Honestly, you couldn't make it up.
If, say 15 years ago, you were told that the UK would elect a Tory government despite more than 50% of the country being pissed off with poverty and misery, and would also vote to come out of the EU based on a mixture of feelings, misplaced patriotism and idiocy and then we might witness the election of a President of the USA who, frankly, is crazier than batshit daiquiris, you'd probably think I was describing a new Armando Iannucci political comedy, because I'd think all of that and I'm a) writing this and b) living it too.
We live in a Post-fact, post-expert, post-logical world where people simply don't give a fuck about facts - especially those who voted for Leave. Experts are just there to scare us. Logic is there to confuse us and Facts are there to be ignored and derided because Feelings and Pride are far more important to the future of everyone.
The problem is we're talking about a majority of people now. You know and I know that it isn't really a true majority, but it's big enough and ugly enough to dictate the country's rhetoric. The sad truth is a large percentage of the 52% voted as a protest to the shit they've been suffering for years without really understanding that the referendum had nothing to do with what has been happening to them and no one made a big enough issue out of the fact that it was the EU that stopped the worst off and most disenfranchised among us from being marginalised even more. If you weighed up the difference between what Westminster and Brussels has given to the people of South Wales you would have thought they would have voted 99% to remain, instead of 61% of them opting for the exit button. What's worse is these people think that our government is going to save them... That's how stupid people are now.
There are people in Sunderland facing economic oblivion as their largest employer scales back and considers moving elsewhere who actually feel happy and proud that they've helped precipitate their own downfall. I'm amazed Cameron quit; the referendum gave a warped legitimacy to everything him and Gideon were doing; the fact that Treeza May is actually attempting to reverse some of their less humane achievements almost smacks of the same level of crazy.
I loved a short statement made by *Yasmin Ali - "Tonight I went to a Tory Party meeting on Brexit. More specifically, I went to a Tory meeting on what happens after Brexit to bring the nation together again. So what did I learn? If I distil it down, it is that they have no idea. No idea how to leave the EU. No idea what happens now. All they know is that they are so loved up with their vote that all these tedious questions are nothing but Party pooping nonsense."
Doesn't this just about sum up the feeling of the Brexiteers across the country? The same people who claim quite self-righteously that if they'd lost they wouldn't be making such a big issue about it... Yeah, right and if my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle...
It isn't just us; there's this Rodrigo Duterte fellow in the Philippines who is basically advocating and promoting a criminal-cleansing spree, allowing his citizens to kill anyone they suspect is a drug dealer or taker or friend of either. The weird thing about Duterte is despite caterwauls of horror and disgust from the rest of the world, he's a bloody popular bloodthirsty tyrant among his own people - the right wing/Libertarian supporting Philippinos think 'Digong' is top banana and his popularity has grown as the graves of the criminals have filled up.
Hungary has been trying to out-Farage Nigel by having a referendum that I'm still not entirely sure about. I could check this but that takes the fun out of it, but apparently they've just had a referendum to reject the EU's migrant policy, which kind of doesn't make any sense because as part of the EU they've already caused ructions by putting a bloody great fence around their country and restricting movement (you know, the thing 52% of our population would get massive erections about if offered the chance). The fact that not enough Hungarians actually voted to make it officially recognisable is, hopefully, a testament to nice Hungarians, because, according to my Romanian neighbour, 'Most peoples from Hungaria are shit.'
I'm sure Hillary Clinton isn't all the things she's being accused of, because if she is then the USA has finally succumbed to Total Dumb by having two unbelievably crooked and dislikable people vying for the job of Chief Button Pusher. I know it's more about how much money you can throw at it than politics, but if the USA wants to be treated with the respect it deserves it should really take a good hard long look at itself. Sometimes the idea of the Yellowstone Caldera Extinction Event seems like a damned fine idea.
Oh and while this isn't strictly politics, you have to wonder what kind of world we're now living in if fear, scaremongering and worst case scenarios are touted as news... At least four tabloids in the last week have picked up on the 'Britain is headed for an apocalyptic winter' news story. This incredible prophecy of doom first appeared in the Daily Express - the paper that essentially talks about three things: the weather, Princess Diana and the evil Labour party. The Express actually just rehashed a story written last October, with a slight edit to suggest they were a hair's width from being totally right about saying 2015 would be the worst winter since the opening sequence of The Empire Strikes Back. The truth was last winter was one of the mildest on record. The Express would have been more accurate had they said 'Pretty bog standard winter with some cold days and some mild days, lots of wind and a cold spring', because this is essentially what six of the last 10 years have been. Of the other four we had two colder than average winters and two warmer than average winters and warm springs (both of these years my apricot tree fruited).
The thing is as the Met Office says on a regular basis - anything over a week and you get into chaos theory and frankly you can only base long range forecasts on trends and computer models, therefore the Met Office has said what I said in the paragraph above - 2016/17: an average winter with colder spells and milder ones. Yet this is the sixth time in seven years the Express has told us we're all going to freeze to death.
Why?
What does scaring the shit out of Brexit-voting pensioners achieve? Do governments just say to newspapers that parts of the economy need stimulating so make up some shite that'll get pensioners in Bournemouth bulk buying bog paper from the local Asda, or is that just a crazy conspiracy theory too far?
* Yasmin Alibhai-Brown (left-ish UK Muslim journalist)
The Politics of ...
Showing posts with label #election. Show all posts
Showing posts with label #election. Show all posts
Monday, 3 October 2016
Tuesday, 19 July 2016
The Astounding Truth About Jeremy Corbyn and the 37 Naked Contortionist Porn Stars
"The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Joseph Goebbels.
There is a large part of society that really dislikes people quoting Nazis. However, this is one quote - the correct one - that extreme nasty bastard Joseph Goebbels said that should you remove his name and replace it with...
"The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Donald Trump/Tusk/Duck
... could easily be believed (especially about Donald Tusk and his observation of the Out campaign).
Just because someone is seen as a thoroughly despicable human being doesn't mean they can't be accurate in an observation. The last x number of years have been built on a large number of lies and exaggerations of the truth and depending on what newspaper you read, or TV news station you watch, some lies are more important than others. Tony Blair probably lied about the circumstances that led to the Iraq war and his ongoing vilification has been expected and generally welcomed. The Coalition government essentially blaming a portion of the population draining £2billion from the budget were responsible for the country's ills and not the tax avoiding corporations not paying in excess of £40billion in legitimate taxes - the comparisons were never addressed in the mainstream media - was a lie. Recently we've had £350million promised to the NHS as the pinnacle of the Leave campaign's reason for leaving the EU and did you notice how quickly that was dropped? Or how many of our 'impartial' media outlets made an issue out of it? Lies.
The simple truth is we're being lied to by the sources we depend on for fair and even coverage. Take the BBC, always accused of being left wing biased by the right wing, yet the corporation currently produces some of the most anodyne 'current affairs' content in its history and has a news department that is awash with Conservative editors, who have recently admitted - and ignored by the mainstream press - that it might have possibly maybe shown some anti-Corbyn bias in its coverage. Or as an independent blogger worked out: Labour in-fighting is covered on a ratio of 4:1 against Conservative in-fighting; Leadership contests - until the announcement of Theresa May, Labour's coverage was 2:1. More strikingly is that media coverage of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was extensively on them with less than 20% of media coverage on the 'in-turmoil' Tories or their various leaders. Once the coalition came in focus on Ed Milliband - the opposition leader - rose to almost 50%. His pales into insignificance at the almost persistent hounding of Jeremy Corbyn.
In the last twelve months there has been a record number of newspaper retractions of things they, wrongly, said about the Labour leader. There has been an almost constant trivialisation of the man, while simultaneously building him up as both dangerous and unelectable. In a sensible society, one should wonder why the media are so desperate to continue warning us about the dangers of a man with policies that would have had 1960s Tory MPs nodding in agreement (with the exception of the Trident bit, naturally)? If the man is so dangerous, how come he's not being, you know, dangerous? Preventing 25 Tory bills in 12 months, 11 of which have been banished from the statute books is actually a better record than any opposition leader in 50 years in such a short space of time. I actually couldn't find any examples of anything the Tories prevented during the Blair/Brown era. Obviously information like this is not important to the general public; they're more interested in the size of Jeremy's marrow or that he was sitting in a park playing Pokemon Go (when, in reality, the desperate Daily Mail reporter handed Jezza the game and asked him to comment on its current trendiness).
Plus it's really easy to make click bait headlines against him. Corbyn attacks Eagle with knife is better than Corbyn grows prize marrow.
There are a number of reports floating around at the moment that shows enormous amounts of evidence to back up the media bias against Corbyn: this is one example - http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/media-depictions-of-corbyn-are-an-affront-to-democracy/ and even some of the broadsheets have briefly mentioned this, but none have supported it, condemned it or criticised any of their competition about it. Even The Guardian, for some inexplicable reason now, still the preferred choice of the intellectual Labour voter, has pretty much nailed its allegiance to a lost cause - neoliberalism or Blairism.
Despite Labour continuing to win council by-elections and now mobilising a greater number of young voters, the knives are out again and sharper, because of the Labour Party's desire to self-destruct for the sake of some career politicians.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact - the country is pretty much run by a small bunch of people from all across the political spectrum who do everything in their own interests first; it has been seen with the expenses scandal, it has been hinted at with the simmering but never likely to amount to anything election budgeting 'scandal' and the continued onslaught by the none-left wing members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to do anything they can to prevent someone who isn't them and doesn't share their ideology from disrupting their comfortable status quo. The press hasn't really focused any of its attention on Owen Smith or Angela Eagle because there's a Corbyn to be scalped and the fact the old bird is still around makes that scalp really valuable.
I'd like to throw in a theory; it's tenuous I warn you...
UKip are reported as being the biggest threat to luring older Labour voters away (this could be down to the media's knowledge that old Labour voters would never vote Tory, but might be duped into voting Tory under a different name), yet in the majority of those council by-elections I like to bang on about over 90% saw a substantial drop in UKip support (incidentally as the primary goal of UKip has been achieved, how come the mainstream press aren't questioning their continued existence?). It is possible that Corbyn is having a similar effect, but on a different demographic, which Nigel Farage had when his purple fascists suddenly became players on the political landscape (through vote share rather than any seats in Westminster; and remember, their only MP is Douglas Carswell, a former centre-right Tory MP with some hard-right ideas). Some people out there suspect Corbyn isn't the Antichrist and won't eat your children regardless of what Rupert, Paul, Rebekka and co want you to believe.
I've maintained for years that Farage's appeal to your average, largely ignorant, over 50 has been down to his stirring up of jingoistic attitudes and laying the blame at the feet of all the people not responsible for all the ills he peddled. 21st Century fascism encouraged by an inordinate amount of screen time given to, I presume, his general entertainment value. It's like putting subliminal messages into Teletubbies cartoons, programming your children to axe murder you when the signal is given. All he did was peddle lies, deceit and worst of all echoed the urban myths and legends floating around canteens and factories all over the country; it has to be true even if many never saw any evidence of it. Corbyn appears to be galvanising people who still have a social conscience in a similar way.
Once the media started its halfhearted attacks on Farage it increased his support - the little guy who stands up for us workers is being attacked by those lying scumbag newspapers; what are they scared of? Oddly enough the same people will perpetuate myths such as Corbyn not singing the National Anthem or bowing low enough at the Epitaph because they read it in the Sun or the Mail (or those lying scumbag papers, when it suits them)...
I know people who buy it all; believe that Corbyn is not the right man for a variety of reasons all culminating in, 'and he's simply unelectable' using a term that the media coined, so however much people protest their opinion of the man is their own and hasn't been tainted by outside influences, why aren't you looking at his record, why are you looking at his tie?
Anyhow, Paul Dacre at the Mail will continue to sanction some of the vilest and despicable lies imaginable and somehow remain above the law or criticism. The far right supporting Daily Mail isn't going to be criticised by Tories for blurring the boundaries of impartiality by printing spurious bullshit and if someone from the left attempts to criticise them or take them to task they just lash out again because they know they have no leash. Look at the vicious attacks on the Millibands' dead father and yet Cameron's father was involved in all kinds of tax dodges and the same newspaper called for the dead man's memory to be left unsullied and people believe and support them despite blatant double standards and promoting elitism.
Remember the Sun in 1992? "It was the Sun what won it" or some similarly grammatically appalling headline and I think most people over the age of 40 believe that newspapers can win elections for people; the Sun claimed it won it for Blair, which newspaper historians might interpret as 'Murdoch says this guy will bend over more for me than the last guy'. The Sun didn't win it for Cameron in 2010, but they tend not to mention that.
More and more people no longer listen to the radio how they once did. TV is changing all the time and our new and innovative ways of viewing are being adopted by more people. Newspapers are dying out among younger audiences, who get their news from different sources. My generation is probably the last one to depend on a lot of 20th century staples and yet we're slowly adapting; but in 20 years many of us will be very old or dead and the people who will become us will have a completely different approach to everything and hopefully that will mean changes in the way we do politics and engage with common people.
I think this is what Jeremy Corbyn's team has been trying to do. For every person saying, he's unapproachable, he's not statesmanlike, he's out of touch; he doesn't engage with the press enough, there are more people praising his constituency work; his campaigning, his charity work, his support and how, unlike so many other politicians, he's approachable if your intentions are earnest. He gets out and meets people, talks to them and does it the old fashioned way, while simultaneously getting his army of younger political activists to target the places that most people over 50 only hear about from kids or on TV. Young people writing messages about politics aimed at young people doesn't sound so crazy when you say it out loud.
Corbyn and his team are well aware that he is never going to court support from the majority of papers, but Momentum are looking ahead at how things will be fought in the future, while Corbyn remains this quiet, largely unruffled figure refusing to play the games or pander to the media. The biggest problem for Corbyn with right wing leaning news reporting is that if there is a slow news day they aren't averse to manufacturing a story that is negative rather than run a story that is positive. The press would rather you know that someone, somewhere, might be Muslim who is linked to a crime and supports Corbyn than report on how the negative and devastating cuts have decimated deprived areas even more.
If Corbyn's brand of politics is going to remain in charge they need to get a bit slicker in the PR department and they need to try and get a lot of their MPs deselected and new faces to replace them before the next election; so these candidates can win these seats. He also needs to adopt some populist language - or constructive lies - to appease those who think he's soft on areas they want strength. Cameron came across like a sexually aroused horse sporting an enormous erection when he lied to the nation he'd get immigration down; it hurt him that he didn't - but probably nowhere near as much as Jeremy Corbyn's failed radish crop will spell the next downfall of the freakish warmongering vegetarian peacenik (™ The Daily Mail). It's nice to think we have a politician whose principles embrace honesty, but we've got used to being lied to. We don't believe the lies, but we want to and that keeps us going until the next lie comes along.
There is a large part of society that really dislikes people quoting Nazis. However, this is one quote - the correct one - that extreme nasty bastard Joseph Goebbels said that should you remove his name and replace it with...
"The English follow the principle that when one lies, it should be a big lie, and one should stick to it. They keep up their lies, even at the risk of looking ridiculous." - Donald Trump/Tusk/Duck
... could easily be believed (especially about Donald Tusk and his observation of the Out campaign).
Just because someone is seen as a thoroughly despicable human being doesn't mean they can't be accurate in an observation. The last x number of years have been built on a large number of lies and exaggerations of the truth and depending on what newspaper you read, or TV news station you watch, some lies are more important than others. Tony Blair probably lied about the circumstances that led to the Iraq war and his ongoing vilification has been expected and generally welcomed. The Coalition government essentially blaming a portion of the population draining £2billion from the budget were responsible for the country's ills and not the tax avoiding corporations not paying in excess of £40billion in legitimate taxes - the comparisons were never addressed in the mainstream media - was a lie. Recently we've had £350million promised to the NHS as the pinnacle of the Leave campaign's reason for leaving the EU and did you notice how quickly that was dropped? Or how many of our 'impartial' media outlets made an issue out of it? Lies.
The simple truth is we're being lied to by the sources we depend on for fair and even coverage. Take the BBC, always accused of being left wing biased by the right wing, yet the corporation currently produces some of the most anodyne 'current affairs' content in its history and has a news department that is awash with Conservative editors, who have recently admitted - and ignored by the mainstream press - that it might have possibly maybe shown some anti-Corbyn bias in its coverage. Or as an independent blogger worked out: Labour in-fighting is covered on a ratio of 4:1 against Conservative in-fighting; Leadership contests - until the announcement of Theresa May, Labour's coverage was 2:1. More strikingly is that media coverage of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown was extensively on them with less than 20% of media coverage on the 'in-turmoil' Tories or their various leaders. Once the coalition came in focus on Ed Milliband - the opposition leader - rose to almost 50%. His pales into insignificance at the almost persistent hounding of Jeremy Corbyn.
In the last twelve months there has been a record number of newspaper retractions of things they, wrongly, said about the Labour leader. There has been an almost constant trivialisation of the man, while simultaneously building him up as both dangerous and unelectable. In a sensible society, one should wonder why the media are so desperate to continue warning us about the dangers of a man with policies that would have had 1960s Tory MPs nodding in agreement (with the exception of the Trident bit, naturally)? If the man is so dangerous, how come he's not being, you know, dangerous? Preventing 25 Tory bills in 12 months, 11 of which have been banished from the statute books is actually a better record than any opposition leader in 50 years in such a short space of time. I actually couldn't find any examples of anything the Tories prevented during the Blair/Brown era. Obviously information like this is not important to the general public; they're more interested in the size of Jeremy's marrow or that he was sitting in a park playing Pokemon Go (when, in reality, the desperate Daily Mail reporter handed Jezza the game and asked him to comment on its current trendiness).
Plus it's really easy to make click bait headlines against him. Corbyn attacks Eagle with knife is better than Corbyn grows prize marrow.
There are a number of reports floating around at the moment that shows enormous amounts of evidence to back up the media bias against Corbyn: this is one example - http://blogs.lse.ac.uk/politicsandpolicy/media-depictions-of-corbyn-are-an-affront-to-democracy/ and even some of the broadsheets have briefly mentioned this, but none have supported it, condemned it or criticised any of their competition about it. Even The Guardian, for some inexplicable reason now, still the preferred choice of the intellectual Labour voter, has pretty much nailed its allegiance to a lost cause - neoliberalism or Blairism.
Despite Labour continuing to win council by-elections and now mobilising a greater number of young voters, the knives are out again and sharper, because of the Labour Party's desire to self-destruct for the sake of some career politicians.
This isn't a conspiracy theory, it's a fact - the country is pretty much run by a small bunch of people from all across the political spectrum who do everything in their own interests first; it has been seen with the expenses scandal, it has been hinted at with the simmering but never likely to amount to anything election budgeting 'scandal' and the continued onslaught by the none-left wing members of the Parliamentary Labour Party to do anything they can to prevent someone who isn't them and doesn't share their ideology from disrupting their comfortable status quo. The press hasn't really focused any of its attention on Owen Smith or Angela Eagle because there's a Corbyn to be scalped and the fact the old bird is still around makes that scalp really valuable.
I'd like to throw in a theory; it's tenuous I warn you...
UKip are reported as being the biggest threat to luring older Labour voters away (this could be down to the media's knowledge that old Labour voters would never vote Tory, but might be duped into voting Tory under a different name), yet in the majority of those council by-elections I like to bang on about over 90% saw a substantial drop in UKip support (incidentally as the primary goal of UKip has been achieved, how come the mainstream press aren't questioning their continued existence?). It is possible that Corbyn is having a similar effect, but on a different demographic, which Nigel Farage had when his purple fascists suddenly became players on the political landscape (through vote share rather than any seats in Westminster; and remember, their only MP is Douglas Carswell, a former centre-right Tory MP with some hard-right ideas). Some people out there suspect Corbyn isn't the Antichrist and won't eat your children regardless of what Rupert, Paul, Rebekka and co want you to believe.
I've maintained for years that Farage's appeal to your average, largely ignorant, over 50 has been down to his stirring up of jingoistic attitudes and laying the blame at the feet of all the people not responsible for all the ills he peddled. 21st Century fascism encouraged by an inordinate amount of screen time given to, I presume, his general entertainment value. It's like putting subliminal messages into Teletubbies cartoons, programming your children to axe murder you when the signal is given. All he did was peddle lies, deceit and worst of all echoed the urban myths and legends floating around canteens and factories all over the country; it has to be true even if many never saw any evidence of it. Corbyn appears to be galvanising people who still have a social conscience in a similar way.
Once the media started its halfhearted attacks on Farage it increased his support - the little guy who stands up for us workers is being attacked by those lying scumbag newspapers; what are they scared of? Oddly enough the same people will perpetuate myths such as Corbyn not singing the National Anthem or bowing low enough at the Epitaph because they read it in the Sun or the Mail (or those lying scumbag papers, when it suits them)...
I know people who buy it all; believe that Corbyn is not the right man for a variety of reasons all culminating in, 'and he's simply unelectable' using a term that the media coined, so however much people protest their opinion of the man is their own and hasn't been tainted by outside influences, why aren't you looking at his record, why are you looking at his tie?
Anyhow, Paul Dacre at the Mail will continue to sanction some of the vilest and despicable lies imaginable and somehow remain above the law or criticism. The far right supporting Daily Mail isn't going to be criticised by Tories for blurring the boundaries of impartiality by printing spurious bullshit and if someone from the left attempts to criticise them or take them to task they just lash out again because they know they have no leash. Look at the vicious attacks on the Millibands' dead father and yet Cameron's father was involved in all kinds of tax dodges and the same newspaper called for the dead man's memory to be left unsullied and people believe and support them despite blatant double standards and promoting elitism.
Remember the Sun in 1992? "It was the Sun what won it" or some similarly grammatically appalling headline and I think most people over the age of 40 believe that newspapers can win elections for people; the Sun claimed it won it for Blair, which newspaper historians might interpret as 'Murdoch says this guy will bend over more for me than the last guy'. The Sun didn't win it for Cameron in 2010, but they tend not to mention that.
More and more people no longer listen to the radio how they once did. TV is changing all the time and our new and innovative ways of viewing are being adopted by more people. Newspapers are dying out among younger audiences, who get their news from different sources. My generation is probably the last one to depend on a lot of 20th century staples and yet we're slowly adapting; but in 20 years many of us will be very old or dead and the people who will become us will have a completely different approach to everything and hopefully that will mean changes in the way we do politics and engage with common people.
I think this is what Jeremy Corbyn's team has been trying to do. For every person saying, he's unapproachable, he's not statesmanlike, he's out of touch; he doesn't engage with the press enough, there are more people praising his constituency work; his campaigning, his charity work, his support and how, unlike so many other politicians, he's approachable if your intentions are earnest. He gets out and meets people, talks to them and does it the old fashioned way, while simultaneously getting his army of younger political activists to target the places that most people over 50 only hear about from kids or on TV. Young people writing messages about politics aimed at young people doesn't sound so crazy when you say it out loud.
Corbyn and his team are well aware that he is never going to court support from the majority of papers, but Momentum are looking ahead at how things will be fought in the future, while Corbyn remains this quiet, largely unruffled figure refusing to play the games or pander to the media. The biggest problem for Corbyn with right wing leaning news reporting is that if there is a slow news day they aren't averse to manufacturing a story that is negative rather than run a story that is positive. The press would rather you know that someone, somewhere, might be Muslim who is linked to a crime and supports Corbyn than report on how the negative and devastating cuts have decimated deprived areas even more.
If Corbyn's brand of politics is going to remain in charge they need to get a bit slicker in the PR department and they need to try and get a lot of their MPs deselected and new faces to replace them before the next election; so these candidates can win these seats. He also needs to adopt some populist language - or constructive lies - to appease those who think he's soft on areas they want strength. Cameron came across like a sexually aroused horse sporting an enormous erection when he lied to the nation he'd get immigration down; it hurt him that he didn't - but probably nowhere near as much as Jeremy Corbyn's failed radish crop will spell the next downfall of the freakish warmongering vegetarian peacenik (™ The Daily Mail). It's nice to think we have a politician whose principles embrace honesty, but we've got used to being lied to. We don't believe the lies, but we want to and that keeps us going until the next lie comes along.
Thursday, 30 June 2016
The Young or the Dead?
I feel a little like a 19th century maiden aunt giving a young niece advice on how to have really great dirty, sweaty sex, but in many ways that is okay because the people I'm appealing to are sometimes blinded by love and high sugar content food and drink.
The old, the disaffected, the disenfranchised and the ignorant - but mainly the old - have plunged the youth of this country into a situation at least 76% of those that voted didn't want and while, in reality, the majority of them will dismiss the vote on a minute-by-minute basis, the youth of this country with half a brain will know that there is now an even bigger hurdle in front of them than they could ever have imagined. For some young people in this country there is nothing but covert rebellion, weed, sex and the same slog their parents and grandparents suffered and regardless of the social and educational reasons, a large part of it is down to parents looking at their children like they are some kind of bizarre investment and wondering when that huge money pit is either going to pay back some of the money spent on them or bugger off the family payroll.
I've worked with some unbelievably intelligent kids whose lives are fait accomplis - their fathers have stated, quite categorically that work is the way forward, none of this going to college and bettering yourself nonsense. Trying to convince these kids they should fight for their future is a cross between trying to convince a racist they should have voted remain and a real fight - you'd have more chance donning a Moses costume and trying to convince the Red Sea to part. I have friends in Corby who can point out walking human tragedies around that town - people who, had they been looked after properly by our governments, could have become someone good - people who contribute. Yes, these people didn't want whatever opportunities were pushed their way, but on estates in Corby anything coming from Westminster is viewed with suspicion and therefore anything passed down by local government has the same stigma attached; plus the children of people with nothing are indoctrinated by the spite their parents hold for the establishment.
The problem is in these urban ghettos, of which Corby and every other town in Northants (and all over the country) also have people who simply do not believe that politicians are even aware of them and whenever they do fall on their radar it's to try and make their lives harder - and frankly, who can blame them. It simply doesn't matter what you say to some people, prove to them or give them examples of why, people think governments are there to shaft us - a necessary evil.
I've met people who have conveyed to me that they truly believe this is Purgatory; that living here and now is a punishment for a previous life's indiscretions. I've met more people who have become increasingly paranoid about everything and I'm seeing scary levels of intolerance that would have been frowned upon ten years ago. The sad truth is people are ignorant because influence exists everywhere and in austere times negative influence resonates more.
The people affected by negative influence the most are the elderly and what the elderly did last Thursday was stick a massive two fingers up at their children, their grandchildren and their future generations. They weren't influenced by the fact they could be screwing up everything they worked hard for and some of them won't care. Both parties operated Project Fear, the Leave campaign scared the OAPs more while simultaneously tweaking the nostalgia gland.
What we now need is a brighter future, because for 48% of the population it looks bleaker than a landslide UKip General Election victory and what everyone seems to have forgotten about are all those kids in schools and apprenticeships who had absolutely no say whatsoever in their futures. Every 'child' under 18 on June 22nd didn't have representation and how many of them would have been subjected to their parents' or grandparents' racist invective? Many of them, living in a completely multi-cultural world, dismiss it, but others, like the kid who was resigned to leaving school at 16 and getting a job, will perpetuate it.
Politics was something reserved for 6th form when I was at school and while schools today have some politics in their curriculum, the nature of it and the passions it stirs, especially amongst left leaning teachers means it's more like a mechanics manual than a creative writing class. This is completely wrong.
I believe that politics is something that we are exposed to every day - we simply can't avoid it, yet the majority of us systematically blank it from our minds. We try not to align the two because for some of us it really is too difficult to reconcile. But it is a fact, from your shopping to your use of parks you are using politics, you are part of politics, you are aiding the economy to allow you to relax in the park. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that, but that pretty much sums it up. If you lived in a world inhabited by 150,000 people on a planet the size of Northampton, it might be as simple as that. Every child from the moment they are born - the NHS - to the moment they walk out of school - and onto JSA - is, in many ways, affected by politics more than you or I and yet they have no voice, because of politics.
I'm not suggesting that any child under the age of twelve should be forced to suffer 'lessons' about politics, but once a child enters Year 9 they should get a mandatory one lesson a week, rising to two in Year 11. Before you start arguing about bias, just remember that kids are subject to political bias whenever there's an election on, whenever something happens that effects their parents. Whenever something unique like a referendum happens, so they're not going to be exposed to anything worse than they see at home; but that isn't really a starter here. My little experience in education saw something I really didn't expect - Conservative teachers; there might not be that many, but they exist. If schools have to or chose to put Politics on their curriculum then they employ politically diverse teachers and if that seems a bit radical, think of it this way - kids share everything with each other and now more than when I was at school because of electronic devices and social networks; teachers sharing personal beliefs is always something special, it forms bonds, and more importantly kids listen to 'secrets' with all ears; if they think they're sharing something it sticks and it focuses minds much better than pawing over books. Politics should be about discussion, debate and demystification as well as how and why it works and what it does for us.
I was asked once by a young guy why we paid taxes. I thought it was a weird question until he quantified it. We pay Council Tax, we pay VAT, we pay fuel tax, we pay road tax, if people die they pay inheritance tax, we pay taxes on house purchases, we have to buy a TV license, and then there's pensions and National Insurance, taxes on fags and booze, we even buy lottery tickets, where does all of this money go and then you have income tax, which is the biggest chunk of the lot. I suddenly realised that young people simply don't understand and that's because they are not educated about it. We send our kids to school and they leave and are thrown in the deep end without adequate preparation. This is a society that will allow any 16 year old to have a baby, but not vote until they're 18. If you didn't understand how society worked you'd probably wonder why we leave our kids so under-prepared and even if you do understand it...
Evil politicians might want less people to be interested, because lower turn outs mean bigger chances of winning. If compulsory voting is not on or ever likely to be on the agenda then we have to start educating our kids about politics, even if it bores the shit out of them. The daughter of an old friend recently had a lesson at school - she's Year 11 - and it was about council taxes, pension schemes, insurances and being aware that planning for the future is something school leavers should really be thinking about - not all the time, because knowledge is not necessarily power, but it does remove the huge amounts of anger and frustration exhibited by the youth when faced with such trials as benefits, rent agreements and single living. Schools are kind of gearing up kids to be at home now, focusing on careers again but not teaching kids about the perils that face them, especially if they have radical parents; and I mean 'radical' in the term they view their children as earners rather than learners.
Stop perpetuating myths, urban legends and prejudice by allowing them to view their parents' opinions with objectivity; if we continue the way we're going huge swathes of the country won't even bother to vote and less and less people will feel compelled to venture into politics and it will become like it was in the 19th century, lots of rich and privileged people screwing you down and the people feeling helpless, worthless and alienated. If you are a parent and you value your kids' futures, then you should start to encourage them to be interested. It's kind of a duty if we want fairer representation in the future, when many of us will have retired and will be worrying about pensions, houses, food and our limited futures.
Lower the voting age to 16, or raise all legal ages to 17; at 15 a kid is facing at least three years of education ahead, but 16 and 17 year-olds face four or five years of not having a say in their future and by the time they do they're not interested. Get schools to promote student councils, that have to be run to include all, and that means some of the dodgy kids and even some from SEN or the disenfranchised - give them a voice and some responsibility and watch them shine and more importantly watch them assert positive peer pressure. You don't have to radicalise students to get them interested in the future of their country, you just have to make them think (and know) they will have a voice.
It's time to engage and involve the young in tomorrow.
The old, the disaffected, the disenfranchised and the ignorant - but mainly the old - have plunged the youth of this country into a situation at least 76% of those that voted didn't want and while, in reality, the majority of them will dismiss the vote on a minute-by-minute basis, the youth of this country with half a brain will know that there is now an even bigger hurdle in front of them than they could ever have imagined. For some young people in this country there is nothing but covert rebellion, weed, sex and the same slog their parents and grandparents suffered and regardless of the social and educational reasons, a large part of it is down to parents looking at their children like they are some kind of bizarre investment and wondering when that huge money pit is either going to pay back some of the money spent on them or bugger off the family payroll.
I've worked with some unbelievably intelligent kids whose lives are fait accomplis - their fathers have stated, quite categorically that work is the way forward, none of this going to college and bettering yourself nonsense. Trying to convince these kids they should fight for their future is a cross between trying to convince a racist they should have voted remain and a real fight - you'd have more chance donning a Moses costume and trying to convince the Red Sea to part. I have friends in Corby who can point out walking human tragedies around that town - people who, had they been looked after properly by our governments, could have become someone good - people who contribute. Yes, these people didn't want whatever opportunities were pushed their way, but on estates in Corby anything coming from Westminster is viewed with suspicion and therefore anything passed down by local government has the same stigma attached; plus the children of people with nothing are indoctrinated by the spite their parents hold for the establishment.
The problem is in these urban ghettos, of which Corby and every other town in Northants (and all over the country) also have people who simply do not believe that politicians are even aware of them and whenever they do fall on their radar it's to try and make their lives harder - and frankly, who can blame them. It simply doesn't matter what you say to some people, prove to them or give them examples of why, people think governments are there to shaft us - a necessary evil.
I've met people who have conveyed to me that they truly believe this is Purgatory; that living here and now is a punishment for a previous life's indiscretions. I've met more people who have become increasingly paranoid about everything and I'm seeing scary levels of intolerance that would have been frowned upon ten years ago. The sad truth is people are ignorant because influence exists everywhere and in austere times negative influence resonates more.
The people affected by negative influence the most are the elderly and what the elderly did last Thursday was stick a massive two fingers up at their children, their grandchildren and their future generations. They weren't influenced by the fact they could be screwing up everything they worked hard for and some of them won't care. Both parties operated Project Fear, the Leave campaign scared the OAPs more while simultaneously tweaking the nostalgia gland.
What we now need is a brighter future, because for 48% of the population it looks bleaker than a landslide UKip General Election victory and what everyone seems to have forgotten about are all those kids in schools and apprenticeships who had absolutely no say whatsoever in their futures. Every 'child' under 18 on June 22nd didn't have representation and how many of them would have been subjected to their parents' or grandparents' racist invective? Many of them, living in a completely multi-cultural world, dismiss it, but others, like the kid who was resigned to leaving school at 16 and getting a job, will perpetuate it.
Politics was something reserved for 6th form when I was at school and while schools today have some politics in their curriculum, the nature of it and the passions it stirs, especially amongst left leaning teachers means it's more like a mechanics manual than a creative writing class. This is completely wrong.
I believe that politics is something that we are exposed to every day - we simply can't avoid it, yet the majority of us systematically blank it from our minds. We try not to align the two because for some of us it really is too difficult to reconcile. But it is a fact, from your shopping to your use of parks you are using politics, you are part of politics, you are aiding the economy to allow you to relax in the park. Obviously, it is a lot more complicated than that, but that pretty much sums it up. If you lived in a world inhabited by 150,000 people on a planet the size of Northampton, it might be as simple as that. Every child from the moment they are born - the NHS - to the moment they walk out of school - and onto JSA - is, in many ways, affected by politics more than you or I and yet they have no voice, because of politics.
I'm not suggesting that any child under the age of twelve should be forced to suffer 'lessons' about politics, but once a child enters Year 9 they should get a mandatory one lesson a week, rising to two in Year 11. Before you start arguing about bias, just remember that kids are subject to political bias whenever there's an election on, whenever something happens that effects their parents. Whenever something unique like a referendum happens, so they're not going to be exposed to anything worse than they see at home; but that isn't really a starter here. My little experience in education saw something I really didn't expect - Conservative teachers; there might not be that many, but they exist. If schools have to or chose to put Politics on their curriculum then they employ politically diverse teachers and if that seems a bit radical, think of it this way - kids share everything with each other and now more than when I was at school because of electronic devices and social networks; teachers sharing personal beliefs is always something special, it forms bonds, and more importantly kids listen to 'secrets' with all ears; if they think they're sharing something it sticks and it focuses minds much better than pawing over books. Politics should be about discussion, debate and demystification as well as how and why it works and what it does for us.
I was asked once by a young guy why we paid taxes. I thought it was a weird question until he quantified it. We pay Council Tax, we pay VAT, we pay fuel tax, we pay road tax, if people die they pay inheritance tax, we pay taxes on house purchases, we have to buy a TV license, and then there's pensions and National Insurance, taxes on fags and booze, we even buy lottery tickets, where does all of this money go and then you have income tax, which is the biggest chunk of the lot. I suddenly realised that young people simply don't understand and that's because they are not educated about it. We send our kids to school and they leave and are thrown in the deep end without adequate preparation. This is a society that will allow any 16 year old to have a baby, but not vote until they're 18. If you didn't understand how society worked you'd probably wonder why we leave our kids so under-prepared and even if you do understand it...
Evil politicians might want less people to be interested, because lower turn outs mean bigger chances of winning. If compulsory voting is not on or ever likely to be on the agenda then we have to start educating our kids about politics, even if it bores the shit out of them. The daughter of an old friend recently had a lesson at school - she's Year 11 - and it was about council taxes, pension schemes, insurances and being aware that planning for the future is something school leavers should really be thinking about - not all the time, because knowledge is not necessarily power, but it does remove the huge amounts of anger and frustration exhibited by the youth when faced with such trials as benefits, rent agreements and single living. Schools are kind of gearing up kids to be at home now, focusing on careers again but not teaching kids about the perils that face them, especially if they have radical parents; and I mean 'radical' in the term they view their children as earners rather than learners.
Stop perpetuating myths, urban legends and prejudice by allowing them to view their parents' opinions with objectivity; if we continue the way we're going huge swathes of the country won't even bother to vote and less and less people will feel compelled to venture into politics and it will become like it was in the 19th century, lots of rich and privileged people screwing you down and the people feeling helpless, worthless and alienated. If you are a parent and you value your kids' futures, then you should start to encourage them to be interested. It's kind of a duty if we want fairer representation in the future, when many of us will have retired and will be worrying about pensions, houses, food and our limited futures.
Lower the voting age to 16, or raise all legal ages to 17; at 15 a kid is facing at least three years of education ahead, but 16 and 17 year-olds face four or five years of not having a say in their future and by the time they do they're not interested. Get schools to promote student councils, that have to be run to include all, and that means some of the dodgy kids and even some from SEN or the disenfranchised - give them a voice and some responsibility and watch them shine and more importantly watch them assert positive peer pressure. You don't have to radicalise students to get them interested in the future of their country, you just have to make them think (and know) they will have a voice.
It's time to engage and involve the young in tomorrow.
Sunday, 29 May 2016
The Death of the Conservatives
Someone I know made an astute comment in response to a political argument. It was that the Conservative government voted to accept the last George Osborne budget (despite the fallout, the resignations and the almost-rebellion), it sailed through parliament and yet now nearly half of them are calling Gideon O, amongst other things, an incompetent charlatan. If we can draw any conclusions about this EU referendum it is quite clear - there is massive division in the Tory party, one that has existed for years simmering away in the background, but now has come to a angry and pus-filled head.
I've said before that the left's worst enemy is its ability to fracture and split into factions, thus ultimately diluting their vote; while the Tories disagree with each other over the same amount of things, but money keeps them united and I really don't mean that in a nasty way; political parties need unity and a strong bond to keep them together - Labour should have social justice at its core; the Tories should have money, it's why people, misguidedly, trust them with the economy and why a lot of people vote for them; people think they will be better off under a Tory government and are more likely to trust them if measures such as austerity happen. They are, after all, the elite of British society and are moneyed people.
Take the EU referendum as a yardstick: half the Tory party are calling the other half liars and vice versa; both of them know pretty much the real cost of leaving the EU - they're in government and have access to every expert, bit of data and economic forecast imaginable; so one of them is deliberately lying, or both of them are, but one thing is certain, both of them are not telling the truth.
So how can you trust them to run your country whether we're in the EU or not?
Forget what you're voting for, who you're voting against and whatever flimsy or concrete reason you have for not voting, the noisy backbench Tories, the ones there to keep schtum and nod and patronise and vote for whatever they're told to are now getting noisier and Cameron's future is being called into question (and, honestly, if I could forecast this 6 months ago, just how politically astute are our media's political reporters?) and this is a man who led them to their first majority government since 1992. We all know politicians, in general, are self-serving bastards where principles are no longer a pre-requisite for the job, but look at it at the moment: Tory eating Tory over Europe; never-say-die Blairites constantly stirring up unhelpful background noise for Jeremy Corbyn; the press which is so right wing that it'll pursue any agenda that it thinks will keep readers happy; there are even rumblings in Scotland that the SNP are facing a tough time because they are having to implement a Scots-lite version of austerity, because they're overspending (which I also find amazing didn't make it into English papers in any great way).
Unity in politics no longer exists.
Let me really generalise and give you a silly, but relevant, example: when I were a lad there was maybe seven or eight genres of music; soul, rock, c&w, pop, classical, jazz and folk - there were subdivisions of these, but they were grouped under one label. Forty years later there are maybe the same amount of 'genres' but the music that exists within them is far more diverse and unusual than you could have imagined; some of those sub-genres are extremely popular and might even be, at a certain point, more popular than the genre they exist under, while others mix and match, mash-up and flirt and could be labelled many rather than one. This is politics now - different versions of the original ideology existing under an umbrella that isn't big enough to contain them.
The man in charge of the Commons, John Bercow, MP for Buckingham is regarded by some (in his own Tory party) to be more left of centre than a third of all Labour MPs. I've heard apocryphal stories that he was put forward for the Speaker's job because the Tory party didn't like their own version of Dennis Skinner speaking his mind rather than the party line. Michael Gove used to be a shop steward for the NUT and is now considered to be on the hard right of the party (hard right in my language equates to 'scary').
There is apparently this kind of division within the Tory party: Pro Europe 15%, Ambivalent Europe 35% and Anti-Europe 50% - this is a fundamental schism within the party because whatever the outcome of the referendum there could be 50% of a 'united' party in total disagreement with the other, still.
Just to balance this out, even without the media, old New Labour still finds a way, almost weekly, to stick the knife into current Labour, with the vile and dislikeable Tony Blair seemingly believing someone in the country gives a hoot what he thinks any more. It pains me to know that arguably the most successful Labour PM since Atlee is also as responsible for some of the nastiest, most corrupt and neo-Conservative decisions since Margaret Thatcher.
It's becoming obvious to those that notice - politicians like each other about as much as we like them.
Let's also get one thing very straight and clear - voter apathy is a boon in our current first-past-the-post voting system; the more you think governments do nothing for you the more likely you are to stay at home and watch Corrie. We can be governed by a party, which will claim to have 'the mandate of the people' despite only getting 32% of the vote share from a total turn out of 58% - my maths isn't brilliant, but that's something like 16 million out of 46 million eligible voters giving that mandate.
Think about that for a bit. My figures do stack up.
Two-thirds of the country hate politics. Our politicians disagree on more than they agree on. No one is right, no one is wrong. One thing is becoming obvious - we should elect officials to represent the good of the ENTIRE country, not the interests of their political party, personal wealth or to help their mates. The problem there is if you're one of those rare things, a politician with ethics and principles, you become a target for the right and they're only really supported by about a third of the country and you see my tail fast disappearing down my own throat?
I've said before that the left's worst enemy is its ability to fracture and split into factions, thus ultimately diluting their vote; while the Tories disagree with each other over the same amount of things, but money keeps them united and I really don't mean that in a nasty way; political parties need unity and a strong bond to keep them together - Labour should have social justice at its core; the Tories should have money, it's why people, misguidedly, trust them with the economy and why a lot of people vote for them; people think they will be better off under a Tory government and are more likely to trust them if measures such as austerity happen. They are, after all, the elite of British society and are moneyed people.
Take the EU referendum as a yardstick: half the Tory party are calling the other half liars and vice versa; both of them know pretty much the real cost of leaving the EU - they're in government and have access to every expert, bit of data and economic forecast imaginable; so one of them is deliberately lying, or both of them are, but one thing is certain, both of them are not telling the truth.
So how can you trust them to run your country whether we're in the EU or not?
Forget what you're voting for, who you're voting against and whatever flimsy or concrete reason you have for not voting, the noisy backbench Tories, the ones there to keep schtum and nod and patronise and vote for whatever they're told to are now getting noisier and Cameron's future is being called into question (and, honestly, if I could forecast this 6 months ago, just how politically astute are our media's political reporters?) and this is a man who led them to their first majority government since 1992. We all know politicians, in general, are self-serving bastards where principles are no longer a pre-requisite for the job, but look at it at the moment: Tory eating Tory over Europe; never-say-die Blairites constantly stirring up unhelpful background noise for Jeremy Corbyn; the press which is so right wing that it'll pursue any agenda that it thinks will keep readers happy; there are even rumblings in Scotland that the SNP are facing a tough time because they are having to implement a Scots-lite version of austerity, because they're overspending (which I also find amazing didn't make it into English papers in any great way).
Unity in politics no longer exists.
Let me really generalise and give you a silly, but relevant, example: when I were a lad there was maybe seven or eight genres of music; soul, rock, c&w, pop, classical, jazz and folk - there were subdivisions of these, but they were grouped under one label. Forty years later there are maybe the same amount of 'genres' but the music that exists within them is far more diverse and unusual than you could have imagined; some of those sub-genres are extremely popular and might even be, at a certain point, more popular than the genre they exist under, while others mix and match, mash-up and flirt and could be labelled many rather than one. This is politics now - different versions of the original ideology existing under an umbrella that isn't big enough to contain them.
The man in charge of the Commons, John Bercow, MP for Buckingham is regarded by some (in his own Tory party) to be more left of centre than a third of all Labour MPs. I've heard apocryphal stories that he was put forward for the Speaker's job because the Tory party didn't like their own version of Dennis Skinner speaking his mind rather than the party line. Michael Gove used to be a shop steward for the NUT and is now considered to be on the hard right of the party (hard right in my language equates to 'scary').
There is apparently this kind of division within the Tory party: Pro Europe 15%, Ambivalent Europe 35% and Anti-Europe 50% - this is a fundamental schism within the party because whatever the outcome of the referendum there could be 50% of a 'united' party in total disagreement with the other, still.
Just to balance this out, even without the media, old New Labour still finds a way, almost weekly, to stick the knife into current Labour, with the vile and dislikeable Tony Blair seemingly believing someone in the country gives a hoot what he thinks any more. It pains me to know that arguably the most successful Labour PM since Atlee is also as responsible for some of the nastiest, most corrupt and neo-Conservative decisions since Margaret Thatcher.
It's becoming obvious to those that notice - politicians like each other about as much as we like them.
Let's also get one thing very straight and clear - voter apathy is a boon in our current first-past-the-post voting system; the more you think governments do nothing for you the more likely you are to stay at home and watch Corrie. We can be governed by a party, which will claim to have 'the mandate of the people' despite only getting 32% of the vote share from a total turn out of 58% - my maths isn't brilliant, but that's something like 16 million out of 46 million eligible voters giving that mandate.
Think about that for a bit. My figures do stack up.
Two-thirds of the country hate politics. Our politicians disagree on more than they agree on. No one is right, no one is wrong. One thing is becoming obvious - we should elect officials to represent the good of the ENTIRE country, not the interests of their political party, personal wealth or to help their mates. The problem there is if you're one of those rare things, a politician with ethics and principles, you become a target for the right and they're only really supported by about a third of the country and you see my tail fast disappearing down my own throat?
Monday, 8 February 2016
My Instincts Are Probably Wrong, But...
I was round a friend's house last night, dropping off a data stick and enjoying a chat and a coffee - we both like to put the world to rights. Last night, I forecast that David Cameron would be gone sooner rather than later. It was a throwaway comment - more hopeful than informed - but my instincts have been pretty sharp in recent years, especially about politics and a little later, without the jest, I made the forecast again.
I said something along these lines: the general ignorance, xenophobia and cold-heartedness of middle England is sad because our society will allow exceptions which makes them seem like hypocrites but somehow that'll be okay or will be written off as 'diversity'. The establishment is moving the people to the right by feeding us a diet of fear and more people are being suckered in while offence is being tolerated more often.
It's easier now to nod in agreement when someone moans about the amount of 'migrants' or 'foreigners' coming into the country than to try and argue with them. People no longer care about facts, they just want to believe someone who agrees with them.
I reckon the country will vote us out of Europe by as much as 65% (maybe more) and within two years 'I Told You So' will be the most recognisable political phrase used by the remaining 35%. What the 'Out' brigade can't seem to get their heads around is as far as Europe will be concerned we would become Russia - big, lucrative but not part of the team.
People and governments don't seem to realise that if they did something the rest of Europe didn't like they'd get sanctions. That's trade sanctions; the prevention of certain things being imported or a ban on exports and, of course, as we've learned from Russia, sanctions are tolerated and help breed even more fanatical nationalism.
Can you imagine Theresa May getting the UK Bill of Rights passed to replace the Human Rights Act? Can you imagine the rest of the civilised world's reaction to something more akin to North Korea? Do not accuse me of being a scaremonger unless you can give me a single concrete reason to change the current rights of humans to something that suits the state more than the individual.
Pulling out of Europe would cause another Scottish referendum and this time they'd go and be queuing in Brussels asking to join before David Dimbleby's breakfast. Despite what you might think, there would be many in Northern Ireland - devout Loyalists - who would consider ceding from the UK because much of NI's trade and economic resurgence has been through its deals with Europe and not the rest of the UK. Things aren't perfect in NI, but they are brilliant compared to what they were and that isn't just down to a peace agreement, it's because NI is a good place to live - economically. Imagine the damage Europe not dealing with us so favourably would have there. And, ironically, we can complain about all those nasty migrants flooding into our country, what would we do if 2 million Loyalists had to be repatriated? I know, it's not ever likely to happen, countries simply don't move entire nations into hostile environments...
The aftermath of it would be more than a disaster for whoever the PM is because if we vote to come out I reckon Cameron will quit. He'd have to because whether he's a puppet or his own man he's not going to want to be known as the PM who oversaw the downfall of the United Kingdom (he'd rather George got that award) - I believe he understands pride. This would mean a fight between Gideon Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and A.N. Other to become PM and the simple fact that whoever claimed the prize would be accepting a decaying poison chalice would inevitably force them into a General Election and for two reasons: 1) If the establishment doesn't want us to leave Europe because of the inevitable damage it would cause and 2) to simply get a mandate to begin to run the country like a totalitarian dictatorship which oppresses the poor and disenfranchised - because they are a drain on society and people's ability to work - and gives the rest enough money to always want for more.
So, 21st Century USA is the model the Tories are aiming for and one wonders, quite simply, what Tories' problems with the poor, disenfranchised and unfortunate is? By all means target the feckless, lazy and criminal; but why think everyone is trying it on? I meet so many genuine people in need, I simply can't understand how a government can treat them so contemptuously.
Part of the problem is that our schoolchildren are taught a curriculum that doesn't reflect the needs of the 21st century child, so we are breeding an increasing number of apathetic worker drones who thrive on a diet of mindless 'entertainment' and political apathy; political activists probably convert as many people as JWs do. Therefore what is needed is something being changed in schools; perhaps making the teaching of politics compulsory, like Maths and English, because and quite simply, politics is one thing that affects everyone everyday even if they're not aware of it. Kids need to understand why we have politics rather than be made to hate it and think it's anachronistic and something old people do. But, of course, the existential problem with teaching school kids about politics is how do make it unbiased; how do you ensure your teachers are being fair and balanced and not secretly indoctrinating the youth into a future violent revolution? You can't. I'm being melodramatic, but people have opinions, even teachers, and regardless of what you might think I've never met one who hasn't expressed one in a classroom, playground or dining hall.
The solution is simple; you employ a politically diverse trio of politics teachers and you divide the students political year into three terms: Autumn/Winter: Conservatives (and all the right wing); Winter/Spring: Socialism/Labour (and all the left wing) and Summer: Liberalism and extremism (because a liberal is the best placed person to be objective about extremism).
I've wildly digressed, but there is a point hiding in there and that is with exception of a referendum, fewer people every year are voting; a large percentage of those not voting are the young and the disenfranchised - probably two groups that need a fairer society. We are relying more and more on career politicians, all playing their own mental version of Celebrity PM, while less people get involved in the ultimate decision making. What is scary is the fear being generated by the Right at the thought of a fair-minded man being in charge of the country. Have the Tories learned nothing from history? Humans don't like oppression and eventually they rise up against it. Have the Tories ever wondered why there are only ever riots when they're in power? Or the mass marches in London tend to be when a Tory government is around (or a Blair one, which is pretty much the same thing). What often happens when a society becomes a bit fairer is the majority of the people are happy; it tends to be the greedy that ruin it for everyone else.
What we need are future generations that will make the right decisions for the people not for a few and that will only happen if we teach kids how important having an understanding of politics is, but more importantly, how to look for fair and unbiased opinion and coverage, because mainstream media news is no longer unbiased and benefits from the nuances of deceit developed by the entertainment industry.
I don't know if there are any politicians in the country who believe that everything about it needs an overhaul and that we should be investing in a country to still be great in 100 years, because your grand and great grand kids will want a world for their children and not a capitalist wasteland of inequality, hate and mistrust.
I said something along these lines: the general ignorance, xenophobia and cold-heartedness of middle England is sad because our society will allow exceptions which makes them seem like hypocrites but somehow that'll be okay or will be written off as 'diversity'. The establishment is moving the people to the right by feeding us a diet of fear and more people are being suckered in while offence is being tolerated more often.
It's easier now to nod in agreement when someone moans about the amount of 'migrants' or 'foreigners' coming into the country than to try and argue with them. People no longer care about facts, they just want to believe someone who agrees with them.
I reckon the country will vote us out of Europe by as much as 65% (maybe more) and within two years 'I Told You So' will be the most recognisable political phrase used by the remaining 35%. What the 'Out' brigade can't seem to get their heads around is as far as Europe will be concerned we would become Russia - big, lucrative but not part of the team.
People and governments don't seem to realise that if they did something the rest of Europe didn't like they'd get sanctions. That's trade sanctions; the prevention of certain things being imported or a ban on exports and, of course, as we've learned from Russia, sanctions are tolerated and help breed even more fanatical nationalism.
Can you imagine Theresa May getting the UK Bill of Rights passed to replace the Human Rights Act? Can you imagine the rest of the civilised world's reaction to something more akin to North Korea? Do not accuse me of being a scaremonger unless you can give me a single concrete reason to change the current rights of humans to something that suits the state more than the individual.
Pulling out of Europe would cause another Scottish referendum and this time they'd go and be queuing in Brussels asking to join before David Dimbleby's breakfast. Despite what you might think, there would be many in Northern Ireland - devout Loyalists - who would consider ceding from the UK because much of NI's trade and economic resurgence has been through its deals with Europe and not the rest of the UK. Things aren't perfect in NI, but they are brilliant compared to what they were and that isn't just down to a peace agreement, it's because NI is a good place to live - economically. Imagine the damage Europe not dealing with us so favourably would have there. And, ironically, we can complain about all those nasty migrants flooding into our country, what would we do if 2 million Loyalists had to be repatriated? I know, it's not ever likely to happen, countries simply don't move entire nations into hostile environments...
The aftermath of it would be more than a disaster for whoever the PM is because if we vote to come out I reckon Cameron will quit. He'd have to because whether he's a puppet or his own man he's not going to want to be known as the PM who oversaw the downfall of the United Kingdom (he'd rather George got that award) - I believe he understands pride. This would mean a fight between Gideon Osborne, Theresa May, Boris Johnson and A.N. Other to become PM and the simple fact that whoever claimed the prize would be accepting a decaying poison chalice would inevitably force them into a General Election and for two reasons: 1) If the establishment doesn't want us to leave Europe because of the inevitable damage it would cause and 2) to simply get a mandate to begin to run the country like a totalitarian dictatorship which oppresses the poor and disenfranchised - because they are a drain on society and people's ability to work - and gives the rest enough money to always want for more.
So, 21st Century USA is the model the Tories are aiming for and one wonders, quite simply, what Tories' problems with the poor, disenfranchised and unfortunate is? By all means target the feckless, lazy and criminal; but why think everyone is trying it on? I meet so many genuine people in need, I simply can't understand how a government can treat them so contemptuously.
Part of the problem is that our schoolchildren are taught a curriculum that doesn't reflect the needs of the 21st century child, so we are breeding an increasing number of apathetic worker drones who thrive on a diet of mindless 'entertainment' and political apathy; political activists probably convert as many people as JWs do. Therefore what is needed is something being changed in schools; perhaps making the teaching of politics compulsory, like Maths and English, because and quite simply, politics is one thing that affects everyone everyday even if they're not aware of it. Kids need to understand why we have politics rather than be made to hate it and think it's anachronistic and something old people do. But, of course, the existential problem with teaching school kids about politics is how do make it unbiased; how do you ensure your teachers are being fair and balanced and not secretly indoctrinating the youth into a future violent revolution? You can't. I'm being melodramatic, but people have opinions, even teachers, and regardless of what you might think I've never met one who hasn't expressed one in a classroom, playground or dining hall.
The solution is simple; you employ a politically diverse trio of politics teachers and you divide the students political year into three terms: Autumn/Winter: Conservatives (and all the right wing); Winter/Spring: Socialism/Labour (and all the left wing) and Summer: Liberalism and extremism (because a liberal is the best placed person to be objective about extremism).
I've wildly digressed, but there is a point hiding in there and that is with exception of a referendum, fewer people every year are voting; a large percentage of those not voting are the young and the disenfranchised - probably two groups that need a fairer society. We are relying more and more on career politicians, all playing their own mental version of Celebrity PM, while less people get involved in the ultimate decision making. What is scary is the fear being generated by the Right at the thought of a fair-minded man being in charge of the country. Have the Tories learned nothing from history? Humans don't like oppression and eventually they rise up against it. Have the Tories ever wondered why there are only ever riots when they're in power? Or the mass marches in London tend to be when a Tory government is around (or a Blair one, which is pretty much the same thing). What often happens when a society becomes a bit fairer is the majority of the people are happy; it tends to be the greedy that ruin it for everyone else.
What we need are future generations that will make the right decisions for the people not for a few and that will only happen if we teach kids how important having an understanding of politics is, but more importantly, how to look for fair and unbiased opinion and coverage, because mainstream media news is no longer unbiased and benefits from the nuances of deceit developed by the entertainment industry.
I don't know if there are any politicians in the country who believe that everything about it needs an overhaul and that we should be investing in a country to still be great in 100 years, because your grand and great grand kids will want a world for their children and not a capitalist wasteland of inequality, hate and mistrust.
Sunday, 3 January 2016
The Smell of Sewage
"We all live in our own little bubbles," said a good friend of mine in regard to what we see on social media, etc. He is right and some of these little bubbles tend to perpetuate lies because people would rather believe what suits them than actually bother to do any research.
This is pretty much how governments are decided. I'll vote for who I see as the party to look after my self-interest. This is why whenever you attempt to guilt a Tory voter into accepting that they belong to the I'm All Right, Jack demographic, they get offended; because people like to think they are benevolent and kind hearted, but as long as they can do it from a distance and be seen as right on then that's all they need to do.
Today, a journalist on the BBC who I'm not familiar with said something that even out of context is reason some governments fall. "People have long memories when something affects them."
The Tories were actually trying to blame Labour this morning for the poor state of flood defences, because, if they hadn't had to sort the disaster Labour left behind this may never have happened and people will actually believe this; but they will be people who live on hills or nowhere near rivers and these people will be none the wiser about the fact that Osborne - the austerity chancellor - is still borrowing money and that money is being used to keep banks and corporations sweet, not for shoring up the infrastructure of the country - because I challenge anyone to give me an example of the Tories doing anything other than sticking a plaster over a gaping gunshot wound?
And when not-so gorgeous George continues to rape the poor and disenfranchised, it'll seem fair because it won't be affecting you. Except it will. Tories don't like taxation, but they love indirect taxation. Tories don't invest in the infrastructure and while it doesn't affect you, who cares. Well, you should because if they don't fork out for rebuilding, you'll end up footing the bill by some roundabout way - that's the way they work.
The floods could well be a political disaster for our pig-loving PM because at some point, especially if it continues to rain, they will have to spend more than a token few million on something they won't be able to recoup in some way. Spending money that disappears is anathema to the Tories and their right wing press buddies are struggling to keep focused on the peace-loving terrorist, because the people are fed up with it and want to know what the government are going to actually do about the crumbling country.
The Tories are only good with the economy because they tell you they are and they have lots of mates who perpetuate the lie.
Tories lie and then lie some more. Remember this when you vote for them next time, because next time it might be you they screw.
This is pretty much how governments are decided. I'll vote for who I see as the party to look after my self-interest. This is why whenever you attempt to guilt a Tory voter into accepting that they belong to the I'm All Right, Jack demographic, they get offended; because people like to think they are benevolent and kind hearted, but as long as they can do it from a distance and be seen as right on then that's all they need to do.
Today, a journalist on the BBC who I'm not familiar with said something that even out of context is reason some governments fall. "People have long memories when something affects them."
The Tories were actually trying to blame Labour this morning for the poor state of flood defences, because, if they hadn't had to sort the disaster Labour left behind this may never have happened and people will actually believe this; but they will be people who live on hills or nowhere near rivers and these people will be none the wiser about the fact that Osborne - the austerity chancellor - is still borrowing money and that money is being used to keep banks and corporations sweet, not for shoring up the infrastructure of the country - because I challenge anyone to give me an example of the Tories doing anything other than sticking a plaster over a gaping gunshot wound?
And when not-so gorgeous George continues to rape the poor and disenfranchised, it'll seem fair because it won't be affecting you. Except it will. Tories don't like taxation, but they love indirect taxation. Tories don't invest in the infrastructure and while it doesn't affect you, who cares. Well, you should because if they don't fork out for rebuilding, you'll end up footing the bill by some roundabout way - that's the way they work.
The floods could well be a political disaster for our pig-loving PM because at some point, especially if it continues to rain, they will have to spend more than a token few million on something they won't be able to recoup in some way. Spending money that disappears is anathema to the Tories and their right wing press buddies are struggling to keep focused on the peace-loving terrorist, because the people are fed up with it and want to know what the government are going to actually do about the crumbling country.
The Tories are only good with the economy because they tell you they are and they have lots of mates who perpetuate the lie.
Tories lie and then lie some more. Remember this when you vote for them next time, because next time it might be you they screw.
Monday, 14 September 2015
Hollow Victory?
The votes have been irrevocably cast. The losers lost more severely than anyone ever contemplated and that makes it difficult for the other losers. It was a comprehensive decision that could not be questioned legitimately, yet some are and by doing so they have made a calculated risk, which flies in the face of the members - who vote for them in general elections.
Jeremy Corbyn won; whether some people like it or not, Labour is going to be radically different for at least the next few years. The politicians - cross party - are oddly unified by their combined opposition for a man whose politics are being labelled 'left-wing' but are actually far more moderate than any true 'Trotskyite' would have hoped for. Yet, the likes of Cooper, Kendal, Ummana, Reed and Hunt have all resigned from jobs they, probably, wouldn't have kept, in what can be seen as them positioning themselves for the 'inevitable' fall and fallout and therefore not seen as part of this 'folly'. They will all feel they will have a chance of serving under the next Labour leader, or maybe even be that heir apparent, once this idiotic decision is seen for the foolhardy move it was.
The ex-ministers/shadow ministers are all young enough to spend a few years, maybe 10, in the political wilderness and will step up when needed to reposition the party closer to the Tories and in their minds become far more electable.
It's probably more mindless than electing a 66-year-old rebel as your leader. These 'well off' Labour new backbenchers are oblivious to the damage they and the Tories have done - the centre right and right wing MPs who look at balance sheets and profit margins before they look at people, circumstances and things that can never be planned or hoped for which cripple families who then need the help of a benevolent government and are discarded in the same uncaring way as we describe refugees wanting to escape a war. These 'Labour' MPs will be prepared to take a risk for their own purposes and to hell with everyone else and if you challenged them on this and they admitted it was an option, they would also say that following Corbyn would amount to the same thing and being part of his fiasco would mean there wouldn't be any sensible heads the public could identify with. It's appalling that these people are even allowed to be politicians considering the actual regard they have for the voters. The fact many think what they're doing is positive and will end up as a fait accompli are those 'others' mentioned earlier.
Corbyn won on so many fronts that the dislike of his victory has made everyone speak out against him sound like they both fear and loathe him in equal measure. Never have I seen such scaremongering tactics as employed by all parts of the media while completely ignoring the fact that he was the only candidate with ideas, the only candidate that filled hustings halls, the only candidate that didn't resort to bellow-the-belt tactics, the only candidate who appeared to have any dignity, self-conviction and belief in what he was talking about. That cannot be allowed in a world where it is important that you fear everything and know that the government - whatever colour - is there for you, sorting it out in a way that's best for the country (even if they all talk about decentralising government).
The new man will have many problems, but I believe he will rise above it and by doing so will impress people, in a similar way to how Farage rejuvenated disaffected Labour and centre ground Tories. UKIP might have only got one seat, but had the LibDems got their PR wish they would have ended up with considerably less than Nigel and his Purple helmets. People didn't vote for the UKIP candidate, they voted for Nigel. UKIP are a marginal loony party; imagine what a figurehead like Farage could do for a major party? Well, Jeremy Corbyn is as far removed from good old Nige, but in terms of their appeal to the public, they're cut from the same kind of cloth, but maybe from different ends. They talk - people listen. There are a lot more Labour people than UKIPpers; there are a lot of Liberals who will like many - not all - of this new look Labour, and there will be young, old, disaffected and disillusioned people energised by this man who doesn't talk in political double speak, but talks about things that people want their politicians talking about and, more importantly, opposing the Tories, not abstaining or voting with them on anything that isn't in the utmost public interest - and even then depending on the morality of what is being asked.
The self-exiled Labour MPs have made arses of themselves by petulantly walking away from the party at a time when they could have influenced or moderated some of the more extreme ideas and recreated Labour as the socialist party that works with business, Europe and the middle class people who don't trust them simply because of their name. These MPs should be asked to either support the party or walk across the floor to another party or resign and allow a by-election. I appreciate this is what some of the Blairites probably said of Corbyn or Skinner or Benn, but the left wing of the party after the schisms of the 1980s never undermined the way the party changed - they didn't like it, but like Tories, accepted the change to stay a united front. The self-serving Tories had enough foresight to let things happen for the good or the bad of the party because unity is what holds a lot of their vote together - there are so many light blue Labour MPs you would have thought they could see this. The left wing of Labour pretty much hated Blair and co, but having a pinkish blue government was always a better idea than a dark blue one and they retreated to the grass roots of the party and did good constituency work and quietly complained from the depths, albeit not too quietly. Neither do some Tories, to the left or right of Cameron because they have unity - whatever happens.
Corbyn energised a campaign so well he won it by a mile. His words appealed not just to Labour supporters but to many others; he inspired people to rejoin the party (me and several of my friends included) and that shouldn't be ignored - however small the overall percentage of the voting population it transpires to be. He's talking in a way that has made some people both extremely happy and scared. He's talking about politics and the consequences of politics rather than talking in political speak designed to bamboozle the average Joe into not being that bothered. Jeremy Corbyn has an opportunity to make politics cool again; the Labour party have a massive opportunity to make themselves electable by being honest, straight talking and realistic and it will all be for nowt if the sore losers go against the groundswell of support for their own selfish purposes. Politics should be about the people MPs serve not about their own petty ambitions.
Jeremy Corbyn won; whether some people like it or not, Labour is going to be radically different for at least the next few years. The politicians - cross party - are oddly unified by their combined opposition for a man whose politics are being labelled 'left-wing' but are actually far more moderate than any true 'Trotskyite' would have hoped for. Yet, the likes of Cooper, Kendal, Ummana, Reed and Hunt have all resigned from jobs they, probably, wouldn't have kept, in what can be seen as them positioning themselves for the 'inevitable' fall and fallout and therefore not seen as part of this 'folly'. They will all feel they will have a chance of serving under the next Labour leader, or maybe even be that heir apparent, once this idiotic decision is seen for the foolhardy move it was.
The ex-ministers/shadow ministers are all young enough to spend a few years, maybe 10, in the political wilderness and will step up when needed to reposition the party closer to the Tories and in their minds become far more electable.
It's probably more mindless than electing a 66-year-old rebel as your leader. These 'well off' Labour new backbenchers are oblivious to the damage they and the Tories have done - the centre right and right wing MPs who look at balance sheets and profit margins before they look at people, circumstances and things that can never be planned or hoped for which cripple families who then need the help of a benevolent government and are discarded in the same uncaring way as we describe refugees wanting to escape a war. These 'Labour' MPs will be prepared to take a risk for their own purposes and to hell with everyone else and if you challenged them on this and they admitted it was an option, they would also say that following Corbyn would amount to the same thing and being part of his fiasco would mean there wouldn't be any sensible heads the public could identify with. It's appalling that these people are even allowed to be politicians considering the actual regard they have for the voters. The fact many think what they're doing is positive and will end up as a fait accompli are those 'others' mentioned earlier.
Corbyn won on so many fronts that the dislike of his victory has made everyone speak out against him sound like they both fear and loathe him in equal measure. Never have I seen such scaremongering tactics as employed by all parts of the media while completely ignoring the fact that he was the only candidate with ideas, the only candidate that filled hustings halls, the only candidate that didn't resort to bellow-the-belt tactics, the only candidate who appeared to have any dignity, self-conviction and belief in what he was talking about. That cannot be allowed in a world where it is important that you fear everything and know that the government - whatever colour - is there for you, sorting it out in a way that's best for the country (even if they all talk about decentralising government).
The new man will have many problems, but I believe he will rise above it and by doing so will impress people, in a similar way to how Farage rejuvenated disaffected Labour and centre ground Tories. UKIP might have only got one seat, but had the LibDems got their PR wish they would have ended up with considerably less than Nigel and his Purple helmets. People didn't vote for the UKIP candidate, they voted for Nigel. UKIP are a marginal loony party; imagine what a figurehead like Farage could do for a major party? Well, Jeremy Corbyn is as far removed from good old Nige, but in terms of their appeal to the public, they're cut from the same kind of cloth, but maybe from different ends. They talk - people listen. There are a lot more Labour people than UKIPpers; there are a lot of Liberals who will like many - not all - of this new look Labour, and there will be young, old, disaffected and disillusioned people energised by this man who doesn't talk in political double speak, but talks about things that people want their politicians talking about and, more importantly, opposing the Tories, not abstaining or voting with them on anything that isn't in the utmost public interest - and even then depending on the morality of what is being asked.
The self-exiled Labour MPs have made arses of themselves by petulantly walking away from the party at a time when they could have influenced or moderated some of the more extreme ideas and recreated Labour as the socialist party that works with business, Europe and the middle class people who don't trust them simply because of their name. These MPs should be asked to either support the party or walk across the floor to another party or resign and allow a by-election. I appreciate this is what some of the Blairites probably said of Corbyn or Skinner or Benn, but the left wing of the party after the schisms of the 1980s never undermined the way the party changed - they didn't like it, but like Tories, accepted the change to stay a united front. The self-serving Tories had enough foresight to let things happen for the good or the bad of the party because unity is what holds a lot of their vote together - there are so many light blue Labour MPs you would have thought they could see this. The left wing of Labour pretty much hated Blair and co, but having a pinkish blue government was always a better idea than a dark blue one and they retreated to the grass roots of the party and did good constituency work and quietly complained from the depths, albeit not too quietly. Neither do some Tories, to the left or right of Cameron because they have unity - whatever happens.
Corbyn energised a campaign so well he won it by a mile. His words appealed not just to Labour supporters but to many others; he inspired people to rejoin the party (me and several of my friends included) and that shouldn't be ignored - however small the overall percentage of the voting population it transpires to be. He's talking in a way that has made some people both extremely happy and scared. He's talking about politics and the consequences of politics rather than talking in political speak designed to bamboozle the average Joe into not being that bothered. Jeremy Corbyn has an opportunity to make politics cool again; the Labour party have a massive opportunity to make themselves electable by being honest, straight talking and realistic and it will all be for nowt if the sore losers go against the groundswell of support for their own selfish purposes. Politics should be about the people MPs serve not about their own petty ambitions.
Friday, 28 August 2015
The Bookie Knows Best
Maybe I'm biased. Maybe I see signs that aren't there. Or maybe I, like others, see a smidgeon of panic. When the candidates for the Labour leader became public, Andy Burnham was pretty much odds on favourite and the token left wing candidate, some aging MP called Jeremy Corbyn was 100-1 and frankly, bookies probably felt they could offer 1000-1 that was the chances of the 66-year-old winning. Then he opened his mouth and a few people stopped and listened; then a few more, then a lot more and by the end of July that 100-1 had been slashed to 10-1 and now bookies weren't sure they weren't offering people the chance to skin them alive.
Then 'the establishment' got it's act together. The right wing media began its smear campaign and the Parliamentary Labour Party - very much part of 'the establishment' since Thatcher endorsed Blair - started its own campaign - part vitriol, part eating itself. By the middle of August there was a great meme floating about. It had four figures: 4 - 7 - 11 - 0 and these figures were the number of times Burnham, Cooper, Kendall and Corbyn had 'attacked' each other; except it wasn't each other, it was the number of times the three Blair/Brownite candidates had dismissed or been 'nasty' about Corbyn and the number of times Corbyn - 0 - had criticised his fellow candidates. This kind of galvanised his campaign and on August 20th, a bookmaker paid out people who had taken bets on Corbyn at 100-1. The bookies now make Corbyn 1-6 favourite with Burnham at 7-4, Cooper 20-1 and Kendall 250-1 (higher odds than Jeremy had when he came into the race with no chance). Bookies are rarely wrong.
In the Independent, columnist and left winger Mark Steel said, "The problem for Labour and Conservative leaders may be that the enthusiasm for Corbyn isn’t confined to people who consider themselves left wing. It’s a movement of those who feel the poor weren’t, if you study economics carefully, the people who caused the banking crash, so probably shouldn’t be the people asked to pay for it." This appears to be one of the simple messages that Corbyn is getting across and it is inspiring people who for so long have been force-fed the party lines of austerity and all-in-it-together (although some are in it more than others).
Corbyn appeals to the same people who Boris Johnson, Nigel Farage, Nicola Sturgeon and Ken Livingstone appeal/ed to - he seems like the antithesis of current party politics and seems to actually question bad decisions with straight language rather than pussyfoot around like his Labour party has for the last six years.
It has been proven that the mess we're in was not the fault of the previous administration. This has pretty much been common knowledge for five years, but have Labour attacked the accusations directed at them? No, they talk rhetoric and have been a tepid opposition. Corbyn doesn't just question this lie perpetuated by Cameron and his cronies, he argues that it has been exacerbated by Osborne's ideology to destroy the welfare state and return Britain to a more Victorian society.
People didn't vote Labour in May because they offered nothing different - they were just a light blue alternative. The LibDems didn't need vilifying by the press because everyone who didn't vote Tory in 2010 blamed them for the coalition and everyone who voted Tory hated them because weren't Tories. What Corbyn has done is ignite debates that have been dismissed or ignored because they have never fitted in with the ideas of Thatcherite/Blairite/Neo-Liberalism and the reason these debates have happened is because people would really like talk about these things and get governments to acknowledge that people feel they need to be on the agenda.
Every time there is an article about Jeremy Corbyn there follows thousands of comments and at least a third of these comments are from people gloating that Corbyn means the Tories will hang onto power for at least another term. They sound like Labour supporters in April who figured they were a shoo-in after the mess the coalition were. No one expected the Scottish Independence Referendum to be as close as it was nor did they expect politicians to suddenly be heard by a wider audience. People suspected that the SNP might achieve a huge win in Scotland, but the extent of it? Suddenly Scotland was full of prospective MPs talking the same language and fighting for the things the people wanted. Nigel Farage's party managed 13% of the vote in May and got one seat (The Libs got 8% and 8 seats - and I'm sure the irony isn't lost on them), but Farage was head and shoulders the most popular 'politician' during the campaign. Yes, he might have lost his chance of being an MP, but 13% of the vote? These 13% weren't just racists and ignoramuses; many of them were poorly informed long-time Labour voters who thought UKIP reflected their historic memories of a Labour party designed to help people first and corporations second.
I'm not suggesting for a second that I believe Corbyn as Labour leader will be the beginning of a socialist utopia, but I do believe it will put the fight back into the opposition. I can't imagine the quietly-spoken Corbyn allowing Cameron to ham it up for the cameras. I expect to see a few uncomfortable screen grabs as Corbyn asks him questions he will struggle to paper over with accusations, blame and self-aggrandisement. Dear old hated Tony Blair says Labour cannot afford to be the party of continual-opposition again, but he seems to unable to see the fact that new governments tend to be formed from oppositions that show steel and push the incumbents on every issue not just the ones they think their voters feel strongly about.
I believe that for every person who tells you that we must continue with our current politics, whether it is right, a bit right or a bit right of centre, there are people who will tell you that we need something that looks much fairer than it currently is and something that doesn't treat the poor and disabled as a contemptible and wasted commodity. Modern Capitalism is just like Soviet Russia except here you get balloons instead of beetroot.
I also firmly believe that the press are desperate. The press is the mouthpiece of 'the establishment', the press do an unbelievable job of obfuscating everything; in the art of deflection the press has no peers. Mark Steel's Independent column is a perfect example - he's left of SWP, the Indy is now owned by a Russian Oligarch who urged readers to vote Conservative. The Internet did a great job of being the Freedom of Speech platform for those that cared until governments and corporations pwned [sic] them; now the internet is just an extension of television and pages like this are less popular than Channel 264 on Freeview - on a ratio scale. But Corbyn has people turning up to meetings like they haven't for donkeys years; he generates masses of column inches all over the place and if he can ride the final shit storm from the PLP - because we all know how desperate Blair and his 'ites' are to keep the red flag slightly pale blue - and can be as moderate as he actually is (someone said Corbyn's politics wouldn't seem out of place in Ted Heath's Tory party) then I believe he could regenerate former voters, defectors and more importantly people who feel politics does nothing for them. He might even help some of the selfish people in our 'society', the ones who really don't care as long as they're okay, to rediscover their love for their fellow humans.
Or maybe he won't win and we'll get the same old same old. That idea seems quite abhorrent now.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)