Trident, the Trade Union Bill, Trump

Firstly I’d like to talk about trident. It’s intiguing that Corbyn has come to be seen as an extremist, for his desire to get rid of Trident, with his more moderate shadow cabinet and the “middle-ground” Cameron distinguishing themselves by their willingness to see the eradication of the human race. Why has no-one asked him: please, Prime Minister, hypothesise for us, if you would, a situation where you would actually use Trident?

If we are going to spend billions of pounds over the next few years basing our defense policy around hypotheticals, then what reason could we have for not exploring them? Because the simple truth is this: there is NO situation in which a British prime minister would ever have call to use nuclear weapons. If you use a nuclear bomb after having been hit by one, then it was never a deterrrent to begin with, not to mention that the deaths of millions in Moscow or Tehran would only balance out the lives of Londoners in the mind of a mad man. Further tragedy compounds rather than eliminates prior tragedy.

Is threatening the use of an atomic weapon ever a sound foreign policy move? Or is it simply dehumanising both for those making and responding to the threat, as well as being transparently a piece of bluff; a game of brinkmanship, toying with the lives of millions. But surely the crux is this: is there really a potential prime minister out there with the “iron” to see such a policy through? Is there really anybody who could bear to have millions of souls weighing on their conscience? Yes, Truman did it, but the bombs used at Hiroshima and Nagasaki look like child’s play compared to our modern nuclear armoury.

I henceforth issue a challenge to the right-wing commentariat. If anyone wants to rubbish trade unions and diminish the work they do; to write inflammatory, ungrounded articles about the disruption they’re causing and the so called “militancy” of their leaders, and the way that they and the teaches and nurses they fight for somehow represent “vested interests”, please go right ahead. But in the interest of honour and chivalry, please renounce your right to stay home from work on weekends.

Donald Trump. What can I say?

I watched a Trump rally this morning whilst ironing my shirts, and feel emotionally and intellectually exhausted. It stopped being funny after about half an hour; and let me tell you, when he has control of the world’s strongest military, it’ll stop being funny much sooner than that. Much of his rhetoric consists of this desire to “make America great again” (of course nothing we haven’t heard before) but there is something new: a strange, twisted sense of self-pity. The burning conviction that America is being taken for a ride, and that it shoulders the responsibility for world affairs without reaping any of the benefits. That the leaders of Mexico, Japan and China are too “smart” for Barack Obama, and have conspired to put America in trillion of dollars of debt, as well as an outstandingly large trade deficit, and to steal all their jobs. But what’s so strange is that this feeling isn’t constricted to the demented Donald Trump; you see it flaring up again and again in the annoyingly liberal West Wing, which I think will be the subject of my next post.

It’s a feeling that can only come from seeing world events through an entirely different prism from everyone else. Where news of the outside world is filtered through those sharp minds at Fox News, and where America’s bombing campaigns, carried out through the 70 years or so that they have been the world’s superpower, are just the inventions of terrorist-sympathising journalists and communists.

Trump has no understanding of the countless civilian casualties, all over the world, that have ensued due to the Pentagon’s desire to see left-leaning tyrants replaced by more market-friendly butchers. His supporters don’t understand that the people working long hours in awful conditions in Mexican sweatshops aren’t the victors; they are every bit as much the loser as a redundant car manufacturer from Detroit. They are both equal victims of an academic, cultural, world consensus that says: “Trade must be free. The movement of capital must be free. Government is always the problem. Your freedom is inextricably bound up in the freedom of corporations to exploit you.” And how could Trump supporters know this? For that matter, how can Britons, or Frenchmen, or Bulgarians be expected to understand it? When they have a media that is blind to the world’s ills, and is as much in thrall to market forces as anyone.

Advertisements

Lies and Localism

Central to David Cameron’s “de-toxifying” mission upon becoming leader of the Conservative Party in 2005 was the idea of “localism”. Decisions would be made at the lowest possible level; power would be taken from the beaurocrats of Whitehall and transferred to town halls up and down the country. This was a clever ploy because it appealed to some element in all the great political traditions: Conservatives (especially soft-Tories) liked localism because it stood both in contrast to the all-mighty, centralised state, whilst lacking the divisive radicalism of pure Thatcherism; in other words it rekindled the Burkean flame that had been absent from the Tory party. Socialists liked localism because it implied greater community involvement; Liberals liked it because it combined all the strands of social liberalism: devolving power to individuals through political involvement rather than the free market.

So it was a clever ploy, and together with the photogenic huskies and hug-a-hoodie photo-ops, it gave Cameron a wide appeal based on the rather flaky idea that Conservatism could be less harsh, less divisive and altogether less stupid. It was an illusion that millions would like to believe, and some still do. But the reality is that Cameron’s rhetoric has been proved to be exactly that: just rhetoric.

High ranking Conservatives who today hold ministerial office used to give speeches in which they set out their vision for the day when the running of various services would no longer be their responsibility. (It would be cynical, at this point, to suggest that this was due to their understandable desire to have a ministerial salary whilst simultaneously finding more time to spend at their gentlemen’s club.) The softer, more cuddly, burkean-ised version of Toryism resold to the public under Cameron’s leadership was based on an aversion to the activist state.

But the maxim that power corrupts has never been so thoroughly proven as during the last five years, not to mention the last few months. Given the opportunity, the Tories have not shrunk from imposing their world-view on others (restrained, in part, it should be said, by the Liberal Democrats), and amassing more and more power to themselves. Rather than letting others live their lives as they see fit, which is what Conservatism purports to be about, the Conservatives have indulged in ministerial activism just as their New Labour predecessors used to. The only recognisable difference is that they have wielded their power not in the name of increasing opportunity for all, and enacting legislation to protect the vulnerable from the ravages of a free-market economy, but instead to force pet-projects like HS2- and even worse, fracking- on local authorities whether they like it or not. Because the gentlemen in Whitehall always know best. Even when they are imbeciles with an infantile understanding of economics and a satanic understanding of human nature. Even more disturbing has been the idea that the lower classes should stop breeding quite so much, or else lose their tax credits. In the words of that veritable god, Josh Lyman: “They want a government small enough to fit into our bedrooms”. Rather than getting involved to pursue meaningful change to help people’s lives, this government has taken it upon itself to seek out the root of “pettiness” as a concept, and to absorb into their being whatever they find there, squandering public money throughout.

We have recently learned that the government will take decisions on fracking applications into their own hands if local authorities don’t make the ‘right’ choice. Councils now have 16 weeks to make a decision, or the minister Greg Clark will make the decision for them. In fact he can now do that in any situation he likes. This is in very stark contrast to wind power, which has seen its subsidies cut back viciously, and we were told new wind farms will only be built if the communities involved were very keen for them to go ahead. All this speaks of a government which is not only hypocritical, unprincipled and seemingly the victim of amnesia as to why they are in politics in the first place -apart from perhaps sadism- but also one which fails to understand the country it governs, or the world in which it sits. A government so hopelessly lost and clueless as to the nature of the affairs they meddle with that they might as well not bother.

Speaking of wind turbines, I will be writing a post shortly in response to James Delingpole’s “watermelons”. So that should good.

The Blairites

The latest wild-eyed, shrill shreak of terror and petulance to come from the Blairite wing of the Labour party has been Simon Danczuk’s brilliant intervention into the debate, showing his world-class political mind to be the wonder that it is; when asked in an interview whether Jeremy Corbyn would be ousted on day one, he said: “Yeah, if not before. As soon as the result comes out. People in the PLP [Parliamentary Labour Party] aren’t going to put up with it”. The economically and ideologically clueless, almost universally despised parliamentary representatives of a movement proud in history and achievement will simply not put up with the result of a democratic election if it does not go their way. So there.

And why should they? Don’t these grassroots activists know who’s really in charge here? This is the Labour party for fuck’s sake, not some kind of hippyish democratic cult. In fact the level of contempt shown by Blairite political operators for the ordinary party activists that handed them their election victories, and provided a useful counter balance against the soul-destroying influence of Blair, has never been clearer than now. Blair recently advised party activists who felt that their heart was with Corbyn to get a heart transplant. John McTernan’s contempt for the people of Scotland was made clear in the scandal surrounding the leaking of his emails in 2008, but his description of Corbyn supporters as “morons” I’m sure convinced a good few of them to stop being so silly, get real and vote for some bland machine-man/woman.

In fact the behaviour of the Blairites throughout this election has astounded me, as I know it has many. It’s one thing to favour pragmatism over ideological purity – at least this is logical, sensible and legitimate – it’s quite another to throw what essentially amounts to a political tantrum because their own members are threatening to vote the wrong way.

If Jeremy Corbyn wins, the PLP will stomach his “crazy left-wing” policies. They will cheer him at prime minister’s questions. Their petulant talk of an immediate “coup” will fade away into history. They will do all this, or their total loss of direction as a political movement; as well as the degree to which the leaders of a supposed ”people’s movement”  have become so dreadfully estranged from the lives of the ‘people’ they seek to serve, will become painfully clear to everyone with a TV set. The disastrous defeat of 2015 will become so, so much worse: the final death-knoll of a venerable movement. Worse even than my sure knowledge that my above wish list will fail to materialise, is the knowledge that such a movement lived its last days amid the undignified shouts and jeers of ignorant men like Simon Danzcuk, and the attention-seeking hysteria of political nobodies like his enormously breasted ex-wife.

Migrants, the House of Lords and Corbyn-mania

Just like the USA, it seems we are in danger of forgetting our history and turning our back on its complications with hypocritical absurdity. Britain, just like the US, is a country of immigrants. Our country as we know it today has been formed by wave after wave of immigrants bringing new culture and language, and collectively enriching this “sceptered isle”. What makes me so angry about the current immigration debate, is not even the lack of understanding that the people coming here from the developing world are trying to escape poverty, war, famine and hardship – a great deal of which we gave them – and to seek a modest slice of the wealth we stole from them. What irritates me most is not the dehumanizing language (the Prime Minister recently refered to human beings as a “swarm”) and the frustration that our political debate has been so pointlessly sidetracked away from things that actually matter; what annoys me most is the idea that the Pakistani families coming to live in Bradford, Glasgow or London are really any different from the Anglo-Saxon settlers who practically wiped out Celtic England, or the blood-thirsty Vikings who come to rape and pillage in Scotland and northern England. For all the talk of Islamic extremism, their wave of immigration has been incomparably less violent than that of previous settlers.

However, I have a Conservative disposition which leads me to abhor sudden change, especially cultural. Which is why I would favour slower migration, with proper checks. And I imagine that most people in Britain are pretty much on the same wavelength. And so it would be great if the government could find time on its legislative agenda to begin to solve the problem; by no means should it dominate the political discourse in the way it does. By no means should we turn a cold shoulder to the thousands of desperate, hungry and hopeless wretches trying to enter the channel tunnel. Surely this is the one issue on which the EU should take action, if on nothing else? What other situation is more suited to EU interfering than one which requires mature, sensible dialogue and collective decision-making across all the European states?

Speaking of my conservative disposition, the constant attacks on the “indefensible” House of Lords (quickened in the wake of the Lord Sewel revelations) are beginning to grind my cheese.

Surely there can be no greater example of “the public doesn’t know what it wants” than when people whine and whine about an alienated political class, with no experience of the real world, and then bemoan a chamber which collectively represents the inherited experience and wisdom of Britain and all its professions? The quality of debate is much improved in the House of Lords than in the Commons – not least because the members are busy snoozing rather than braying like donkeys – which is what you would expect, because the people who sit there carry exactly the kind of real world experience that our political discourse so desperately needs.

Another elected chamber would be daft – the final victory of the career politician.

The reason it gets progressives so hot under the collar is because it exists as a useful part of Britain’s political machinery despite Enlightenment ideals – just like the monarchy. Although it provides the much needed scrutiny that the Commons so woefully lacks, it is an outrage: without democratic legitimacy. Kezia Dugdale’s recent article in the Guardian makes the case for moving the Lords to Glasgow, very cleverly without stating outright that it should be elected: ” Who could say in all honesty that if we were starting from scratch we would draw the current system?”. And right there in a nutshell is what is wrong with the progressive understanding of the British constitution. As a crusading force, left-wingers are wired to think they can change things for the better. Sometimes this is welcome and necessary, but it’s always an arrogant way to look at things, and it sometimes leads them to destroy useful institutions simply because they don’t fit in with their ideals. Conservatism used to be about fighting that kind of utopianism, but it has recently converted to an even more twisted utopianism of its own.

You simply can’t start from scratch. Constitutions – like societies – are complex, organic, and the result of slow, careful evolution; although our’s isn’t perfect, I’d challenge you to find one anywhere in the world that is, and we should pride ourselves on having one that’s better than most.

There has been furore aplenty in the media following Jeremy Corbyn’s surprise lead in the Labour leadership race. Blairite grandees have come out in force, decrying their intention to overturn a democratic decision and depose Corbyn immediately if by some freak of fate Labour Party members are stupid enough to elect him. What we are effectively seeing is a revolt against the parliamentary labour party by its grassroots members. For years now, the best kept secret in politics has been that the majority of the public, let alone the Labour party, are economically to the left of the Labour leadership at any time (constantly validated by opinion polls showing high levels of support for renationalisation etc). Despite this, Blairites, with arrogance and glowing self-admiration that still hasn’t worn off since 1997, go about crying havoc, and expatiating on how electing Jeremy Corbyn would be electoral suicide. The facts are these: Jeremy Corbyn’s inclusion in the race has been a healthy thing for British democracy, not just the Labour party. He has raised issues that matter to the vast majority of people, he has aired opinions that so desperately needed airing, and he has reminded the Labour party of why it exists. In the face of this the other leadership candidates have offered a bland mixture of platitudes and status-quo jargon, and they deserve the kicking they are currently getting in the polls. The result of his campaign has been to mobilise a huge amount of public frustration which has so far not been given a vehicle- the Labour party should have been its vehicle- and given Labour a chance of winning back its heartlands in Scotland and re-awakening the social democratic spirit in working class communities that haven’t voted for a long time, and which are more likely to hold the key to winning the election and retaining our principles than the imaginary phantom of “middle England”.

Lastly, I want to tackle this idea that Corbyn is somehow “far left” or extreme. On the contrary, he is what a social democrat looks like. Blairites like to define themselves as “social democrats” in contrast to Bennites who they brand as “socialist” and “far left”. Blairism offers at best a watered down social liberalism. By the standards of the 1970s, Jeremy Corbyn would be considered moderate. The only thing that makes him “loony left” and therefore “unelectable” is the newspapers deciding that he is; the Blairites might have destroyed Labour’s soul, but they don’t have to give Rupert Murdoch a helping hand in redefining the parameters of debate in this country.

Tax credits and Gideon’s vindictiveness

It’s a sure sign of what depths the Conservative Party has sunk to that George Osborne now believes the best way to cut the deficit is through further welfare cuts. The last five years of a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition saw swingeing cuts to all public services, but especially the welfare bill, which is symbolic of all that Tories despise about the state. It fosters complacency, laziness, it undermines self-reliance, frugality and discipline, and more than anything else, it is bloated beyond all belief.

Although this is no doubt a convenient lie for winning elections, as it plays to the usual Thatcherite antics of turning workers and against shirkers (divide and rule, etc); but a lie it so inconveniently remains. Osborne managed very modest savings from the welfare bill in the last parliament, despite offloading a huge amount of pain and suffering onto very vulnerable people. Because he continues to believe the farce he believed when he first entered the Treasury: that there are simply millions of lay-about benefit fraudsters draining the public purse for their hedonistic lifestyles. This is a nonsense.

Firstly, half of the welfare bill goes to pensioners. Because Gideon relies on these to vote for him on polling day, he has not attacked them, and did in fact increase the money going to pensioners by £4.6 billion from 2014-2015. The only other action he took on pensions was to liberalise them, and give people control over their own pension pots (yet another example of a free-market idea which has unpleasant ramifications in the real world, as more and more people are getting swindled out of their savings by fraudsters). The rest of the welfare bill goes to things like housing benefit, job seekers allowance, and of course tax credits.

Now contrary to Gideon and company’s deeply held believe that thousands are either pretending to be disabled or are not trying hard enough to get a job: neither is true. Job seekers allowance is a relatively small portion of the welfare budget compared to the things that Osborne finds electorally useful, and the few available examples of benefit fraud are blown out of all proportion by the right-wing media. This is the reason Gideon has struggled to make savings before, and the reason that his insistence on trying again leaves me perplexed and angry.

I’m coming round to the belief that David Cameron is truly a One Nation Tory (bear with me). He is a pragmatic and unideological conservative, which is usually a recipe for good government. But his ideology (as vague as it might be) is informed by some simple, unspoken Thatcherite assumptions, which his very privileged and narrow upbringing never forced him to question. A Britain of food banks and benefit sanctions isn’t one he understands, cares about or is even really aware of; his actions are guided by the unquestioned assumption that the wealth creators will save us all. Here he is different from George Osborne, whose caesaresque manner and austere fiscal conservatism have been balanced by the needs of economic reality. In the middle of the last parliament, when it became clear that austerity wasn’t working, and was indeed a violation of common-sense economics, as well as basic morality, he essentially stopped cutting. But he never showed it. He allowed himself to be carried along by the helpful narrative that he had created: that labour’s profligacy was the problem, and he was the hero cleaning up the mess.

Osborne is a Whig: he cares for strivers, individual freedom, free markets, and striving market individuals . He is not a true conservative in any sense of the word. The intermediary institutions that conservatism was born to conserve, protect and defend mean nothing to him; which might explain the willingness with which he takes a meat cleaver to Britain’s social fabric. He doesn’t believe there is any such thing as the social fabric: his view of society is one of atomised individuals, all striving to shaft each other as part of the Greenback bogey- which to his mind is a natural law, not a social construct which evolved in the 16th century.

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that poverty, inequality and low pay are serious problems in modern Britain, but it takes a special kind of Thatcherite douche-bag to think that the solution to the state subsidising low paying corporations is to punish their workers. At least, in the words of Amber Rudd, they are being “consistent”. Because punishing disabled people for the recklessness and greed of an international banking elite never gets old.

Dismay as candidate representing Labour values manages to enter Labour leadership contest

Although the title of this piece is satirical, what follows will certainly not be; not only because I couldn’t think of any more material, but also because the future of social democracy is not a joke.

As a self-confessed Burkean Tory I support a general desire for less state interference in our lives, for more respect of the intermediary institutions between individuals and the state, I have a general distaste for the clinical arrogance that runs through all progressive thought, and I despise the inexcusable behaviour of our rapacious economic elite.

Although I wouldn’t vote for Labour, I am amazed at how Jeremy Corbyn’s nomination for his party’s leadership race was received with such dismay. Its fair enough if you don’t agree with his policies- although many of his ideas have badly needed airing for many years- but to wish him out of the contest altogether? What possible justification could you have for not even letting him stand? How could such an idiotic, undemocratic sentiment possibly find support in a democratic country, much less a political party obsessed with democracy?

Numerous insufferable Blairites have taken to the air, decrying that the Labour Party isn’t “taking itself seriously”. My response to this is that any political party claiming to be left-wing, which has remoulded its ideological DNA in order to remain electorally viable, rather than fulfilling their true reason for existence- standing up to power and giving the lie to free market fundamentalism- and then struggled to put a socialist candidate into the leadership contest, has not only long since stopped taking itself seriously, but almost lost its soul.

It’s good for the Labour Party, and good for Britain that Jeremy Corbyn has made it into the leadership race; it’s good that his courageous views will be given the hearing they so badly need in a political climate where any deviation from Thatcherism is either scowled upon or regarded as delightfully quaint.

Let’s not forget that this economic doctrine has truly failed to prove itself on a moral or even economic level; as such it is the prevailing school of thought throughout the world.