The British Disaster

The British had a disaster in its political life. Although the leaving of the EU is the most traumatic and in my mind stupid decision, the respect for democratic choice should be honoured with more than an afterthought. There should be an examination of the vote and the lies told to the electorate and at some stage in the not too distant future, the nature of the decision should be revealed. For example: votes cast in PENCIL could be subject to doubt; inadequate margin for a constitutional change (a Brexit campaigner started a petition to ensure that REMAIN did not win by the narrow margin LEAVE won by, and 4.1 million signatures indicated dissatisfaction with the “result” being such a slender margin, and a decisive victory for REMAIN in Scotland brings the unity of the UK into question); complete falsehoods being told to the voting public; a committed campaign of anti-immigration propaganda; the departure of all the LEAVE campaigners including the laziest and most absurd politician in history, Nigel Farage.

No, the disaster is the one that has just ended. The era of David Cameron and George Osborne; the blaming of the previous more successful administration for anything that was wrong for the first five years of Cameron’s reign, followed by a year of bullying and condescending humour at the Ballot box during weekly self-congratulatory PMQs, an opposition that has become neurotic about the choice of leader by its grassroots.

We welcome Theresa May’s new administration with trepidation and justifiable fear. Anything is better than being lied to, but it is the sacking of the old school tie, the removal so far of the worst front bench under David Cameron that is to be celebrated: Michael Gove, George Osborne, Nicky Morgan, Jeremy Hunt, Micheal Whittingdale: ALL GONE.

Let us hope that Boris can grow up and apologise to the British for his lies. Let’s hope he can start to realise that our relationships with other countries matter. I have a sneaking suspicion that he has been with May all along, sick and tired of the antics of the previous administration that factually can be blamed for causing the near breakup of the United Kingdom.

Labour and Brand

Maybe now that faux-socially-aware Cameron has fallen, the Labour party will have some cachet in the occupation of the middle ground?

Corbyn has been a refreshing nuisance, a politician who actually is convinced his point of view aligns with the voters and it seems that is correct.

It is the 174 MPs who have no-confidence in a genuine socialist who seem to be in the wrong party. They appear to be liberals, not socialists. They still call themselves “Blairites”? Surely “Social Democrats” is a better name for them, and their electoral chances are better under an accurate name and flag, than pretending they have the ear of the average Labour voter?

Get out of the way of candidates that can follow Jeremy Corbyn bringing socialist values back to Labour, where they belong. We do not need another Thatcherite party calling itself Labour competing with the Conservatives, we need representation, preferably proportional, and with accurate political branding.

This empahsis on “leadership” is simply distraction. Labour do not deserve power when 174 of their MPs are not Labour.

If you vote Labour while the party is populated by Blairites you are voting for Social Democracy at best, or perhaps should vote for the Lib Dems. “Labour” failed to get a majority under Ed Miliband: Blairism was right of Thatcher.

Labour is doomed if it does not establish its identity. Maybe after this government, we will need a socialist party to compete for our votes. Corbyn is one of the best leaders in our Parliament, in my opinion, but I am not a Labour voter.

It rather depends on what “leadership” means. If it means setting policy objectives and behaviour by example, then Corbyn appears to be setting up a socialist plank which has its audience. The Blairites – or Social Democratic lobby – also have a very good plank but it is not “Labour”. It is entirely, in my view, an issue of brand confusion brought about by Blair, by taking over the centre ground, he defined a new breed of centrist, who are basically neo-liberal economically but socially aware on “issues”. I would say the real inheritor of this brand is Cameron but he is over the top insofar as austerity went, and not very successful either. Theresa May has already defined herself to partly take this “centre” ground with her announcement of Miliband’s ideas about worker representation on boards. I understand your point of view is seen as common sense, but I have a very different perspective. I have seen a successful Left Wing modernised Labour party win 2 terms under one PM and then 4 terms in office under the next, bring about a surplus without harsh austerity while banning nuclear weapons, ending discrimination against gay people and minorities (New Zealand, under David Lange and then Helen Clark).

I am not 100% behind Corbyn, but he is brand Labour, and the “Blairites” are not left-wing. When they achieve growth through liberal policies and then become Left leaning (as their brand dictates), like Gordon Brown tried, they lose power.

Yes, I do agree that Corbyn will not win an election until socialism becomes possible, but it is important that we have a range of real options to vote for. I do think that if Labour split and the Neo-Liberals took over from the UKiP vacuum, that they would win the next General Election but they will not as Labour, as that brand is not what they are.

The referendum showed how their constituancies did not follow with their thinking, that their brand of socialism did not appeal to Labour voters. Blaming Corbyn’s leadership is simply illogical. They did not follow his lead and have lost the hearts and minds of the people who elected them. People vote for MPs, not simply a “leader”. This media led thinking that we only vote for a PM is as logical as a return to Royal rule.

For democractic representation to work with Party politics – we have to understand what we are voting for. I appreciate your arguments are reasonable and the goal of winning a GE is laudable, but if you do not sort out the brand, then voters will only be disappointed.

The UK and the EU

The Uk is thinking about leaving the EU. Campaigns run to see if Britain would be better inside or outside the EY seem to address the advantages for Britain. The most significant advantage for the UK is that without the UK influencing the EU, the largest market in the world may not work as well as it does with the UK.

The EU needs the UK. Without its “Westernising” influence, it’s connection with the USA and the English language, it reduces the EU. Being a part of it, and influencing it, the UK of course benefits but if the UK left the EU, although it may experience certain advantages of independence the greatest loss to the world would be that of an integrated and successful EU.

The UK Election

20 days away still

Read this excellent analysis of what is wrong with the Tories and the Lib Dems in Coalition. I really wonder at the Clegg strategy of saying he makes the best carping fishwife to either possible Prime Minister. It badly stinks to assume the power of Deputy PM with such certainty. He comes off as a complete ego strutting cock, the sincere hope for any future of the Liberal Democrats is that this man loses his seat. They could do so much better than moderate dictatorship.

Both parties could go into coalition with the Lib Dems, but this leader is toast if he halves the vote for his party. If he loses half his seats, that is another matter.

The half logical and half disastrous rise of UKiP (I spell it that way as independence is what is so unimportant to the development of this very right wing group attracting the worst of the Tories. Maybe we will have a Conservative party that actually does some good as all its extreme members desert it. Independence of UK is the same story as Scottish independence. In the final analysis it does not make sense.

21 days to go

Lib Dem agreed to a referendum on AV – that basically spelt their doom. AV is not the best form of democracy. I think the NZ system of Mixed Member Proportional is better but wonder why we do not change our voting system.

A slim “majority” meant a Tory led coalition that doubled the national debt with austerity. I predict we will get exactly what we do not need as a result of our FPP election, i.e. Tory and Ukip in coalition with Lib Dem and SNP offering support when it suits their interests.

22 days to go

Can Nick Clegg keep his role as Deputy PM?

Twitter analysis of the debates early April

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/politics-blog/11512203/Election-debates-Who-does-Twitter-think-is-winning.html

Iain Duncan Smith

It is up to us.

Every adult has a vote, and enough judgement. One does not have to be socialist to see that this the Minister for Social Welfare is a liability to the welfare of all people. He thinks he has decreased unemployment by making life impossible for the many who rely upon welfare due to their own unemployment. Job seekers get sanctioned when they do not attend interviews, but too many injustices point toward a cruel and heartless system that has let people die.

Iain Duncan Smith’s IT project to consolidate benefits under the brand “Universal Benefit” is a bit like a flat tax, in that it should reduce administration costs. This IT project is failing to deliver, exceeding costs and seems out of control.

Any well meaning citizen can fail, and the security provided by a welfare system prevents what we see on the streets of cities, what we hear about in the taxed bedrooms of the disabled and deaths due to the unfair Job Centre sanctions. This social experiment is like a child torturing flies.

The Conservatives and their role in this government have not improved the economic lot of the majority and it is up to us, the majority of fair minded people from both sides of the political divide to ensure that they do not continue after 2015. Increased wealth is no good if you live in a nation of corpses.

London’s New Slavery

London has turned into a haven for Oligarchs and why Cameron will not do much about Crimea.

Read this scathing article in NY Times an indictment of modern London. How our “service industry” in The City are services for the very wealthy whilst cheap labour and contract builders who are then discarded create a sharply unfair society in the world financial centre.

London is a great city, one of the most loved tourist destinations, and full of vibrant business but it has its dark streak of great cruelty.

What David Bowie did?

The Next Day – is it a warning about the UK?

The Next Day - is it a warning about the UK?

David Bowie was one of the first artists to harness the power of the internet from about 1997 the now mature engagement with his fans makes the reactions to his invitation for Scotland to “stay with us” far more entertaining than troublesome. I am sure he got what he wanted, he has engaged the entire UK in a political discussion that David Cameron had just refused to do, to debate it with Alex Salmond.
David Bowie - not always nice David Bowie is an artist whose visions of the future he projects include dystopian madness gone wrong, unsanitised horror, and intellectual leaps into the dark that invented new genrés. Now the fairy story logic that our Prime Minister thinks passes for sensibility is seen in a different light.


Alex Salmond correctly challenges the Prime Minister to a debate, a proven process that started along with the idea of “civilisation” during the genesis of democracy 2500 years ago in sunny Greece. David Cameron refused, “oh its up to the Scottish people” he chimes like a swollen doorbell, glowing with self regard.

Wait a minute, he represents the Scottish people as their Prime Minister right now, what is he really saying? He is asking the Scots to vote “Yes” as he prefers the idea of all the Tory tax dodgers inheriting a old England and move all the socialists to Scotland?

What David Bowie did in four short words is start a national debate because our Prime Minister will not lead.

English libel laws

Sally Bercow has been found at fault in a libel action in the high court – after a tweet where she asked why Lord McAlpine was trending, adding “innocent face” – suggesting although she may have known about why, she was not going to say.  She was reflecting less obscure media references to defamatory and false accusations about Lord McAlpine that have already been subject to successful defamation suits.

Freedom of speech has an evolutionary function on society.  Overly reactionary forces may work against the natural drift of progress causing decay and distortions like slavery or apartheid.

The insults freely flung about daily on social networks and chat boards seem to reflect the maturity of their audiences.  It is refreshing to see a public candidness without the need to follow celebrity having a voice.  Sally Bercoe’s voice is no more meaningful than any other in the Twitterverse.  So to single out Twitter as the most robust, sober and authentic forum certainly surprised me.

It is obvious that using social networks for libel is actually more stupid than any other form as the evidence is pretty hard to deny and can spread like wildfire.

Just hope I have not implied anything here. Innocent face.

Started as a comment: http://discussion.guardian.co.uk/comment-permalink/23841388

Disclaimer: this blog is published offshore in America.