Posts Tagged ‘Labour

12
May
12

Glorious Britain

For sale; The British soul

For sale; The British soul

“If you’re not a liberal at twenty you have no heart, if you’re not a conservative at forty, you have no brain”. This quote is, possibly mistakenly, attributed to Winston Churchill. In the 21st century perhaps we should swap Labour for Liberal.

I was left wing when I was young. I had ideals of fraternity and equality. As I aged, I veered to the right. I started to understand that economic is real; that the government has no money except the money we give it; that ultimately it is us that pays for everything.

In the early years I agreed with Thatcher’s privatisations. Why should the state own industry? But as Thatcher’s changes gained traction and as New Labour mimicked and exaggerated her ideology I found myself disgusted with the whole hyper-commercial edifice which was Britain. During the Thatcher years I recall seeing a TV play about “the future” where kids sold electricity to their parents. I thought this ridiculous but this can now happen. If one buys one’s electricity and gas from Utility Warehouse one can earn money buy introducing new customers.

Britain has sold its soul for cafe latte and I find myself moving back to the Left. I want my society to have a sense of community. I want my society to look after the poor and infirm. I want the streets to belong to people and not be just an advertising platform for corporations. I want to roll back the privatisation of public space. My culture should be lived not used to sell trinkets to coach loads of tourists.

I return to my left wing ideals but, depressingly, find that the leaders of the left are either shits, idiots or delusional. I have come to the conclusion that the Left in Britain do not really want to raise up the working class. They do not really want to change society. Instead they are content to be the eternal griping dependents of the Tory elite who they claim to despise.

Today I stumbled across the web site of the The Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition. The strap line on their web site is: “No to Cuts and Privatisation! Make the Bosses pay!”.

“Make the bosses pay”.

Not “let’s take control!”. Not “let’s change the way Britain works”. No, let’s just cadge a bit of lolly off the toffs. They’ll still be in charge but at least we’ll get a couple of pints and a bag of chips. The cardinal attributes of the British left is not empowered leadership. It is not optimistic energy. The cardinal attribute of the British left is a bitter determination to squeeze the rich and a heartless obsession with control.

In the 90s New Labour were content to leave the capitalist system intact, milking it for funds, while planning more and more idiot schemes to micromanage our lives. Some of the schemes favoured by the last Labour government were: the militarisation of the civil servants who man our border control, identity cards, satellite tracking of cars by the state, mass interception of emails, presumed consent to remove organs for transplantation, holding people for 48 days without charge, a DNA database for whole population and ubiquitous CCCTV.

On the 14th April I listened to BBC Radio 4′s Any Questions and someone asked: “Should cigarettes come in plain packets and would it make a health difference?”. The Secretary of State for Justice and former director of British American Tobacco, Ken Clarkek, spoke first (0:38:18) and said “people now understand the dangers” and went on to say “the point at which you so police somebody else’s wellbeing that your are prepared to order them, put penalties on them, if they wont stop doing something which you think they shouldn’t do is a step one should take cautiously”.

When it was Labour MP, Harriet Harman’s turn to speak (0:42:12) she lectured us at length about the dangers of smoking. She explained that it causes heart and lung decease. This patronising tirade epitomised the attitude of left wing politicians. They can talk for hours about stuff that, as Ken Clark pointed out, we already know. They arrogantly assume that they are more informed than we are. They consider that the warn out cliches which they trot out are pearls of wisdom to the ignorant masses. They cannot conceive that we may have heard all of this before yet reached a different conclusion because our values are based on individual liberty.

The root cause of the British political dichotomy is probably the British class system. The toffs are indoctrinated in special schools to have unjustified self confidence. They believe that they are born to rule and so they find ruling easy. They do not have to be competent, they just have appear confident because we, the working class, still have an ingrained and erroneous respect for toffs.

You deny it but you do! We all do. We may hate the middle class middle manager but we love the eccentric old toff. Brigadier Lethbridge-Stewart in Doctor Who, General Mike Jackson in The Balkans. When British troops went into Iraq Colonel Tim Collins gave a speech and said: “…Iraq is steeped in history. It is the site of the Garden of Eden, of the Great Flood and the birthplace of Abraham. Tread lightly there…”. We loved it. We lapped it up. We British are romantics. We listen to these well educated, confident men and we sneer at the egalitarian Americans. We British are content to send our sons to die on the other side of the world as long as we have some Eton educated idiot fill our heads full of romantic nonsense. “Play up! play up! and play the game!” It is our pride and our curse.

Of course the Thatcher years were supposed to change all this. We were told that we were upwardly mobile. The factories were closed and we were sold cheap suits and sent to work in offices. We were now middle class.

Bollocks!

Upwardly Mobile

Upwardly Mobile

Yes, we’ve had a bath and are materially better off but we office wallahs are still working class. We still talk of nothing but football. We still ridicule education, imagination and individuality. “They hate you if your clever and they despise a fool”. We go on Britain’s Got Talent and tell the pundits that we want to express our individuality but we do it by copying every other fucker who wants to express their individuality.

At heart we still respect the toffs and we still need them to tell us what to do. Crucially, we still prefer to swing the lead rather than get off our arses and take control. The toffs are afraid of hard work while the working classes think that being in charge is too difficult and prefer to throw a sicky.

The status quo has existed for centuries and, rather than upsetting it, the left just shout and scream and demands concessions. Rather than reducing the working class to abject poverty the elite throw us a treat now and then to stop us from rising up and doing any real damage.

After a 13 year run by Labour finishing with a plunge into the biggest economic fuck up since World War 2 Labour turned on a sixpence and reverted to demanding that the government stop the cuts. The working class fell for this nonsense and people, who were not politically aware during the Thatcher years, are now expressing hatred of the Tories. Yet where were these hypocrites during the New Labour years? Where were these charlatans when New Labour wanted to introduce super casinos, built by large American corporations, in areas of deprivation with the ludicrous excuse that this would provide jobs?

Ah, but the left attracts idealists and romantics. This week I heard a great old song on the radio: “Letter From America” by The Proclaimers. According to Wikipedia The Proclaimers are socialists and the background for this song is that Thatcher had shut down Scotland and people were all leaving for America. Great song. Great sentiment.

But hang on. Thatcher is blamed for creating mass unemployment right? So the poor Scottish people were forced to emigrate to another country which, presumably, was not run according to a heartless capitalist ideology. Well great. So, which country did they choose? Cuba? Ukraine? North Korea? No, they chose The United States of America. A country which considers universal health care to be communism.

The next British general election is due in May 2015 and I doubt that the economy will have recovered by then and so Labour will probably get back in. Though most of the leaders of New Labour conveniently slipped away before the shit hit the fan there were more than enough lackeys to grasp the reins of power. So when Labour do get in they will doubtless manage the economy as badly as before.

Is the situation hopeless then? Are we British doomed to alternate between Tory and Labour. Are we condemned to eternally stagger from boom to bust? Shat on by Tories, shoveled up by Labour.

There is hope. Other countries manage to combine competent financial and economic management with liberal social polices and they are just a quick hop over the North Sea. Perhaps Scandinavia is a model for Britain’s future?

First we need to ditch the class system which underpins the oscillating nature of British politics and even here the left are too stupid to make progress. When Tony Blair had the chance he botched the House Of Lords reform instead stuffing it full of cronies. Now the Liberals are trying to introduce elections and Labour are using the occasion for political point scoring. They think that parliament is too busy sorting out the debt crisis to worry about reform. Over 600 MPs sitting on their arses all day in the Palace of Westminster can’t handle two things at once? As usual Labour are TALKING BOLLOCKS. Labour should support reform of the House of Lords and once that is out of the way they should start thinking about reducing the power of the monarchy. Notice I don’t suggest abolition as I consider the continuity provided by the monarchy to be useful.

And there is the real problem. We British cling to the past and are not brave enough to strike out for something new. But change is coming. Recent immigrants to Britain don’t fall for this working class romanticism drivel and Scottish independence may be less than a decade away. Perhaps the break up of the United Kingdom will be the kick up the arse that the British need?

Fulking Bonfire

Fulking Bonfire

09
Dec
11

In, Out, In, Out, Oy!, Oy!, Oy!

The Hokey Cokey

The Hokey Cokey

The headlines are screaming that Britain is isolated and the Labour opposition are blaming the Prime Minister David Cameron. The leader of the opposition, Ed Miliband has tweeted that Cameron vetoing the EU treaty change was a sign of “weakness” – Yawn.

This whole furore is ridiculous. Like all EU countries Britain will act in it’s own interests. Britain is not in the Euro area and so her interests are dissimilar from Euro-zone countries. The root of this is that Britain is not a member of the Euro zone and that was a decision taken under Labour so blaming Cameron is absurd.

Does Mr. Miliband really believe that he would have handled the situation any better? If Britain had a Labour government Mr. Miliband would have found that it was he who had to walk the line between the rival mobs of pro and anti European Brits. He would have had to make the best judgement call he could.

Britain has always been half hearted about Europe. We don’t want a two speed Europe because we don’t want a diminution of Britain’s power in Europe but, at the same time, we are not in favour of the greater integration which is the goal of many other countries.

Britain is a problem for Europe but now that push, has come to shove, Britain has been forced to decide: in or out of the central core. Cameron has chosen out and, given the current state of the Euro, I doubt that Mr. Milliband would have decided differently.

The hysteria of Mr. Milliband’s comments are indicative of Labour’s continuing media focused leadership. Just last week he was pontificating on the comments of Jeremy Clarkson on a TV chat show. We should get this in perspective. Mr. Clarkson is the presenter of a car program. Like him or loath him CLARKSON DOES NOT MATTER. I do not elect and pay politicians to commentate on popular TV shows.

New Labour’s current performance are evidence that they still have not understood that 13 years of spin was a failure. They need to get serious and start identifying solid policy differences between themselves and the Conservatives. And a dose of sincerity would not go amiss.

Star House

Star House

16
Jun
11

When Labour call for tax cuts you have to be suspicious

Cut taxes? Labour? With their reputation?

Cut taxes? Me? With my reputation?

I just watched Ed Balls on Channel 4 News calling for VAT cuts. Labour’s argument is that they agree that they need to bring the deficit down but not so fast. Recently I heard Labour talking about the National Health service. Once again they agree that change is needed but not the change that the government are pursuing.

It’s easy being in opposition. All you have to do is disagree with the government. I don’t think many of us have enough understanding to know whether the governments fast track to deficit reduction is better than Labour’s ideas for going more slowly.

We do know that the opposition are bound to disagree with the government. The truth is that Labour have no alternative and so they are forced to criticise the speed of the process rather than the process itself. This is not surprising since the Labour leadership are a bunch of nobodies.

Both Millibands and Balls have never had proper jobs. They all worked as media monkeys for New Labour before being shoe horned into safe seats. They perform so lamely in opposition because they have no policy ideas of their own. They only know is how to present ideas, know how to play the media. Remember that idiotic attack on Ken Clark a few weeks ago? Any sensible person who listened to Clark’s arguments could not have believed that he meant to make light of rape yet Ed Milliband picked it up and was banging on about it during PMQs the very same day. This was nothing but spin.

I have heard several times in the news that Ed Balls is a “considerable intellect” and that he is generally well clued up on the economy. Last week The Telegraph released transcripts of some of Mr. Balls documents from when he was working for Gordon Brown. I read the document entitled Project Volvo where Mr. Balls lays out his ideas for getting Gordon Brown elected.

Not much evidence of a great intellect there.

In fact, project Volvo was no more than an off the shelf marketing campaign which could have been put together by any marketing graduate. The same approach could have been used to sell magazines or margarine.

I realise that this marketing stuff works and therefore political parties are forced to hire marketing staff. I guess this took off in the UK when Margaret Thatcher hired Saatchi and Saatchi but Thatcher was never so stupid as to confuse marketing staff with politicians. Labour’s mistake was to allow the marketing men to run the party.

You have to be suspicious when you hear that Labour want to cut taxes. So when I heard, this evening, that Ed Balls wanted to cut VAT I did not think that this was part of  a well thought out economic strategy. I thought that he was TALKING BOLLOCKS! Balls knows that reputable bodies such as the IMF and the EU do not agree with him and he knows that the government will ignore his calls. But that is not the point.

Mr. Balls does not expect the government to follow his advise. His call for a VAT cut is merely headline grabbing fluff to cast the Tories in a bad light. More spin. More marketing.

Under Tony Blair the marketing men worked too closely with the leadership. In today’s Labour party the marketing men ARE the leadership. I am even starting to hear of yet another rebranding attempt, this time to be entitled “Blue Labour”.

In marketing terms Labour is now a tainted brand and repairing a brand is a very big job requiring going back to honesty and principles. The product itself must have intrinsic value.

While Labour remain a party led by nobodies like Ed Balls even Saatchi and Saatchi couldn’t repair it.

09
Apr
11

Banks recovery is a cheap trick

Simple strategy: May the public pay

Simple strategy: Make the public pay

I get a little irritated when Labour supporters blame the current financial crisis on the banks as they’re merely trying to sidestep their own incompetence. The generally accepted root cause of the credit crunch amongst Economists is interest rates held too low for too long and the blame for this lays with the chairman of the America Federal Reserve, Alan Greenspan and, in the UK, the Chancellor, Gordon Brown.

This is not to say that others should not share the blame. We, as individuals, were to blame for knowingly borrowing far too much and, yes, the bankers were to blame for their incompetence in lending far too much and for tying themselves in knots with odd financial instruments such as credit derivatives.

However, I too am angry with the bankers because they are not sharing the pain. It might be argued that the rich, by definition, never suffer during financial crisis but what irks me is the bankers arrogant inclination to actually raise their income by large amounts while everyone else is having to cut back. Today’s Guardian reported that the head of JP Morgan, Jamie Dimon, received a 51% pay rise!

What planet do these morons think that they’re on?

Bankers argue that they have done a brilliant job in making profits for the banks since the credit crunch and in so doing dug the banks out of the mess they were in. This disingenuous as they have achieved all this merely by the putting their prices up. Competition has dropped out of the market, base rates are ludicrously low let yet loan rates and fees are high.

So who is really paying for the banks recovery and Mr. Dimon’s bonus? You are! Joe bloody public again. The same poor bastard who also paid for the banks bail out. You don’t need to pay a £3m bonus for a trick like that.

Whenever criticised bankers usually reply that you have to pay the market rate or you will lose people. Well, OK, let’s lose some of these people. Firstly, where can they go? Secondly, if they have so little solidarity with their fellow countrymen then bollocks to them and thirdly their past performance IS an indicator of future results so good riddance to them.

07
Apr
11

Voting reform – where’s the debate?

Apathy wins again

Apathy wins again

I received a voting form through the door recently for the upcoming referendum on reform of the voting system. I have no fervent party allegiance but have voted Liberal in the past and have recognised that the Liberals get a bad deal out of our current system. There was an election not so long ago where each of the three main parties got roughly a third of the popular vote  but the Liberals attained only a handful of seats as their votes were spread evenly rather than concentrated in areas where votes could be translated into seats in the House of Commons. Proportional Representation would have given the Liberals a fairer number of seats. However I also recognise that the current “first past the post” voting system has the advantage of allowing people in an area to elect an individual who’s responsibility it is to speak for them in Parliament though the rise of lobby group politics and party whipping can dilute this advantage considerably.

The change that we are being offered in the upcoming referendum is to either keep the current system or change to a Single Transferable Vote system. In the new system we are asked to rank the parties according to our preferences. So we might place a 1 next to Liberal, a 2 next to Labour and a 3 next to Tory. All the 1s are added up and if there is no overall majority then the 2′s are added to the 1s. . OK, so I broadly understand the workings of it but there are many questions. What effect would this have? Would we still retain the individual representing a constituency? I’m sure there are many questions and I’m sure that each system has its own unique advantages and disadvantages.

What I’d like to know is: Where is the debate? Where are the TV documentaries full of university professors discussing each system? Where is the comparison with other countries? Where is the manic news reader with his swing-o-meter producing charts and statistics to show what would have happened in various previous elections if one or the other alternative system had been in place? Where is the Referendum web site explaining the options?

In short: Where is the informed debate?

As far as I can see there is none and I expect that, despite of the support of Ed Milliband and Nick Clegg, the Tories and Labour do not want a change. May the 5th will come and go and most people will be unaware or too uninformed to vote.

The chance to make a major change to British politics will have passed us by because the political establishment and, presumably, the media are happy with the status quo.

Bollocks!

06
Feb
11

More Labour Promises

Labour Promises

More Labour Promises

I hear that Ed Miliband has warned that the young generation have been betrayed by spending cuts. Mr. Miliband is TALKING BOLLOCKS! It is right to be concerned that cuts to education could damage the potential of the next generation but it is absolute hypocrisy for Mr. Miliband to pretend that Labour policies are more friendly to the next generation than those of the coalition government.

It was on Labour’s watch that the UK ran up massive debt and Labour are now opposing every effort to bring the deficit down and repay the debt. The real betrayal of our children would be for us to escape cuts now by borrowing more money to service the debt and just pass the burden on to the next generation.

I also take issue with Mr. Miliband’s idea of a “British promise” that every generation will do better than the last. There has never been such a promise and we should not believe any politician stupid and arrogant enough to make such a promise. Indeed the driving hyper-industrialisation which lays behind this sort of thinking is unsustainable and deceitful. It is deceitful because while it pushes pointless trinkets into our hands it erodes our quality of life by depriving us of space, by driving us to work ever harder and by standardising and commercialisation our environment.

27
Sep
10

Ed Milliband – Toadying pays off

Toadying pays off

Toadying pays off

So Ed Milliband has won the Labour leadership contest and I’m hearing a lot of nonsense about how experienced he is. If he has experience then he has disguised it well. His Wikipedia entry lists his experience thus:

“Born in London, Miliband graduated from Oxford University and the London School of Economics, becoming first a Labour Party researcher, and rising to become one of Chancellor Gordon Brown’s confidants, being appointed Chairman of HM Treasury’s Council of Economic Advisers. Miliband was elected the Member of Parliament for the South Yorkshire constituency of Doncaster North in the 2005 general election.”

University – Researcher – Advisor – MP. NIce work if you can get it. One has to ask why anyone considered that a man in his thirties who had never had a proper job would be worth asking for advise let alone parachuting into a Labour safe seat. Like many of the current bunch of political leaders, in all parties, Ed gained power by toadying to the powerful. Having said that, he’s probably a better choice of leader than his brother.

David Milliband was the obvious successor to New Labour’s Tony Blair and Gordon Brown and favourite to win the leadership. His supporters have been whining that brother Ed only won the contest because the union’s backed him. Hello! The Labour Party was founded by the unions and gets most of it’s funding from the unions. Like them or hate them they have the right, both technically and morally, to pick their leader. Had David won instead of Ed I don’t expect we would be hearing that David had only won because of the support of the party.

I hear that “close friends” of David Milliband claim that he said before the leadership contest that if he didn’t win then he would leave politics. Today the Guardian reported that David’s wife, Louise Shackleton, was “in floods of tears” and “furious about the manner of his defeat”. I am reminded that Tony Blair, after bullshitting us for years that he was “passionate” about everything in politics from schools to hospitals to freedom, he chose to give up his politics and become a banker when he left the Labour leadership.

All this goes to show that the main players in New Labour were, and are, arrogant narcissists interested only in power and not in politics. Good riddance to the lot of them.

01
Sep
10

Labour Leadership – starry eyed, starey eyes and scary eyes

Competition to see who can lie the longest without blinking

Competition to see who can lie the longest without blinking

So here we go………the Labour leadership race. Channel 4 News ran a mini debate between all candidates this evening and fed in some comments from the recently reanimated Tony Blair.

  • Diane Abbott
  • Ed Balls
  • Andy Burnham
  • David Miliband
  • Ed Miliband

All candidates tried to distance themselves from the Brown / Blair debacle. It seems to me that we have David Miliband as the New Labour continuity candidate which I take to mean spending like an irresponsible old Labour government, supporting big business over the individual while increasing the power of the state to control the population using technologies such as centralised databases, CCTV and GPS monitoring of cars.

Then we have Ed Miliband who has mentioned a 50p tax rate and seems to me more an old Labour candidate. Old Labour is not something I relish with it’s economic incompetence but Socialism is an honourable ideal and at least he is relatively straight about his objectives.

Ed Balls is a mystery to me. That this blowhard babbler could even be considered as a candidate for an MP let alone party leadership shows just how much modern politics relies on spin over policies. I don’t trust the way his eyes open wide when he gets fervent and I suspect that he is lying while trying to look the interviewer in the eye and overcompensating.

I respect Dianne Abbot for independence and saying what she thinks and I agree with her on some policies mostly related to foreign policy. However, I expect that she is one of those Labour MPs who are excellent at fighting injustice but inexperienced and naïve when it comes to managing.

I don’t know too much about Andy Burnham but he seems equally distanced from Blair and Brown and relativity untarnished by the New Labour experiment. Perhaps he could be a good leader. Not that I’d vote Labour for a few terms yet. Labour really need to stop adjusting their policies in order to garner votes and figure out what they stand for.




Enter email address to receive notifications of new posts.

Join 77 other followers

Jonesxxx on Twitter

Images

Roof

Billiards

Sunset

Traffic

Dusk

Pizza to go

Chat

Roof

Roof

The Look

More Photos

 

June 2012
M T W T F S S
« May    
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
252627282930  

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 77 other followers