 1983 all over again.
The Blairites would know they can't stage another SDP style spilt - the example of what has happened to the Lib Dems will warn them off that. Corbyn, if he is smart (and no-one thinks he's stupid, for all some think he's wrong-headed) will run a party based on consensus and finding common ground, rather than imposing the leadership's diktat.
(Though bear in mind 1983 saw the Conservative vote decline, and the combined Labour-SDP vote topped 50%. And Thatcher's 42% of the vote in 1983 seems like a fantasy figure to Cameron and his cabal of unappealing oiks.)
He would not immediately impose collectivism, the nationalisation of corner shops and underwear sharing on the nation. He would have to seek a consensus between the competing ideologies in Labour, which the right wing of the party never had to do after it seized control of the party in the 90s.
It would be a return to a 'first among equals' style of leadership, rather than centrally controlled by a tight clique obsessed with imposing its will on the party.
He wouldn't be able to purge the right, the way Blair purged the left. He'd need to find accommodation and common interest. While a lot of people in Labour disapprove of his opinions, most seem to like the man - so he might well be able to forge such an alliance.
He will of course be vilified in the right wing press. But he's pretty used to that. The problem for the right is that the things they will attack him for are actually solid principles. People will recognise that. And, bluntly, some of the things he'll be attacked for may backfore spectacularly on the Mail and Sun. I imagine he could deal with the Sinn Fein supporter smear simply and directly: "What I advocated in 1984 was policy in 1994. Because of those ten years of intransigence, while mainstream politics caught up, about 850 people were killed. That isn't something to be proud of."
We like principles, even when we don't agree with them. The reason people came to loathe Blair was the perception of hypocrisy - the equivocation on his faith, the wealth, the influence peddling and money worship.
That said, it still seems unlikely he will win. Support for the three neo-Blairite candidates will coalesce as the field of candidates narrows down. And he'll be offered the Deputy Leadership of the party as a sop to the left, as Blair did with John Prescott.
Hopefully, Corbyn would tell them what to do with their sop.
Saturday, 9 May 2015
In Tony's Shadow
Well, there have been better nights in the history of the left.
First of all, I would like to point out that I was, of course, completely right. While suggesting a potential Labour plurality of seats was a likely outcome, I was sensible enough to add the crucial rider that, "anything up to and including a slender Tory majority is still possible, based on just minor shifts."
So unlike Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Jim Murphy, Ed Balls, Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy and many many others, I survive and with my reputation for prescience enhanced. I may not be quite as good at calling elections as I thought I was, but I am good at covering my own arse.
Anyway, on to minor matters.
It was, without doubt, the most fascinating election since 1997. And it managed to eke out it's drama to the very last few seats, when Cameron crept across the line and achieved a wafer thin majority.
Some thoughts.
First of all, commiserations to Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report. He's been happily analysing and discussing polls from all parties for years, with an enthusiasm that even I find a little bit odd and unnerving. He is always measured and thoughtful in his comments. And, it turned out, completely wrong. Not just him, but virtually every polling company as well, to the point where the few that might have been pointing to a Conservative surge looked like outliers. If it is any consolation, he was working with evidence, and the evidence al pointed the way he said it did. But it can't be fun watching your life's work go up in flames. He's not the only one who endured that last night, of course, but the rest of them deserved it more, one way or another.
Second, a nod to Ed Miliband. He's a decent man, but clearly, not the man needed. He managed to be right on most issues and still lose. It happens. It must be galling to go through what he has done - the family trauma of his so-called 'betrayal' of his brother, the constant vilification in the press, the mockery and disrespect from his own party - and find it has all been for nothing. Tactically, Labour fought a good campaign, strategically they lost this election about 20 years ago, when Tony Blair started his process of 'modernisation', dragging Labour to the right until it became the mess it is today. Ed Miliband was praised for preserving unity after the 2010 defeat, keeping the left and the right of the Labour party together - but perhaps a more ruthless attitude towards the Blairite faction might have been preferable. Too many of them were left to fester in high places.
Interestingly, for the first time in the history of things, perhaps, First Past the Post has delivered a representative result. The combined Conservative and UKIP vote is about 50% of the total cast, and the Tories and UKIP hold about 50% of the seats. The British people voted for a government of small minded, reactionary, xenophobic, economically illiterate, right wing buffoons, and that is what they got. Still, this election has highlighted the screaming, desperate need for electoral change in Britain. While I despise everything about UKIP, 3.7 million people voted for them, a massive increase on votes. But they managed to win just one seat, while less than 1.5 million voted for the SNP and they get 56. The Greens polled about as many votes as the SNP. And got one MP. Something has to change. Everyone, except the Tories, seems to understand this now. Scotland should not be virtually a one party state; The Greens and UKIP represent people whose voices should be heard, or people will continue to becom disengaged from politics; the political 'elite' can't be protected by an unfair anachronism of a voting system. Though as Labour found out last night, the protection is somewhat illusory.
There were many silver linings to be found amid the dark clouds that gathered last night. First of all, the notion of the supposed political influence of Russell Brand will hopefully be consigned to the rubbish bin. Let's never, ever, ever have to endure the sight of a Labour leader trying to win an endorsement from that self important, vacuous, hypocritical clown. Second the Tories are effectively isolated. No-one is going to go into coalition with them, ever, after seeing how the Lib Dems were punished by the electorate for this. They have to win by themselves, and it looks like their final share of the vote in 2015 is 36.1%, virtually the same as in 2010. They barely improved their standing with the electorate and I think this is their high water mark. They are the party of the 36%, and the feeble majority Cameron obtained last night. His administration will be weak and ineffectual, plagued by rebellion and being dragged to the right by the gang of loons and xenophobic 'bastards' that made John Major's later years so miserable. And recall what happened after that miserable administration was put out of its misery. A Labour landslide and 13 years of opposition for the Conservatives, blocked from power by the combination of First Past The Post and Balirite cynicism.
There is a whiff of the mid-90s already about Cameron's new government. A PM that no-one actually wants any more (even Cameron himself doesn't want to be PM), a dubious economy and the prospect of civil war in the party over Europe. That 12 seat majority won't last long, and won't insulate him against any significant rebellion. Isolated from other parties terrified of catching the electoral plague that did for the Lib Dems so viciously, and with the British economy still looking a bit peaky, and the prospect of even more ghastly spending cuts to come over the next five years, as Osborne continues to hack away at the deficit that defeated him last time, in defiance of economic sanity, it seems likely Cameron's second term will be a painful one.
Still, a lot of the 'Old Guard' have gone, the Blairite poison is mostly flushed out of the system, though it is a shame that the patient has had such a hard tme of it. Because 2015 is very much the result made inevitable by Tony Blair's ascension to the leadership of Labour. And yet the Blairites never saw it, cawing after 2010 about how Labour won when it was New Labour, and lost when it reverted to Old Labour - as if there was any significant difference between the manifestos of 1997, 2010 and 2015. Blairism was sold as a process of modernising, which was essentially a hollowing out of the party, and an obsession with pleasuring the rich and powerful, followed by a cynical rejection of the democratic reform when it became selfishly expedient to do so. All those that lost last night did so in the shadow of Blairism.
Looking ahead, it really does make you wonder how Labour rebuilds from here. Caroline Flint? Chukka Ummuna? Keir "But I only just became an MP!" Starmer? The talent pool was shallow when Ed was chosen. Now it it more a dried out waterhole with the bones of defunct animals in it. Dennis Skinner won Bolsover with more than 50% of the vote. Maybe he could be leader? I have a horrible feeling the Labour Party might go for Andy Burnham or Alan Johnston, the slimy Blairite relics. Or Chuka Ummuna, who looks and sounds suspiciously like Tony Blair re-imagined for the post 'Cool Britannia' Britain.
Today, I'm very glad I live in New Zealand. I wish Britain well for the next five years, though you did kinda bring it on yourself, and I suspect good wishes may not help much. And I'm not sure how much longer there will be a Britain to wish well to.
First of all, I would like to point out that I was, of course, completely right. While suggesting a potential Labour plurality of seats was a likely outcome, I was sensible enough to add the crucial rider that, "anything up to and including a slender Tory majority is still possible, based on just minor shifts."
So unlike Ed Miliband, Nick Clegg, Nigel Farage, Jim Murphy, Ed Balls, Vince Cable, Charles Kennedy and many many others, I survive and with my reputation for prescience enhanced. I may not be quite as good at calling elections as I thought I was, but I am good at covering my own arse.
Anyway, on to minor matters.
It was, without doubt, the most fascinating election since 1997. And it managed to eke out it's drama to the very last few seats, when Cameron crept across the line and achieved a wafer thin majority.
Some thoughts.
First of all, commiserations to Anthony Wells at UK Polling Report. He's been happily analysing and discussing polls from all parties for years, with an enthusiasm that even I find a little bit odd and unnerving. He is always measured and thoughtful in his comments. And, it turned out, completely wrong. Not just him, but virtually every polling company as well, to the point where the few that might have been pointing to a Conservative surge looked like outliers. If it is any consolation, he was working with evidence, and the evidence al pointed the way he said it did. But it can't be fun watching your life's work go up in flames. He's not the only one who endured that last night, of course, but the rest of them deserved it more, one way or another.
Second, a nod to Ed Miliband. He's a decent man, but clearly, not the man needed. He managed to be right on most issues and still lose. It happens. It must be galling to go through what he has done - the family trauma of his so-called 'betrayal' of his brother, the constant vilification in the press, the mockery and disrespect from his own party - and find it has all been for nothing. Tactically, Labour fought a good campaign, strategically they lost this election about 20 years ago, when Tony Blair started his process of 'modernisation', dragging Labour to the right until it became the mess it is today. Ed Miliband was praised for preserving unity after the 2010 defeat, keeping the left and the right of the Labour party together - but perhaps a more ruthless attitude towards the Blairite faction might have been preferable. Too many of them were left to fester in high places.
Interestingly, for the first time in the history of things, perhaps, First Past the Post has delivered a representative result. The combined Conservative and UKIP vote is about 50% of the total cast, and the Tories and UKIP hold about 50% of the seats. The British people voted for a government of small minded, reactionary, xenophobic, economically illiterate, right wing buffoons, and that is what they got. Still, this election has highlighted the screaming, desperate need for electoral change in Britain. While I despise everything about UKIP, 3.7 million people voted for them, a massive increase on votes. But they managed to win just one seat, while less than 1.5 million voted for the SNP and they get 56. The Greens polled about as many votes as the SNP. And got one MP. Something has to change. Everyone, except the Tories, seems to understand this now. Scotland should not be virtually a one party state; The Greens and UKIP represent people whose voices should be heard, or people will continue to becom disengaged from politics; the political 'elite' can't be protected by an unfair anachronism of a voting system. Though as Labour found out last night, the protection is somewhat illusory.
There were many silver linings to be found amid the dark clouds that gathered last night. First of all, the notion of the supposed political influence of Russell Brand will hopefully be consigned to the rubbish bin. Let's never, ever, ever have to endure the sight of a Labour leader trying to win an endorsement from that self important, vacuous, hypocritical clown. Second the Tories are effectively isolated. No-one is going to go into coalition with them, ever, after seeing how the Lib Dems were punished by the electorate for this. They have to win by themselves, and it looks like their final share of the vote in 2015 is 36.1%, virtually the same as in 2010. They barely improved their standing with the electorate and I think this is their high water mark. They are the party of the 36%, and the feeble majority Cameron obtained last night. His administration will be weak and ineffectual, plagued by rebellion and being dragged to the right by the gang of loons and xenophobic 'bastards' that made John Major's later years so miserable. And recall what happened after that miserable administration was put out of its misery. A Labour landslide and 13 years of opposition for the Conservatives, blocked from power by the combination of First Past The Post and Balirite cynicism.
There is a whiff of the mid-90s already about Cameron's new government. A PM that no-one actually wants any more (even Cameron himself doesn't want to be PM), a dubious economy and the prospect of civil war in the party over Europe. That 12 seat majority won't last long, and won't insulate him against any significant rebellion. Isolated from other parties terrified of catching the electoral plague that did for the Lib Dems so viciously, and with the British economy still looking a bit peaky, and the prospect of even more ghastly spending cuts to come over the next five years, as Osborne continues to hack away at the deficit that defeated him last time, in defiance of economic sanity, it seems likely Cameron's second term will be a painful one.
Still, a lot of the 'Old Guard' have gone, the Blairite poison is mostly flushed out of the system, though it is a shame that the patient has had such a hard tme of it. Because 2015 is very much the result made inevitable by Tony Blair's ascension to the leadership of Labour. And yet the Blairites never saw it, cawing after 2010 about how Labour won when it was New Labour, and lost when it reverted to Old Labour - as if there was any significant difference between the manifestos of 1997, 2010 and 2015. Blairism was sold as a process of modernising, which was essentially a hollowing out of the party, and an obsession with pleasuring the rich and powerful, followed by a cynical rejection of the democratic reform when it became selfishly expedient to do so. All those that lost last night did so in the shadow of Blairism.
... he doth bestride the narrow worldMany found their graves last night, honourable or dishonourable or indifferent. Or to borrow another much quoted line about statues, "Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. Or to nick off with another bit of Will, the evil that men do oft lives after them. Blair's baleful influence lives on, though perhaps now enough pain has been inflicted on Labour for them to realise it has had its day. Or perhaps, lemming like, they will insist on being more like the Tories, more pro-business and cozy up ever closer to the right-wing media. And continue to ignore the little people who are expected to actually vote for them. Because, you know, that's what worked for Tony.
Like a Colossus; and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs, and peep about
To find ourselves dishonourable graves.
Looking ahead, it really does make you wonder how Labour rebuilds from here. Caroline Flint? Chukka Ummuna? Keir "But I only just became an MP!" Starmer? The talent pool was shallow when Ed was chosen. Now it it more a dried out waterhole with the bones of defunct animals in it. Dennis Skinner won Bolsover with more than 50% of the vote. Maybe he could be leader? I have a horrible feeling the Labour Party might go for Andy Burnham or Alan Johnston, the slimy Blairite relics. Or Chuka Ummuna, who looks and sounds suspiciously like Tony Blair re-imagined for the post 'Cool Britannia' Britain.
Today, I'm very glad I live in New Zealand. I wish Britain well for the next five years, though you did kinda bring it on yourself, and I suspect good wishes may not help much. And I'm not sure how much longer there will be a Britain to wish well to.
Saturday, 4 October 2014
The state that we're in
First, a nice song:
Listen while reading what follows. It will help, one way or another.
One of the basic tenets of most strains of socialism is that people are the product of their environment.
This can be abstracted to the nth degree, with the materialist view of the world; or targeted specifically, where we try to tease out the socio-psychology of the individual. The concept is the same, and fundamental to most socialists. Circumstances create people before people create circumstances. Otherwise, why bother about the material and economic relations of society? If they aren't fundamental to the shaping of people, why worry?
But there's an uncomfortable shadow to that, the fact that we live in a society that has been openly, aggressively encouraging selfishness, individualism and consumerism for over three decades, in most countries of the developed world.
If we accept that people are formed by their environment, then we probably have to accept that people have been changed by the relentless narcissism and consumerism which has been the (hem) predominant discourse in western societies for the last 30 years. This is why I’m not convinced by the loud voices wailing that Labour's current woes can be alleviated by a sharp turn to the left.
People voting National are not going to suddenly vote Labour when they are offered a more left wing alternative. They’re going to be even more repelled. The most we can do, in the short term, is pry off the centre vote, and then when people realise the Sky Has Not Fallen, persuade them it will still not fall if we move a little bit further, then a little bit further.
The neo-liberals had the advantage of circumstance when they moved the country the other way in the 80s. But I think a crisis generally favours the right (and they deceived as to how far they were going to go) as witnessed by the right wing retrenchment after 2008.
Unless there is some system busting crisis (which we’ve been waiting for for over 150 years now!) Fabianism is probably the only way for the left to return to power. Bolsheviks might dream of seizing control and imposing (their version of) the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then persuading people they were right all along, but most historical examples warn against that route.
(By Bolsheviks, I meant (nearly) literally that – a small group of extremists seizing power by non-democratic means. This happened in the 80s, when the neo-liberal Bolsheviks won power through deception. Do we want to go down that road? Democracy requires winning the argument before taking power. If we can not win compliance, coercion or deception are our only options. I don't think they are good ones.)
It’s an argument born of practicality. Yes, we're facing a catastrophe in the form of climate change and environmental destruction. But the Greens get about 10% of the vote. They need another 40% before they can do anything. The planet, unfortunately, is a big place and it is hard to take in the impact of human activity. And people – weaned on consumerism and selfishness for three decades – are more receptive to iphones than egalitarianism or environmentalism.
Hence the needs for small steps.
The missing million have sat out three elections now. It is unlikely they will be tempted back in significant numbers. They are the flip side of the neo-liberal-narcissistic-consumerists; the permanently disenfranchised and alienated.
If they couldn’t be bothered voting AGAINST John Key, what sort of inducements can we offer them that will get them to vote FOR the left? It’s a pleasant fantasy that they will roll up to the polling station in 2017, if only we offer a sufficiently leftwing program … And even if we entertain that fantasy for a few moments, what do you think will happen to centrist voters if Labour lurches left? They’ll leave, probably in greater numbers than the ‘missing million’ are being won back.
(The great thing about the ‘missing million’ delusion is that it can be recycled, of course. It’ll work just as well prior to the 2020, 2023, 2026 and 2029 elections as it does now.)
They won't vote because they don't care. It's alienation. It's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but it seems to me to be the reality. If you don't like reality, you can dream about them all you like. You can devise a fabulous platform of policies. They won't listen in significant numbers. And for every one you win, you'll lose two at the other end. You might not care, too much, but you won't win. Savour your ideological purity because it is all you'll have to enjoy until 2026.
And in the mean time, another generation will have had their lives blighted by the right.
Listen while reading what follows. It will help, one way or another.
One of the basic tenets of most strains of socialism is that people are the product of their environment.
This can be abstracted to the nth degree, with the materialist view of the world; or targeted specifically, where we try to tease out the socio-psychology of the individual. The concept is the same, and fundamental to most socialists. Circumstances create people before people create circumstances. Otherwise, why bother about the material and economic relations of society? If they aren't fundamental to the shaping of people, why worry?
But there's an uncomfortable shadow to that, the fact that we live in a society that has been openly, aggressively encouraging selfishness, individualism and consumerism for over three decades, in most countries of the developed world.
If we accept that people are formed by their environment, then we probably have to accept that people have been changed by the relentless narcissism and consumerism which has been the (hem) predominant discourse in western societies for the last 30 years. This is why I’m not convinced by the loud voices wailing that Labour's current woes can be alleviated by a sharp turn to the left.
People voting National are not going to suddenly vote Labour when they are offered a more left wing alternative. They’re going to be even more repelled. The most we can do, in the short term, is pry off the centre vote, and then when people realise the Sky Has Not Fallen, persuade them it will still not fall if we move a little bit further, then a little bit further.
The neo-liberals had the advantage of circumstance when they moved the country the other way in the 80s. But I think a crisis generally favours the right (and they deceived as to how far they were going to go) as witnessed by the right wing retrenchment after 2008.
Unless there is some system busting crisis (which we’ve been waiting for for over 150 years now!) Fabianism is probably the only way for the left to return to power. Bolsheviks might dream of seizing control and imposing (their version of) the dictatorship of the proletariat, and then persuading people they were right all along, but most historical examples warn against that route.
(By Bolsheviks, I meant (nearly) literally that – a small group of extremists seizing power by non-democratic means. This happened in the 80s, when the neo-liberal Bolsheviks won power through deception. Do we want to go down that road? Democracy requires winning the argument before taking power. If we can not win compliance, coercion or deception are our only options. I don't think they are good ones.)
It’s an argument born of practicality. Yes, we're facing a catastrophe in the form of climate change and environmental destruction. But the Greens get about 10% of the vote. They need another 40% before they can do anything. The planet, unfortunately, is a big place and it is hard to take in the impact of human activity. And people – weaned on consumerism and selfishness for three decades – are more receptive to iphones than egalitarianism or environmentalism.
Hence the needs for small steps.
The missing million have sat out three elections now. It is unlikely they will be tempted back in significant numbers. They are the flip side of the neo-liberal-narcissistic-consumerists; the permanently disenfranchised and alienated.
If they couldn’t be bothered voting AGAINST John Key, what sort of inducements can we offer them that will get them to vote FOR the left? It’s a pleasant fantasy that they will roll up to the polling station in 2017, if only we offer a sufficiently leftwing program … And even if we entertain that fantasy for a few moments, what do you think will happen to centrist voters if Labour lurches left? They’ll leave, probably in greater numbers than the ‘missing million’ are being won back.
(The great thing about the ‘missing million’ delusion is that it can be recycled, of course. It’ll work just as well prior to the 2020, 2023, 2026 and 2029 elections as it does now.)
They won't vote because they don't care. It's alienation. It's not a pleasant thing to contemplate, but it seems to me to be the reality. If you don't like reality, you can dream about them all you like. You can devise a fabulous platform of policies. They won't listen in significant numbers. And for every one you win, you'll lose two at the other end. You might not care, too much, but you won't win. Savour your ideological purity because it is all you'll have to enjoy until 2026.
And in the mean time, another generation will have had their lives blighted by the right.
Friday, 18 July 2014
Labour Green coalition: more venting + general spleen aimed at the Labour caucus
Another round of atrocious polling for Labour, and another round of desperate, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we only need a swing of about 4% to FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!"
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be themost likely least unlikely way of Labour achieving some sort of victory in September.
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
It used to be just, "If we add Labour, the Greens, Mana and NZ First together, we can FORM THE NEXT GOVERNMENT!!" Indeed, I can recall the days when it seemed possible that it might just be Labour and the Greens needed.
And there were times before that when Labour used to be the largest party in Parliament, I tell you!!
But the drift away from the left has been going on for so long it can not be ignored. And the more coalitions and esoteric combinations get talked up, the more the support for the left bloc declines, and the more wildly fanciful the proposed ways the left can win power get.
(The idea of actually getting out there with whole bunch of sane, practical policies that people like, expressed clearly by people who really seem to care and who want to make the country better, seems to elude many.)
This has been going on so long now that it takes a few moments to remember that Labour And The Greens is not actually a political party, but to radically different political parties and there is no certainty the the will form a coalition, even if it is just monogamous couple, and even less certainty if what is proposed is a polygamous monstrosity featuring Labour, the Greens, IMP and NZ First. And Uncle Tom Cobbleigh and all. I'm sure t some stage, the Maori Party will be included, and people will suddenly remember that Peter Dunne worked well with Helen Clarke ... It seems there is no limit to the optimism of the left when faced with the direness of the polling numbers.
(The other response is t proclaim the polls are incorrect, not just wrong, but deliberately so and are being produced in order to make National's victory more likely. I kid you not.)
But let us, for the moment, focus just on the idea of a Green / Labour tie up, as it seems to be the
It is a possibility, but by no means a certainty.
Lumping the two parties together as if they were one is to make the classic mistake of assuming that the Greens have to go with Labour. They don't. Labour haven’t exactly made it easy for them. Their policies aren’t exactly going to set green hearts racing, and they will not be too willing to make concessions, as they don’t want to be portrayed as ‘beholden to the radical eco-Nazis.’
The Greens might well decide against a coalition with Labour. The voters clearly don’t like it – he more it gets talked about, the smaller both parties’ support gets! Faced with putting an unwieldy coalition of three or four antagonistic parties into government (and getting the opprobrium that would go with it) and ‘constructive opposition’ to a minority National government, they might be better off going with the latter.
Labour have treated the Greens badly over the course of several elections. they might think it is time for a bit of utu.
The Greens want to preserve the Green party. A short term alliance with a deeply unpopular Labour party and two or three other antagonistic parties is likely to produce a dreadful government that will struggle to achieve anything and will be deeply loathed. The Lib Dems in Britain have suffered dreadfully for putting in the Conservatives; the Greens would become even more loathed than that if they put in a Labour Party that was polling 25%.
Bear in mind that both parties have seen declining support in recent polls. The more the Lab-Green coalition gets talked up, the less inclined people are to vote for them. Labour supporters who want a strong government, left or right, and who reject the flakey kooky enviro-whacky Greens (and there are som of those out there) looking to National, on the (dubious and short sighted) reasoning that they've been in charge for six years, the country hasn't fallen to pieces and at least they are getting things done without having to be beholden to crackpot fringe groups; and Green voters are perhaps feeling disappointed that their party is being treated as a de facto extension of Labour, rather than a distinct entity representing their interests. After all, there must be reasons why they are voting Green rather than Labour in the first place, and if they feel these needs are not being met an more ...
With all this in mind, the Greens might prefer to hang back and wait until the situation changes and they can form a less demented, two party coalition; or until they actually replace Labour as the main opposition party. Which no longer seems as fanciful as it once did.
Given that Labour's policies are not massively more pro-environment that National's, the Greens might feel they were not worth supporting - a harsh lesson to Labour on the reality of the disparate nature of the left these days, and the need to be more accommodating to left wing partners.
After all, Labour have consistently treated the Greens shabbily, and there is no reason for the Greens to think that will change now. Not just utu, but survival instinct may prompt the Greens to frown, purse their lips and say, "Thanks ... but no thanks" when Labour offers them a chance of a quick grope and snog.
Bottom line is, Labour can not and should not be counting on the Greens to get them across the line. It's a measure of how shamefully useless they are that this is the case. A substantial portion of National's vote is soft, made up of centrists who might instinctively vote for Labour, but who have been come inured to National because, bluntly, Labour are not offering them anything worth voting for - a tired, scheming caucus, out of touch leadership, a vague and muddled policy program. And this at a time when National have been blessed with the most formidable political operator in New Zealand's recent history, and a caucus scarily intent on winning and holding power.
It's almost as if Labour have decided to sit this one out. Not Cunliffe - he knows he's only got one shot - but too many of the old crew are sitting back and happy enough to draw their salaries. And too many of the 'new blood' are reluctant to be associated with what looks like a doomed campaign. Might be career limiting move, you know.
Idiots and scum the lot of them.
Saturday, 31 May 2014
What is Labour's problem?
I've just had another look at the recent One News-Colmar Brunton poll - the one that gave National 51% of the vote and Labour more than 20 points behind, at 30%.
Looking beyond that painful picture, there is a list of issues concerning New Zealanders. They were:
This is quite astonishing, because all five are areas Labour should absolutely own. Fair access to education and health are fundamentally leftwing issues. Employment opportunity, security and workers' rights ditto - why do you think it was called the Labour party? Child poverty, absolutely a leftwing issue. Wages ties in with employment and jobs.
Labour should have been making the running on these issues for years by now. Not because they are potential vote winners, but because they are the building blocks of a just, fair, socialist society.
Instead, we've had ... nothing much. Kiwi Build. Something about power bills. A smart idea about using savings to balance economic pressures, which probably sounds alarming to the average voter ("They're going to put up my Kiwisaver rate whether I want it or not?").
Other than that, a yawning chasm of indifference from the leaders of the so-called people's party. The election is coming up fast. The government should be utterly on the ropes - it is incompetent, corrupt and vacillating. The only thing keeping its ratings so impossibly sky high is that the alternative major party of government looks even less plausible. They don't look like an alternative government. They don't even look like a credible opposition. They look like what they are - a bunch of over educated elitists waiting for their turn to play with the levers of power and happily drawing their salaries in the mean time.
Their lives won't be made substantially worse when Labour are trounced again in September. Hell, some of them will probably find their career prospects enhanced as they seek more remuneration in the private sector. they won't be living in run down, damp, unhealthy rentals, or working on inadequate minimum wages terrified of losing their jobs, or sending their children to desperately under-resourced schools staffed by exhausted teachers trying to educate far too many students.
So you can understand the lack of passion and urgency in Labour. This is not about them, or their people. They're part of the problem for the left, for progressive parties and socialists. Unfortunately, they will have to be part of the solution as well, for the foreseeable future as they still bring in about 30% of the vote, and will be more amenable to working as part of a progressive coalition than National (though it isn't as great a difference as it should be - I can almost imagine National working with the Greens at some point. Almost. A possibility that seems to elude Labour, who boorishly seem to insist the Greens are simply a kooky extension of the left.)
But the left, sadly, needs to start looking to the future and beyond the Labour Party in its current form. Perhaps it can re-invent itself, but it seems unlikely. Vested interests aren't very good at looking after anyone's interests other than their own, and not particularly good at that, either. They'll carry on assuming they are one of the two parties that are imbued with the divine right to rule New Zealand, as their support dwindles further and further.
Which is - oddly - why I welcome the inflation of National's poll ratings. It is the evidence of voters simply giving up on Labour. As voters are inherently a conservative bunch, many will give up, initially, one main party for another. They understand (unlike fanatic activists) that Labour or National has to form the foundation of the next government. And they are so disgusted with Labour that they switch to National, as the default alternative governing party.
But their loyalty to National is only going to be temporary, as everything that is wrong with Labour is found in National in concentrated form. Indeed, National make a virtue of all the things that are alienating voters from Labour. So, after handing National an undeserved but probably inevitable third term, and being treated like garbage as a reward, the voters will look else where.
I have no idea what the political landscape will look like in ten years time. It is just possible some charismatic class warrior will seize control of Labour and revitalise the party. But wasn't Cunliffe supposed to be that guy? (Though I've always been sceptical of Cunliffe's progressive credentials)
It hasn't worked, and probably won't work in the future because of the deadening hand of the vested interests.
The reappearance of Laila Harre on the political scene - in one of the strangest political marriages ever - perhaps provides a clue. Perhaps the future will look a bit like the Alliance, only this time it won't be crushed by Labour antipathy. If Mana and the Internet Party can find some common cause, and Laila Harre finds it not too ludicrous to join the fun, perhaps some loose knit but formal left bloc is conceivable.
Post 2015, a few disheartened Labour MPs - the ones that actually become MPs for the right reasons - might find their way into it as well, as the party drifts into the mid 20s and the government benches seem to drift further and further away. And suddenly the voting public will notice that there are smart, passionate and essentially normal people in politics.
And finally Labour - a pointless rump polling 15% - regains power as a junior party in a new progressive government.
Insane? Maybe. But not as insane as continuing to vote for Labour and expecting them to suddenly to decide to change their behaviour. That's a classic example of doing something repeatedly and expecting a different out come.
Labour isn't working.
Can't be fixed.
Time to do something different.
Looking beyond that painful picture, there is a list of issues concerning New Zealanders. They were:
- Education, identified as a key election issue by 40% of the electorate.
- Health - 37%.
- Jobs - 30%.
- Child Poverty - 27%.
- Wages - 25%.
This is quite astonishing, because all five are areas Labour should absolutely own. Fair access to education and health are fundamentally leftwing issues. Employment opportunity, security and workers' rights ditto - why do you think it was called the Labour party? Child poverty, absolutely a leftwing issue. Wages ties in with employment and jobs.
Labour should have been making the running on these issues for years by now. Not because they are potential vote winners, but because they are the building blocks of a just, fair, socialist society.
Instead, we've had ... nothing much. Kiwi Build. Something about power bills. A smart idea about using savings to balance economic pressures, which probably sounds alarming to the average voter ("They're going to put up my Kiwisaver rate whether I want it or not?").
Other than that, a yawning chasm of indifference from the leaders of the so-called people's party. The election is coming up fast. The government should be utterly on the ropes - it is incompetent, corrupt and vacillating. The only thing keeping its ratings so impossibly sky high is that the alternative major party of government looks even less plausible. They don't look like an alternative government. They don't even look like a credible opposition. They look like what they are - a bunch of over educated elitists waiting for their turn to play with the levers of power and happily drawing their salaries in the mean time.
Their lives won't be made substantially worse when Labour are trounced again in September. Hell, some of them will probably find their career prospects enhanced as they seek more remuneration in the private sector. they won't be living in run down, damp, unhealthy rentals, or working on inadequate minimum wages terrified of losing their jobs, or sending their children to desperately under-resourced schools staffed by exhausted teachers trying to educate far too many students.
So you can understand the lack of passion and urgency in Labour. This is not about them, or their people. They're part of the problem for the left, for progressive parties and socialists. Unfortunately, they will have to be part of the solution as well, for the foreseeable future as they still bring in about 30% of the vote, and will be more amenable to working as part of a progressive coalition than National (though it isn't as great a difference as it should be - I can almost imagine National working with the Greens at some point. Almost. A possibility that seems to elude Labour, who boorishly seem to insist the Greens are simply a kooky extension of the left.)
But the left, sadly, needs to start looking to the future and beyond the Labour Party in its current form. Perhaps it can re-invent itself, but it seems unlikely. Vested interests aren't very good at looking after anyone's interests other than their own, and not particularly good at that, either. They'll carry on assuming they are one of the two parties that are imbued with the divine right to rule New Zealand, as their support dwindles further and further.
Which is - oddly - why I welcome the inflation of National's poll ratings. It is the evidence of voters simply giving up on Labour. As voters are inherently a conservative bunch, many will give up, initially, one main party for another. They understand (unlike fanatic activists) that Labour or National has to form the foundation of the next government. And they are so disgusted with Labour that they switch to National, as the default alternative governing party.
But their loyalty to National is only going to be temporary, as everything that is wrong with Labour is found in National in concentrated form. Indeed, National make a virtue of all the things that are alienating voters from Labour. So, after handing National an undeserved but probably inevitable third term, and being treated like garbage as a reward, the voters will look else where.
I have no idea what the political landscape will look like in ten years time. It is just possible some charismatic class warrior will seize control of Labour and revitalise the party. But wasn't Cunliffe supposed to be that guy? (Though I've always been sceptical of Cunliffe's progressive credentials)
It hasn't worked, and probably won't work in the future because of the deadening hand of the vested interests.
The reappearance of Laila Harre on the political scene - in one of the strangest political marriages ever - perhaps provides a clue. Perhaps the future will look a bit like the Alliance, only this time it won't be crushed by Labour antipathy. If Mana and the Internet Party can find some common cause, and Laila Harre finds it not too ludicrous to join the fun, perhaps some loose knit but formal left bloc is conceivable.
Post 2015, a few disheartened Labour MPs - the ones that actually become MPs for the right reasons - might find their way into it as well, as the party drifts into the mid 20s and the government benches seem to drift further and further away. And suddenly the voting public will notice that there are smart, passionate and essentially normal people in politics.
And finally Labour - a pointless rump polling 15% - regains power as a junior party in a new progressive government.
Insane? Maybe. But not as insane as continuing to vote for Labour and expecting them to suddenly to decide to change their behaviour. That's a classic example of doing something repeatedly and expecting a different out come.
Labour isn't working.
Can't be fixed.
Time to do something different.
Wednesday, 29 January 2014
Peter Oborne
... is fantastic. I've always said so. Repeatedly. You all remember me saying so, don't you? Top bloke. Wonderful. Even more wonderful than Vince "Wrong Sort Of Recovery" Cable. And writing this sort of stuff in The Telegraph, would you believe? Don't be surprised if we are told Mr Oborne has taken 'Stress Leave,' with immediate effect.
Seriously, there is a difference between a Conservative, and the sort of neo-liberal Friedmanite loons who have colonised the right-wing parties since the 1980s. People who think like Oborne - who are conservative for essentially moral reasons, rather than (how can I say this politely?) economic imperatives - need to make themselves more. I won't agree with them oneverything much but at least a conservative and a democratic socialist are approaching problems from the same direction. If the British Conservatives could expunge the Freidmanite Supply Side Maniacs (tm) it would bring the Conservative Party back into alignment with the people that actually vote for it.
After all, Labour had to go through a similar process in the late 70s and 80s, to produce the attenuated, somewhat rightwing social-capitalist party of the 90s. And at least the prospect of a Conservative government would fill all right thinking people with horror.
Of course, the Freidmanites would resist it, utterly, and Oborne will probably catch a lot of flack from their shills in the press. Supply-siders are parasitic - economically and politically. Their creed repels 99% of the population - look at ACT's polling for proof of this. They can not survive on their own, so they have to inhabit the larger body of a moderately right-wing, conservative party. In doing so, they sap its vitality and sicken it, or - and here the metaphor may be slightly stretched, if one is not familiar with Gonchongs - possess it and supplant its personality utterly, turning it into a hideous facsimile of a Conservative party, mouthing conservative shibboleths to please the increasingly perplexed and embittered voters, and scapegoating the weak and marginalised to redirect that frustration away from where it belongs. This is particularly true of Britain, where First Past the Post forces fringe pursuits like neo-liberalism to inveigle itself into larger, more moderate parties. Even in New Zealand, however, where MMP theoretically allows the rightwing economic 'purists' to survive in their own party, the truth is they have to infiltrate National, as described in The Hollow Men, if they are to get their hand decisively on the levers of power.
It is time for New Zealand's own Obornes to speak up and reject the swivel eyed advocates of Freidmanite madness, who still exert a toxic influence on the National Party.
As someone who voted Conservative at the last election, I therefore found it profoundly shaming and offensive when George Osborne lowered the top rate of tax from 50p to 45p two years ago.
The Coalition government has devoted a great deal of effort to lowering the living standards of the poor. I support this project because I believe that Gordon Brown’s welfare state forced some people into a life of dependency, thus taking away their human dignity.
There have been many people on welfare who need much more of an incentive to return to work. But to make the rich richer at the same time as making the poor poorer – what George Osborne has been doing – is simply squalid, immoral and disgusting. The Chancellor of the Exchequer is leading the fight inside the cabinet to strip a further £10 billion of welfare payments for the very poorest. Any decent human being must surely feel sick in the stomach that he is taking this action at the same time as cutting the amount of tax paid by people earning more than £150,000.
...
A Conservative Party with decent values should not reward these people. It should support hard-working, honest people. If the Chancellor understood this point, he would have taken middle earners out of the top rate of tax, not given a bonus to people who are already affluent.
So well done Ed Balls, who has had a hard time lately. He has given ordinary, decent people a serious reason for voting Labour at the coming election.Pistol Pete should say more of this sort of thing. If he learns the correct method of addressing Osborne - his name should always be prefaced with "that revolting, loathsome and repulsive imbecile" or similar - I may make him an honorary leftie.
Seriously, there is a difference between a Conservative, and the sort of neo-liberal Friedmanite loons who have colonised the right-wing parties since the 1980s. People who think like Oborne - who are conservative for essentially moral reasons, rather than (how can I say this politely?) economic imperatives - need to make themselves more. I won't agree with them on
After all, Labour had to go through a similar process in the late 70s and 80s, to produce the attenuated, somewhat rightwing social-capitalist party of the 90s. And at least the prospect of a Conservative government would fill all right thinking people with horror.
Of course, the Freidmanites would resist it, utterly, and Oborne will probably catch a lot of flack from their shills in the press. Supply-siders are parasitic - economically and politically. Their creed repels 99% of the population - look at ACT's polling for proof of this. They can not survive on their own, so they have to inhabit the larger body of a moderately right-wing, conservative party. In doing so, they sap its vitality and sicken it, or - and here the metaphor may be slightly stretched, if one is not familiar with Gonchongs - possess it and supplant its personality utterly, turning it into a hideous facsimile of a Conservative party, mouthing conservative shibboleths to please the increasingly perplexed and embittered voters, and scapegoating the weak and marginalised to redirect that frustration away from where it belongs. This is particularly true of Britain, where First Past the Post forces fringe pursuits like neo-liberalism to inveigle itself into larger, more moderate parties. Even in New Zealand, however, where MMP theoretically allows the rightwing economic 'purists' to survive in their own party, the truth is they have to infiltrate National, as described in The Hollow Men, if they are to get their hand decisively on the levers of power.
It is time for New Zealand's own Obornes to speak up and reject the swivel eyed advocates of Freidmanite madness, who still exert a toxic influence on the National Party.
Thursday, 23 January 2014
On the left
There's a bit of an argument out there between Pablo at Kiwipolitico and Chris Trotter about the current shape of the left. I haven't been following it closely as I am heroically indolent and they use too many big words. But the jist is that Pablo thinks the left is effectively dead and Chris thinks it isn't.
I think that the left in the sense that Pablo intended has effectively perished and we're left (pun intentional) with a zombie left which is based on a series of compromises with capitalism. It makes me sad to here Ralph Miliband's son talking about "a more responsible capitalism" and reforming the banking system by introducing ... more banks. It's like Robert Mitchum in Out of the Past, saying that you can't win in gambling, but "There are ways to lose more slowly." That seems to be all that's left for the the left. Again, puns again intentional.
The Leninists used to say that while the evolution of society was historically inevitability, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat could be at hand to "lessen the birth pangs." Perhaps they got it the wrong way round and the only real function of the left was to administer palliative care to the dying corpse of humanity.
Unless Marx really was right all along (yeah, that pun was intentional as well) and at sun unclear point in the probably distant future the whole shoddy enterprise collapses and something new emerges. Though human history doesn't suggest much hope for revolutionaries building utopia in the rubble.
Well, that was cheerful!
I think that the left in the sense that Pablo intended has effectively perished and we're left (pun intentional) with a zombie left which is based on a series of compromises with capitalism. It makes me sad to here Ralph Miliband's son talking about "a more responsible capitalism" and reforming the banking system by introducing ... more banks. It's like Robert Mitchum in Out of the Past, saying that you can't win in gambling, but "There are ways to lose more slowly." That seems to be all that's left for the the left. Again, puns again intentional.
The Leninists used to say that while the evolution of society was historically inevitability, the revolutionary vanguard of the proletariat could be at hand to "lessen the birth pangs." Perhaps they got it the wrong way round and the only real function of the left was to administer palliative care to the dying corpse of humanity.
Unless Marx really was right all along (yeah, that pun was intentional as well) and at sun unclear point in the probably distant future the whole shoddy enterprise collapses and something new emerges. Though human history doesn't suggest much hope for revolutionaries building utopia in the rubble.
Well, that was cheerful!
Tuesday, 11 December 2012
More musings on the left and such like
Over on The Standard, a poster called Karol has suggested that “Currently, to govern in NZ the Left requires a strong , democratic and solidly left wing Labour Party”.
I’m not sure I agree with this idea.
To govern, you need to win the left and the centre. For a ‘solidly leftwing Labour Party’ to do that would take a leader of uncommon talent and probably a special moment in history. With all due respect to Shearer and Cunliffe, neither of them is a leader of uncommon talent.
Under MMP, the extreme left is always going to be flaky – eternally squabbling about obscure points of doctrine, protesting about too much ground being given to the centre (and overlooking the fact that they have the ground to give in the first place). Look how many leftwing minor parties have come and gone already – the Alliance and the various parties that constituted it originally, the Progressives, Mana …
Now the Greens seem to be colonising that space, which is brave, or perhaps foolhardy. How long before the environmentalist core and the anarchist faction start to get uncomfortable with all this neo-statist policy?
If the Greens can keep their disparate elements happy, then there is no need for Labour to move left – they will only be taking votes off the Greens, while losing votes in the centre.
Look at the differences in the housing policy. They both want to build the same amount of houses, but the Greens want to do them as state houses and Labour wants to do them to sell. Both policies have something to recommend them, and both will deliver a massive economic boost and help get working class people working again. The Green policy appeals to me more because it delivers a socially just solution. The Labour policy appeals to middle class voters because it seems more fiscally responsible and it will relieve pressure (slightly) on house prices.
(Don’t dismiss or mock middle class concerns, by the way – they are legitimate and stem from real issues. If you want to win, you need to carry these people, not alienate them.)
What I imagine would happen if the Greens and Labour were negotiating their coalition housing policy is that they’d agree to build 300,000 houses, with a mix of social and private ownership – which also makes sense on street level, as a mixture of state and private housing makes for a healthier community.
So everyone wins, or loses just a little (which amounts to the same thing) – apart from National.
I dunno. Sometimes I wake up and I really want Labour to lurch to the far left and to Hell with the centre.
Most of the time, I imagine the view from that moral high ground would look remarkably similar to the view from the opposition benches.
I’m not sure I agree with this idea.
To govern, you need to win the left and the centre. For a ‘solidly leftwing Labour Party’ to do that would take a leader of uncommon talent and probably a special moment in history. With all due respect to Shearer and Cunliffe, neither of them is a leader of uncommon talent.
Under MMP, the extreme left is always going to be flaky – eternally squabbling about obscure points of doctrine, protesting about too much ground being given to the centre (and overlooking the fact that they have the ground to give in the first place). Look how many leftwing minor parties have come and gone already – the Alliance and the various parties that constituted it originally, the Progressives, Mana …
Now the Greens seem to be colonising that space, which is brave, or perhaps foolhardy. How long before the environmentalist core and the anarchist faction start to get uncomfortable with all this neo-statist policy?
If the Greens can keep their disparate elements happy, then there is no need for Labour to move left – they will only be taking votes off the Greens, while losing votes in the centre.
Look at the differences in the housing policy. They both want to build the same amount of houses, but the Greens want to do them as state houses and Labour wants to do them to sell. Both policies have something to recommend them, and both will deliver a massive economic boost and help get working class people working again. The Green policy appeals to me more because it delivers a socially just solution. The Labour policy appeals to middle class voters because it seems more fiscally responsible and it will relieve pressure (slightly) on house prices.
(Don’t dismiss or mock middle class concerns, by the way – they are legitimate and stem from real issues. If you want to win, you need to carry these people, not alienate them.)
What I imagine would happen if the Greens and Labour were negotiating their coalition housing policy is that they’d agree to build 300,000 houses, with a mix of social and private ownership – which also makes sense on street level, as a mixture of state and private housing makes for a healthier community.
So everyone wins, or loses just a little (which amounts to the same thing) – apart from National.
I dunno. Sometimes I wake up and I really want Labour to lurch to the far left and to Hell with the centre.
Most of the time, I imagine the view from that moral high ground would look remarkably similar to the view from the opposition benches.
Sunday, 9 December 2012
Wither now, Labour? Part Two
What is the Labour Party to do?
I've been aching for a sharper, clearer, leftier message since 2008.
Since 2011, the position has changed somewhat, since the Greens made good on their earlier promise and seem to be absorbing Labour's cast off votes on the left - bleeding that way isn't such a concern - in fact, the more crackpot lefties go to the Greens the better, as it makes the (already unlikely) prospect of the Greens working with National even more remote.
The problem for Labour is the stay at homes and the contestable centre. Right now, the latter is colonised by Charming Johnnie and the latter, well, their staying at home.
I wonder if a caution-to-the-winds strategy might work. Tell people it is time to face up to the hard realities and Stuff That Needs To Be Done.
Say it is time for decisive action on climate change, poverty, housing and whatever. Say that New Zealanders never got anywhere by putting off to tomorrow what can be done today. That it will hurt, but so does the austerity National are offering - and at least Labour can offer the promise of a brighter future.
Run under a "Let's get started" slogan. It might appeal to people a bit more that the current various shades of light blue being offered (with one reddish splodge which is Kiwi Build).
Or it might be disastrous.
But remember how exciting it was in 2011 when Labour actually announced some difficult, challenging policies - and their vote went up?
I think there are a lot of people out there that realise Stuf Needs To Be Done, that it is Down To Us and no amount of charm or glib phrases will stop it hurting. Let's Get Started!
Tuesday, 4 September 2012
More on the Labour / Green alliance fantasy
Over on the Standrad, there has been another of the apparently endless series of posts extolling the likelihood of some red-green coalition. The latest one is courtesy of James Henderson:
It's pretty pathetic, really, to see the Labour Party that once stood for the best progressive instincts of the country, whining about how it can still scrabble to the line with a considerable dose of support from minor parties and professional factionalists.
Labour have to learn to stand on their own two feet if they are to be a viable governing party. They can’t rely on the Green to toddle along with 15% of the vote and push them over - or anywhere close to - the line. The Greens have their own interests and their own voters’ interests to think of. They are not just a slightly dishevelled, pot smoking extension of the Labour Party. They can – and will – do business with National if need be. Labour will lose support if they are constantly chasing the elusive Green Alliance. They will look feeble, disgust their supporters and find themselves going no-where if they try. Stop dreaming about Red-Green alliances, if the Red team can’t get itself into a more useful position, it won’t be going anywhere near the Government benches.
What can Labour do? On studying the talent available, very little. The best team is in the top jobs, shuffling them about would make a minute difference, but there isn’t very much they can do unless they face up to the reality that vaguely aping National’s policies with a few populist, opportunistic postures, isn’t going to get them anywhere.
I suspect, bitterly, that Labour is simply hoping Key gets bored and goes away before the next election – for if Labour’s talent pool is pretty shallow, National’s – without Key – is a sort of anti-pool.
I reckon that if Labour and the Greens combined get more votes than National next election, they’ll be able to find enough support parties to govern. Vice versa too.
During the last term, National averaged an 11% lead over Lab+Green. This term 3%. Since June, less than 1%.Look, I'm not saying this is an impossible outcome. I am saying it is far fetched, and the left seem to be pinning far too much hope on it.
It's pretty pathetic, really, to see the Labour Party that once stood for the best progressive instincts of the country, whining about how it can still scrabble to the line with a considerable dose of support from minor parties and professional factionalists.
Labour have to learn to stand on their own two feet if they are to be a viable governing party. They can’t rely on the Green to toddle along with 15% of the vote and push them over - or anywhere close to - the line. The Greens have their own interests and their own voters’ interests to think of. They are not just a slightly dishevelled, pot smoking extension of the Labour Party. They can – and will – do business with National if need be. Labour will lose support if they are constantly chasing the elusive Green Alliance. They will look feeble, disgust their supporters and find themselves going no-where if they try. Stop dreaming about Red-Green alliances, if the Red team can’t get itself into a more useful position, it won’t be going anywhere near the Government benches.
What can Labour do? On studying the talent available, very little. The best team is in the top jobs, shuffling them about would make a minute difference, but there isn’t very much they can do unless they face up to the reality that vaguely aping National’s policies with a few populist, opportunistic postures, isn’t going to get them anywhere.
I suspect, bitterly, that Labour is simply hoping Key gets bored and goes away before the next election – for if Labour’s talent pool is pretty shallow, National’s – without Key – is a sort of anti-pool.
Sunday, 12 August 2012
Polldrums
Over on the Standard (whippersnapper!) they are getting a bit excited about the latest Roy Morgan poll, which suggests a Labour (32%) and the Greens (14%) coalition might just edge the nefarious forces of the Right (foully coalesced at 44.5%).
Well, maybe. But even if the numbers are accurate, and were realised at a General Election, I think it would be difficult for such a bloc to be formed. When one party thrashes another by 44% to 32%, I think the former has the moral right to form a government, and it is incumbent on the minor parties to support (or at least not undermine) its efforts. If the gap were narrower, this wouldn't be an issue, but with such a gulf between them, it would be strategically disastrous - both parties would be smashed in the subsequent election. It might even re-ignite the whole "MMP vs FPTP" argument. Not worth it.
The bottom line for Labour is that they are still less popular than when the Clark government was ejected in 2008. That was after three cycles of government, years of scheming and bad press, monumental policy screw-ups and with a leader who was pretty obviously tired of the job.
Labour need to close the gap if they are going to form a government. That simple. The problem isn't the leader as such - Shearer and Cunliffe would be in the mix either way, and, bluntly, they're both pretty banal. The talent pool from which the leader is drawn is a part of the problem, as is the issue about the disconnect between the parliamentary party and the party at large. But the main problem, to my mind, is the lack of vision. They need a credible alternative platform that manages to be popular, accessible and practical. People aren't interested in voting for Labour because Labour - as it stands - is about as appealing as a three day dead possum. In summer: "We're a bit like National, but crap, riven and without the charismatic [sic] leader! We offer nothing much, but the prospect of being a conduit for Green policies! So vote for us!"
New Zealand says, "Fuck that!" - and quite right too. New Zealanders aren't so stupidly pedestrian as all that. They'd rather have Key and National than a crap imitation. I think, however, they'd probably rather have a proper leftwing alternative.
They need to get urgent, and get thinking, rather than scheming. Otherwise, another stint of Key and Co. is pretty much inevitable. And if Labour allow that to happen, they should be tried for treason.
Sunday, 19 June 2011
Random bit of Marxism
From Capital:
This surplus value is the excess hours worked beyond the point where a worker has created enough value to maintain himself. The capitalist thrives either by extending the working day, or, if that is not possible, by reducing the cost of living which the worker must recoup before creating surplus value. This is done by driving down the value of the commodities the worker needs to maintain themselves.
Hence, the delight of cheap imports. They reduce the cost of living for those still working in more developed economies, exerting downward pressure on wages.
Hence there is immanent in capital an inclination and constant tendency, to heighten the productiveness of labour, in order to cheapen commodities, and by such cheapening to cheapen the labourer himself. (1)That is to say, a capitalist strives to increase the amount of surplus value (profit) he makes.
This surplus value is the excess hours worked beyond the point where a worker has created enough value to maintain himself. The capitalist thrives either by extending the working day, or, if that is not possible, by reducing the cost of living which the worker must recoup before creating surplus value. This is done by driving down the value of the commodities the worker needs to maintain themselves.
Hence, the delight of cheap imports. They reduce the cost of living for those still working in more developed economies, exerting downward pressure on wages.
1 - From Capital, by Karl Marx. The quoted passage occurs in Chapter 12, 'The Concept of Relative Surplus Value.'(http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch12.htm)
Friday, 10 June 2011
The Hillside proposition
Does the announcement that Hillside Engineering will be laying off staff, following the loss of yet another contract overseas, mean it is of it time to consider a New Zealand version of Harman's Law (1)?
Harman's Law was a proposal by the last Labour government in Britain, requiring public bodies to work towards reducing economic inequality (2). It was facetiously dubbed "Socialism in a single clause," which might be going a bit far, but it is hard to see how it is a bad thing that local authorities should be asked to think of more than just the economic bottom line in their decision making.
There are social and environmental considerations as well. Social, because it's a social good to protect workers and jobs - ideas, I admit, that may be a bit strange to John Key - and the communities that they belong to. As a Scot, I know what happened to the working class communities of the Glasgow-Clydeside conurbation, once the shipyards started closing, and the mining communities when the pits were closed. The same things happened in New Zealand in the 80-s and 90s, but it seems John Key thinks enough damage was not done.
And there are surely environmental considerations as well. I don't think it can be possible to make rolling stock in China at less of an environmental cost than in New Zealand. True, shipping manufacturing - and thus emissions - to China is an established way that the West look less environmentally irresponsible than they really are. But environmental pollution is something that catches up with all of us. Our power and our practices must be less polluting than the Chinese alternative. That should be a consideration as well.
There's a moral dimension as well, since the PRC isn't renowned for its regard for human rights. But I don't suppose Phil Goff will have the chutzpah to argue that line, given it was he who signed off the infamous Free Trade Deal with the bastards of Beijing (3).
Finally, I'm not even sure there's an economic case to be made for sending manufacturing work overseas. After all, if we send $500 million of work to China, that's $500 million dollars vanished forever. If we spend it here, even if it is somewhat more expensive, the money is recycled through local businesses and communities. It goes to New Zealanders, and is spent again and again in New Zealand. I'm guessing there won't be much money being spent Hillside way any time soon.
So it is time for The Hillside Proposition? A statutory requirement that public entities and money is spent with a triple - or even quadruple - bottom line, where economic, social, environmental and moral considerations are weighed up?
Harman's Law was a proposal by the last Labour government in Britain, requiring public bodies to work towards reducing economic inequality (2). It was facetiously dubbed "Socialism in a single clause," which might be going a bit far, but it is hard to see how it is a bad thing that local authorities should be asked to think of more than just the economic bottom line in their decision making.
There are social and environmental considerations as well. Social, because it's a social good to protect workers and jobs - ideas, I admit, that may be a bit strange to John Key - and the communities that they belong to. As a Scot, I know what happened to the working class communities of the Glasgow-Clydeside conurbation, once the shipyards started closing, and the mining communities when the pits were closed. The same things happened in New Zealand in the 80-s and 90s, but it seems John Key thinks enough damage was not done.
And there are surely environmental considerations as well. I don't think it can be possible to make rolling stock in China at less of an environmental cost than in New Zealand. True, shipping manufacturing - and thus emissions - to China is an established way that the West look less environmentally irresponsible than they really are. But environmental pollution is something that catches up with all of us. Our power and our practices must be less polluting than the Chinese alternative. That should be a consideration as well.
There's a moral dimension as well, since the PRC isn't renowned for its regard for human rights. But I don't suppose Phil Goff will have the chutzpah to argue that line, given it was he who signed off the infamous Free Trade Deal with the bastards of Beijing (3).
Finally, I'm not even sure there's an economic case to be made for sending manufacturing work overseas. After all, if we send $500 million of work to China, that's $500 million dollars vanished forever. If we spend it here, even if it is somewhat more expensive, the money is recycled through local businesses and communities. It goes to New Zealanders, and is spent again and again in New Zealand. I'm guessing there won't be much money being spent Hillside way any time soon.
So it is time for The Hillside Proposition? A statutory requirement that public entities and money is spent with a triple - or even quadruple - bottom line, where economic, social, environmental and moral considerations are weighed up?
1 - "Hillside's 'kick in the guts' ," by Matthew Haggart. Published in The Otago Daily Times, 10th of June 2011. (http://www.odt.co.nz/news/dunedin/164215/hillsides-kick-guts)
2 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2010/11/breaking-harmans-law.html
3 - As described previously on lefthandpalm: http://lefthandpalm.blogspot.com/2008/02/new-zealand-secures-infamous-first-fta.html
John Key's pro slavery rebellion
I'll warrant John Key is not an assiduous reader of Karl Marx.
For all that, he seems to have an instinctive grasp of the wrong end of the Marxist stick. That is to say, he's a anti-Marxist, not in the sense he's opposed to Marx, but that he accepts the Marist model - perhaps unconsciously - but from the capitalist side of the Labour-Capital binary opposition. Even if he hasn't delved into the depths of Capital, Mr Key may be familiar with the opening lines of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
His latest pronouncements, on National's plans to further reduce the power of trade unions, are a typical part of the 'hidden fight' to reconstitute society not as the workers might want it, but as Mr Key and his ilk would rather have it (2).
In Capital, Marx describes how capitalist society is characterised by "a potracted and more or less concealed civil war between the capitalist class and the working class," which takes place in "the arena of modern industry" (3). Elsewhere, Marx referred to efforts to overturn the Acts as "a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature" (4).
Mr Key understands chipping away at worker's rights and trade union powers is very much for their own good. Like the factory owners Marx described, who claimed their workers sought to work long hours because they needed the money to relieve their debt and hardship. I almost expect him to crack his guileless, weak smile, and tell us, with an almost comically straight face, that all these advances in favour of the working man will hurt him more than it hurts us. I'll bet it does, John. I can see that pain etched in your face.
Marx, in 1867, was writing about the campaigns either for or against a limit to the working day of the English working class; a succession of Factory Acts had limited the hours worked by women and children. Mr Key is probably doesn't want to see children working 15 hour days, but he does want the work force to be more "flexible," in the hope of encouraging growth and jobs (5). He does want to see the inconvenient, hard won rights of workers diminished, and workers put firmly in their place, subordinate to capital. His finance minister thinks this would be an advantage to us (6). Well, to him, and his people, perhaps.
And, of course, John Key would love to see wages drop (7).
Is this Victorian attitude towards labour really the sort of person we want leading New Zealand in the 21st century?
For all that, he seems to have an instinctive grasp of the wrong end of the Marxist stick. That is to say, he's a anti-Marxist, not in the sense he's opposed to Marx, but that he accepts the Marist model - perhaps unconsciously - but from the capitalist side of the Labour-Capital binary opposition. Even if he hasn't delved into the depths of Capital, Mr Key may be familiar with the opening lines of the Manifesto of the Communist Party:
The history of all hitherto existing society is the history of class struggles.Mr Key would immediately recognize that this is perfectly true; and that he is representative of the first party in each opposition - the freeman, the patrician, the lord and the guildmaster. In a word, the oppressors.
Freeman and slave, patrician and plebeian, lord and serf, guild-master and journeyman, in a word, oppressor and oppressed, stood in constant opposition to one another, carried on an uninterrupted, now hidden, now open fight, a fight that each time ended, either in a revolutionary reconstitution of society at large, or in the common ruin of the contending classes. (1)
His latest pronouncements, on National's plans to further reduce the power of trade unions, are a typical part of the 'hidden fight' to reconstitute society not as the workers might want it, but as Mr Key and his ilk would rather have it (2).
In Capital, Marx describes how capitalist society is characterised by "a potracted and more or less concealed civil war between the capitalist class and the working class," which takes place in "the arena of modern industry" (3). Elsewhere, Marx referred to efforts to overturn the Acts as "a pro-slavery rebellion in miniature" (4).
Mr Key understands chipping away at worker's rights and trade union powers is very much for their own good. Like the factory owners Marx described, who claimed their workers sought to work long hours because they needed the money to relieve their debt and hardship. I almost expect him to crack his guileless, weak smile, and tell us, with an almost comically straight face, that all these advances in favour of the working man will hurt him more than it hurts us. I'll bet it does, John. I can see that pain etched in your face.
Marx, in 1867, was writing about the campaigns either for or against a limit to the working day of the English working class; a succession of Factory Acts had limited the hours worked by women and children. Mr Key is probably doesn't want to see children working 15 hour days, but he does want the work force to be more "flexible," in the hope of encouraging growth and jobs (5). He does want to see the inconvenient, hard won rights of workers diminished, and workers put firmly in their place, subordinate to capital. His finance minister thinks this would be an advantage to us (6). Well, to him, and his people, perhaps.
And, of course, John Key would love to see wages drop (7).
Is this Victorian attitude towards labour really the sort of person we want leading New Zealand in the 21st century?
1 - "Manifesto of the Communist Party," by Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels. Published in 1848. From the 1888 translation by Samuel Moore and Engels. The quoted passage occurs at the very start of the very first chapter, 'Bourgeois and Proletarians.' IT is reproduced on Marxists.org. (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1848/communist-manifesto/ch01.htm#007)
2 - "Labour law changes a campaign plank, says Key," by Claire Trevett. Published in The New Zealand Herald, 9th of June, 2011. (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10731097)
3 - "Capital, volume 1," by Karl Marx, originally published in 1868. The quotation occurs in Chapter 10.7, "The Working Day: The Struggle for the Normal Working-Day. Reaction of the English Factory Acts on Other Countries." This quotation is from my copy of Capital, translated by Ben Fowkes. Marxists.org reproduces a slighly different wording (http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch10.htm#S7)
4 - ibid. Marx used the term "pro-slavery rebellion" to describe the American Civil War, and was fond of using it to characterise moves against social reform.
5 - Trevett, op cit.
6 - "Bill English: NZ's low wages an 'advantage'," unattributed article. Published by RadioLIVE / 3 News, 11th of April, 2011. (http://www.3news.co.nz/Bill-English-NZs-low-wages-an-advantage/tabid/419/articleID/206359/Default.aspx)
7 - "Key “would love to see wages drop”," unattributed press release. Published by The New Zealand government, 19th of February, 2008. (http://www.scoop.co.nz/stories/PA0802/S00304.htm)
Thursday, 9 June 2011
Why British Labour lost the election
Courtesy of The Poverty Site (1):
Whatever else, good or bad it may have done, New Labour failed to do anything substantial to protect the interests of blue collar voters. The number of people living in households on less than 60% of the national average income stagnated. The numbers of those living on less than 40% of that average actually increased somewhat.
The poor, in other words, got poorer, and more people got poorer.
Meanwhile, unemployment remained steady at around 5% of the labour force - the industrial reserve army exerting downward pressure on the wages of those with jobs. From the start of the 80s though to about 1997, British unemployment ran at about or above 10% of the labour force, with an exceptional, short lived trough in the late 80s (2). Labour's term in office saw a drop in the number of people out of work, but no reduction in the numbers living in poverty. People were working to stay poor.
That 22% of the population living on less than 60% of the average wage represents some 14 million people, who didn't benefit from 13 years of Labour being in power. Is it any surprise they didn't turn up to vote in 2010?
One of the classic definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The British proletariat are not insane.
As for the rich? Well, last year the Telegraph reported that there were some 280,000 millionaires in Britain - 1.1%, of the population - could claim to be millionaires, an increase on the year before. These individuals were 'worth' £1.28 trillion. Admittedly, the figures were down on the pre-crash 2007 high of 489,000, but I suspect the current figure reflects the real level of wealth, as opposed to people who have managed to create the self-gratifying illusion of being millionaires in an inflated market.
Whatever else, good or bad it may have done, New Labour failed to do anything substantial to protect the interests of blue collar voters. The number of people living in households on less than 60% of the national average income stagnated. The numbers of those living on less than 40% of that average actually increased somewhat.
The poor, in other words, got poorer, and more people got poorer.
Meanwhile, unemployment remained steady at around 5% of the labour force - the industrial reserve army exerting downward pressure on the wages of those with jobs. From the start of the 80s though to about 1997, British unemployment ran at about or above 10% of the labour force, with an exceptional, short lived trough in the late 80s (2). Labour's term in office saw a drop in the number of people out of work, but no reduction in the numbers living in poverty. People were working to stay poor.
That 22% of the population living on less than 60% of the average wage represents some 14 million people, who didn't benefit from 13 years of Labour being in power. Is it any surprise they didn't turn up to vote in 2010?
One of the classic definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and expecting a different result. The British proletariat are not insane.
As for the rich? Well, last year the Telegraph reported that there were some 280,000 millionaires in Britain - 1.1%, of the population - could claim to be millionaires, an increase on the year before. These individuals were 'worth' £1.28 trillion. Admittedly, the figures were down on the pre-crash 2007 high of 489,000, but I suspect the current figure reflects the real level of wealth, as opposed to people who have managed to create the self-gratifying illusion of being millionaires in an inflated market.
1 - "Proportion of people in low income houselholds, 1979-2009," unattributed graph. Posted on The Poverty Site. (http://www.poverty.org.uk/01/index.shtml)
2 - "A Century of change: trends in Britain since 1900," by Joe Hicks & Grahame Allen.Research Paper 99/111, published by The House of Commons Library, 21st of December, 1999.
(http://www.parliament.uk/commons/lib/research/rp99/rp99-111.pdf)
3 - "Number of millionaires in Britain 'rises to more than 280,000'," by Murray Wardrop. Published in The Telegraph, 30th of September, 2010. (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/personalfinance/8033505/Number-of-millionaires-in-Britain-rises-to-more-than-280000.html)
Friday, 29 April 2011
Come and see the vileness inherent in the system!
Look I wasn't going to say anything about the royal wedding, because a) I don't really care much about it, and b) I don't want to be seen as a horrible grinch. It's nice that William Windsor and Kate Middleton are getting married. They seem like nice people and I hope they're happy. There's enough miserable marriages in the world without wishing for more of them, just because the persons involved happen to be ridiculously privileged and fortunate.
But, this isn't directly about the wedding, so I'll do it anyway.
Much has been made about the fact that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown haven't been invited to the wedding. Many have claimed this is a deliberate snub to them; and others (including the palace) have tried to explain it away, as they aren't 'Knights of the Garter,' unlike John Major and Margaret Thatcher, who have been invited (1).
I don't know why people are trying to argue it isn't a snub. As Martin Kettle - hardly a squealing leftie - points out, it most certainly is. And it shows what a petulant bunch of point scoring, reactionary Tory lovers the royals are:
A vile, patrician attitude, in otherwards, which has demeaned what should have been a lovely day for the youngish couple.
And we're supposed to tug our forelocks and make obeisance to people who still entertain such deluded ideas of their own innate superiority. Maybe five hundred years ago. But in the 21st century, if we're going to have to put up with a silly anachronism like a royal family, then respect has to be mutual. Respect us, or we'll bloody well overthrow you.
That said, have a nice day, Mr and Mrs Windsor-to-be. And a very happy life together. I mean it.
But, this isn't directly about the wedding, so I'll do it anyway.
Much has been made about the fact that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown haven't been invited to the wedding. Many have claimed this is a deliberate snub to them; and others (including the palace) have tried to explain it away, as they aren't 'Knights of the Garter,' unlike John Major and Margaret Thatcher, who have been invited (1).
I don't know why people are trying to argue it isn't a snub. As Martin Kettle - hardly a squealing leftie - points out, it most certainly is. And it shows what a petulant bunch of point scoring, reactionary Tory lovers the royals are:
Of course it is a snub. Of course it is deliberate. Not inviting Tony Blair and Gordon Brown to the royal wedding, while inviting Lady Thatcher and Sir John Major, is a cold, calculated act of high establishment spite against Labour. The failure to correct it – especially when the invitation to the official representative of the Syrian tyranny was so speedily withdrawn – only confirms the miserable, petty, ill-advised disdainful nastiness of the original deed. And I blame Prince Charles. His reactionary fingerprints are all over the wedding's programme of events. This wasn't William's wish, they say.Basically, it's a massive snub - more a "Fuck off you peasants" - not just to Blair and Brown, but to us plebs who voted for Labour, whose representatives they were to the Crown. Indeed, it's a snub to democracy itself!
What's more, it all matters. But not because a royal wedding invitation is itself important. It matters because the snub is a symptom of renewed establishment confidence. British royalty's enduring historic hostility to Labour – a hostility that has very rarely been reciprocated, it should be pointed out – is unsurprising, even today. But the snub might not have been so confidently and publicly delivered without the more general sense, which stretches far beyond the snobbish ghastliness of Clarence House, that it is now absolutely fine and dandy for a public person to parade outright contempt for the Blair and Brown Labour governments. (2)
A vile, patrician attitude, in otherwards, which has demeaned what should have been a lovely day for the youngish couple.
And we're supposed to tug our forelocks and make obeisance to people who still entertain such deluded ideas of their own innate superiority. Maybe five hundred years ago. But in the 21st century, if we're going to have to put up with a silly anachronism like a royal family, then respect has to be mutual. Respect us, or we'll bloody well overthrow you.
That said, have a nice day, Mr and Mrs Windsor-to-be. And a very happy life together. I mean it.
1 - "Royal wedding snub for Blair and Brown criticised by ministers," by Nicholas Watt. Published in The Guardian, 27th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2011/apr/27/royal-wedding-snub-blair-brown)
2 - "Vote yes to AV if you want to see Tories feel the fear again," by Martin Kettle. Published by The Guardian, 28th of April, 2011. (http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/apr/28/vote-yes-to-av-conservatives-fear)
Monday, 7 March 2011
Idiots in glass houses should not throw empty insults
THis was submitted to the Dominion Post in response to a letter published in that paper; since I've had no response from them, I'm assuming they don't intend to publish it in either extended or condensed form submitted. Since it was fun to fulminate, I reproduce it here. Who needs a readership, anyway?
It was amusing to read Leith Gunn's letter of the 2nd of March, 2011,titled "Populist governments are to blame " on the alleged "inane diatribe" of one Greg Edwards, identified by Mr Gunn as a "naive, left-leaning statist." (1)
It is a rule that any country styling itself as "Democratic" can only be a totalitarian Hell hole; similarly, we can be sure any writer accusing another of producing an "inane diatribe" will go on to do precisely that.
Leith Gunn does not disappoint.
He points the finger - with justification - at the actions of the American government in the 90s, particularly the repeal (masterminded by the Republicans Phil Gramm, Thomas Leach and Jim Bliley in 1999) of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
He suggests - again with justification - that the removal of restrictions on the market brought about the financial catastrophe of 2008.
But in trying to pin the blame on "populist governments," and ""Political decisions, Left and Right," he makes a complete fool of himself.
And whatever else you can say about Gram, Leach and Bliley, they were not motivated by populism. Only a small percentage of their votes came from those who benefited from their legislative irresponsibility. Only a few benefited from it, after all.
I suspect, however, a considerable percentage of their campaign funding came from these sources.
He also overlooks the fact that the the system worked for seven decades, then within seven years of the controls being removed, the 'invisible hand' of the free market lead us to disaster.
In other words, it wasn't actually the actions of any "naive, Left-leaning statist" that brought the roof down, but the actions of naive, rightwing free marketeers.
So, we really need these "statist" controls to stop markets from eating themselves alive. Mr Gunn tries to duck this issue by claiming, "Political decisions, Left and Right, are where the problem lies" and babbling about fiat money.
No, old chap, the fixes and controls put in place by the leftish politics of the New Deal era, after one free market induced disaster, kept things ticking over quiet nicely for decades. With those controls were removed, it took just nine years for the free market to go all to
Hell.
Again.
It was amusing to read Leith Gunn's letter of the 2nd of March, 2011,titled "Populist governments are to blame " on the alleged "inane diatribe" of one Greg Edwards, identified by Mr Gunn as a "naive, left-leaning statist." (1)
It is a rule that any country styling itself as "Democratic" can only be a totalitarian Hell hole; similarly, we can be sure any writer accusing another of producing an "inane diatribe" will go on to do precisely that.
Leith Gunn does not disappoint.
He points the finger - with justification - at the actions of the American government in the 90s, particularly the repeal (masterminded by the Republicans Phil Gramm, Thomas Leach and Jim Bliley in 1999) of the Glass-Steagall Act of 1933.
He suggests - again with justification - that the removal of restrictions on the market brought about the financial catastrophe of 2008.
But in trying to pin the blame on "populist governments," and ""Political decisions, Left and Right," he makes a complete fool of himself.
And whatever else you can say about Gram, Leach and Bliley, they were not motivated by populism. Only a small percentage of their votes came from those who benefited from their legislative irresponsibility. Only a few benefited from it, after all.
I suspect, however, a considerable percentage of their campaign funding came from these sources.
He also overlooks the fact that the the system worked for seven decades, then within seven years of the controls being removed, the 'invisible hand' of the free market lead us to disaster.
In other words, it wasn't actually the actions of any "naive, Left-leaning statist" that brought the roof down, but the actions of naive, rightwing free marketeers.
So, we really need these "statist" controls to stop markets from eating themselves alive. Mr Gunn tries to duck this issue by claiming, "Political decisions, Left and Right, are where the problem lies" and babbling about fiat money.
No, old chap, the fixes and controls put in place by the leftish politics of the New Deal era, after one free market induced disaster, kept things ticking over quiet nicely for decades. With those controls were removed, it took just nine years for the free market to go all to
Hell.
Again.
1 - "Populist governments are to blame," a Letter to the Editor, by Leith Gunn. Published in the Dominion Post, 2nd of March, 2011. (http://www.stuff.co.nz/dominion-post/opinion/letters-to-the-editor/4720817/Letter-Populist-governments-are-to-blame)
Friday, 31 December 2010
Dinosaurs vote for asteroids
From the Indie:
Proportional representation will entrench the social democratic majority in power, and allow meaningful long term reform. It will mean the Tories never again enjoy the disporportionate sway they held in the 80s, which effectively broke the Labour party and allowed the Tories to implant their corrosive ideals and policies for a generation.
I just can't get my head around the imbecile tendency in some parts of the Labour party, as shown by their opposition toproportional representation AV. Surely, the strategic benefits of it are obvious to anyone other than the dimmest tribal warrior. Yeah, it might mean coalition with centrist parties, but it will mean the Tories are far hobbled far more effectively. If Unite really had the interests of its members at heart, rather than just getting its paws on power every now and again, it would be campaigning for a 'Yes' vote - and demanding the Labour party support real proportionaal representation, not the feeble halfway house of the Alternative Vote.
Voting to keep first past the post is like dinosaurs voting for asteroids, because it will mean whatever Labour manage to accomplish while they're in power will be obliterated whenever the Tories get back in.
Britain's biggest union is in talks to form an "unholy alliance" with rightwing Conservatives to oppose next year's referendum on electoral reform, The Independent has learnt.The idea that a trade union would ally with the Tories to prevent progress marks a new low in intelligence among the forces of social democracy. It shows that, in fact, the tradde unions can be every bit as reactionary, stupid, and anti-democratic as the forces they are supposed to be opposing, and that they are more interested in maintaining a two team stranglehold on power, content to take their turn in charge every decade or so, rather than advance the ideals they are supposed to represent.
Unite, which has more than 2 million members and is the largest funder of the Labour Party, is expected to throw its weight behind the No2AV campaign early in the New Year. It will commit funding to the campaign and mail anti-AV literature to members.
The decision raises the prospect of union officials campaigning side by side with local Tory party associations to oppose electoral reform. The move also puts Unite at odds with Labour leader Ed Miliband, who announced earlier this month that he would campaign in favour of changing the voting system.
.oO SNIP Oo.
However the other big union, Unison, which represents the majority of public-sector workers, is likely to abstain from taking sides in the vote. The decision by Unite and the GMB is a boost to the No camp, which yesterday revealed the names of 114 Labour MPs who have pledged their support in May's referendum. These include Hazel Blears, Jim Fitzpatrick, Keith Vaz and Margaret Hodge. In contrast around 60 Labour MPs, including most of the Shadow Cabinet, have said they will campaign for a Yes vote. (1)
Proportional representation will entrench the social democratic majority in power, and allow meaningful long term reform. It will mean the Tories never again enjoy the disporportionate sway they held in the 80s, which effectively broke the Labour party and allowed the Tories to implant their corrosive ideals and policies for a generation.
I just can't get my head around the imbecile tendency in some parts of the Labour party, as shown by their opposition to
Voting to keep first past the post is like dinosaurs voting for asteroids, because it will mean whatever Labour manage to accomplish while they're in power will be obliterated whenever the Tories get back in.
1 - "Labour split as 114 MPs say 'no' to voting reform," by Oliver Wright. Published by the Independent, 30th of December, 2010. (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/labour-split-as-114-mps-say-no-to-voting-reform-2171786.html)
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
