Who is to blame?

The media have helped to build up UKIP into a 'fourth political party'. Even though the Party still doesn't even control any councils in the entire country and have no representation in the House of Commons. The Green Party has representation in Parliament. Yet it is UKIP who are the 'fourth party' championed by the press, whether explicitly or in frantic fear-mongering. The facts that the Party has within its ranks types who want to do away with universal suffrage and universal health-care barely comes up. Caroline Lucas of the Green Party is a non-presence in the media, yet Farage is asked onto BBC Question Time more than any other politician.

Now the press are looking for a scapegoat. The blame has fallen on Ed Miliband in some quarters. Actually the truth about the UKIP 'revolution' and the reasons for it are less simplistic. My friend Chris Horner took this from The Guardian:

Ukip's share of the vote went down this week, not up. Yes, it scored impressively well, in the high teens of vote share according to BBC projections, but it did not come close to dislodging Labour and the Conservatives as the two frontrunner parties, while the Liberal Democrats remained far behind in the low teens. The 2014 elections, in short, look less like the eruption of a new political order than the partial solidification of the one that erupted a year ago. The earthquake was last year, not this.

This point was echoed by Dan Hodges and by others elsewhere. The media wants this to be a threat and they want it to hurt Labour more than the Conservatives. The entire establishment are to blame for their inability to deal with the nuisance of Farage. The reason why Nick Clegg couldn't win the debate with the UKIP leader was because he has already conceded the major issues. The same can be said of Ed Miliband and David Cameron. All of them accept Thatcherism as their starting-point. Only an outsider can tackle Farage and only an outsider can tackle Lib-Lab-Con.

Nick Clegg has Only Himself to Blame.

Some of you may have tuned in to the LBC debate between Nick Clegg and Nigel Farage on the European union. This spectacle was hosted by reactionary lard-arse Nick Ferrari. It was everything one would expect. Nothing outside of the oscillation between mainstream liberalism and nationalism came up and this debate can largely be understood as a sign of the rightward trend of British politics over the last four decades. Liberal internationalism and conservative nationalism feed into one another, their relationship is dialectical, both oppositional and complimentary, and ultimately, they spiral into the same downward trajectory. It's no coincidence that the Liberal Democrats signed up for the Coalition with a party torn over Europe and he now finds himself poised against UKIP. For the Conservatives, Nick Clegg is the canary in the mineshaft and little more.

It must have been a disparaging experience for Liberal Nick. No longer a sponge sucking up all those disenchanted votes Nick Clegg stood as the establishment figure with his old place usurped by Nigel Farage of all people. Of course, the underdog status of UKIP is a falsehood. Nigel Farage railed against the bankrupt establishment, which Clegg now embodies so thoroughly, all the while UKIP stands in necessary relation to the status quo. He was probably expecting reason to triumph over reaction. He littered his phraseology with references to 'dogma' and appealed to common-sense. Bad moves by definition in this kind of debate. I don't know how he could have expected it to have gone his way. Without any grounding to maneouvre on economic and domestic policy (where he is wedded to Conservative policy-makers) the only issue of contention was going to immigration. That is hardly a threat to the Conservative Party. And of course UKIP has no interest in combating neoliberalism.

Outside of conventional politics the demagogue sets himself and poses as raising the real questions, the dangerous questions, to which the Establishment then reacts to preserve itself. As with Romania we find that the UKIP lot are playing this game again. The real issue that the people in countries like Romania and Bulgaria are fleeing from social conditions produced by neoliberal globalisation cannot be raised. Should we repair the damage? Now that's a dangerous question! It would only mean that the level of immigration would be based on the free movement of people, rather than on economic desperation. The Lib Dems can't make such a point because they've accepted the neoliberal model prescribed by Brussels, Whitehall, and Washington; while the only criticism UKIP may wage is that this hasn't gone far enough in tearing through all forms of state-ownership. This is why a key issue was never mentioned, namely the EU-US free trade deal currently being implemented by stealth.

The Liberal Democrats emerged from the consolidation of gains for a third party after the founding of the Social Democratic Party from the right-wing MPs who abandoned Labour. The loss of 10% of their MPs helped to secure Labour's defeat and a victory for Thatcher in 1983. So you can see how far the Party has come since helping to divide up the voters for Thatcherism thirty years ago. They have now graduated to joining those forces they helped deliver Britain to in the 1980s. This is the stinking filth of the body of liberalism: inaction, hot-air, and endless compromise. It's clear the trilateral consensus are not only complacent in the face of the nationalist reaction to the rapid internationalising trend of capitalism. We see this quite well demonstrated in Ukraine where a coalition of neoliberals, conservatives, ultra-nationalists, and oligarchs, have seized power only to wrench the country into the orbit of the European Union and open it up to the IMF prescription for an economic miracle.

Meanwhile here in Britain we find UKIP is looking to force the Conservatives further and further to the right as it condemns the EU. Clegg doesn't deserve our pity for his pathetic belief that if he just said the right words the audience would dutifully nod their heads for him. He was asking for the kicking he got.

What does AV stand for?

Despite what you may believe about AV, after reading the works of James Herriot, it does not stand for 'artificial vagina'. Oh no, certainly not! It actually stands for alternative vote, which is a system by which the voter can rank the candidates in accordance with the amount of evil they represent. Essentially it is a way of electing officials through preferential voting, with candidates with the fewest votes being eliminated. The issue is divisive for the political class, with the Conservatives in opposition and the Liberals siding with Labour in favour of the reform. We've got the chance to vote for or against the reform on May 5th, this is one of the few promises kept by the Liberals. Some are voting "Yes" out of a passionate hatred of all things Tory, while others are voting "No" out of disdain for those Lib Dem sell-outs. The famous have already jumped on board with the "Yes" camp, including Stephen Fry, Eddie Izzard, Joanna Lumley and Colin Firth. So if you trust Jeeves, Patsy Stone, Eddie Izzard and Mr Darcy on politics vote "Yes!"

The opposition campaign emphasise the cost of implementing the new system, which could be as much as £250 million. According to that logic we ought to scrap all benefits because fraud costs £500 million a year. Reform can be costly, but that is not a good enough reason alone to oppose reform. Though cost can be an important variable, the details of the proposal and the context in which reform is proposed matter more. For the Left there could be advantages from a system of proportional representation, as it could enable each party to reflect a particular base and leave room for leftist parties to coalesce against the Conservative Party. But that still assumes that the Left will benefit from AV. Labour may still be salvageable from Blairism and a resurgence of the Labour Left under the current electoral system would be difficult to marginalise at the ballot box. Under the first-past-the-post system the results of elections can be distorted, which is why the Thatcherites won "landslide" victories in 1983 and 1987. In that case 42% of the electorate was translated into 61% of the available seats.

When we're met with a Lib-Lab alliance over reform we ought to recall the words of Earl Grey on the 1832 Reform act "The Principle of my reform is to prevent the necessity of revolution... I am reforming to preserve, not to overthrow." After all Labour and the Lib Dems hardly represent working-people anymore, even though there are social democrats amongst the neoconservatives and market liberals in each of these parties. Social justice is only sought in order to buy-off socialism. The Con-Dem Coalition have tried to dress up the same old programme with the glossy image and rhetoric of "progress", the aim being to buy-off the public with PR instead of policy. At the same time, it could be seen as a simple manoeuvre of self-interest on the part of the Lib Dems. AV is the only hope for the Liberals now, under the first-past-the-post the Lib Dems would be easily marginalised in 2015. But the majority of Lib Dem and Labour voters would be unlikely to rank the Conservatives second-place. This is where leftist parties, like the Greens, might benefit greatly under the AV system.

And then there is the ugly side of the working-class, the BNP could be strengthened by electoral reform, though this is often exaggerated. Especially as the BNP appeals to working-people disillusioned with the Establishment. It should be noted that the BNP have been in tatters as a result of the emergence of the EDL, to which many BNP members have defected and the EDL as a political party might be a bigger worry than the BNP. Whilst it remains unclear whether or not fascism would be enabled by electoral reform, it seems fairly certain that the UKIP would benefit from such reform and gain greater seats in Parliament. From this a rightist bloc could emerge to corner any left-wing resurgence in Parliament along populist lines, with a cynical emphasis on the EU and immigration. Though the links between UKIP and the Conservatives would be in clear sight, with the two parties essentially only disagreeing on the fine details of policy rather than issues at large.

At the same time it might be difficult to resurrect the Labour Party as the party of the working-class and the labour movement. Proportional representation, to which AV is a step towards, would lead to more seats for the likes of UKIP and could institutionalise coalition governments. So even a progressive coalition could be pushed around by a rightist bloc of opposition and that has the potential to be as stagnant as the current system, if not more so arguably. It would be easier for a party platform to be diluted as part of multi-party alliances and coalition agreements, which would exclude the public as demonstrated in the 2010 General Election. With the kind of outcomes from the last election it is inevitable that people will vote to hurt either the Liberals or the Conservatives, but it is quite likely that the Lib Dems will be railed against and the proposal opposed because it is advocated by Liberals. Genuinely, it will be interesting to see if the Lib Dem voters can be rallied around electoral reform after the sell out of 2010.

In Contempt of the Liberal Democrats.

Pseudo-Politics.

For all who feel betrayed by the Liberal Democrats, and rightly despise Nick Clegg, the Oldham East and Saddleworth by-election will provide an enjoyable view of things to come - "enjoyable" in the sadistic sense as the Lib Dems crash and burn. Incidentally other opportunities to humiliate the Lib Dems and affirm the end of the "Cleggasm" include the referenda on voting reform and devolution as well as the Party Conference in September. Don't worry though I'm sure there will be plenty of demonstrations held before then! If you want to know, the next national demonstration is due to be held on January 29th. In the spirit of Christmas the Coalition has continued its attempts to sell the cuts agenda to the public. David Cameron released a New Year's message to present the cuts as necessary and not ideological. Simon Hughes "celebrated" the New Year by writing an article for The New Statesman in defence of the Lib Dems. Hughes is keen to convey the true "reality" of politics to the electorate in a patronising tissue of lies and hypocrisy.

The main argument of this stratagem is made obvious by the title "The Hard Reality of Power". Hughes argues that the Liberals remain a progressive force in politics today and is quick to remind us it was Beveridge who helped construct the welfare state. The Party's links with such great liberals should not be exploited in this way. If Hughes, along with the other members of the Beveridge Group, want to honour the memory of William Beveridge they should have voted against the rise in tuition fees - abstention is not good enough! It is evident early on, not just in the title, that Hughes views the public with disdain barely concealed by his choice of words. "Although the electorate (and, to a lesser extent, senior people in the Labour Party) did not give us the chance to form a coalition of the centre-left, which many of us had hoped for, we rose to last year's challenge" he writes. Notice in Hughes' mind it is the public who are at fault for creating a situation in which the Liberals had to forge an alliance with the Conservatives.

Hughes goes on to add that the Liberals "overcame" these problems to enter into a coalition without abandoning the commitment to "pluralist politics". It is s sick joke to imply that the Coalition is the affirmation of political pluralism. Before going on to assure himself of the Liberals' place in history Hughes repeats the party-line: "Not getting your own way on everything is the inevitable consequence of coalition." Supposedly the Liberals would like to abolish tuition fees but couldn't because of the election result. This is another way of blaming the public for the current state of affairs. These politicians have conveniently forgotten about the lies and pledges made to attain power. It is never acknowledged that the Liberals had a secret team drawing up a shadow platform before the election. The shadow platform, which is now naked for all to see, includes planks such as a u-turn on tuition fees. 2 months before the election and the Lib Dems were prepared to raise tuition fees. These facts are missing in Hughes' stratagem.

Instead Hughes flings himself from one stone to the next in hope of convincing the herd of his Party's integrity. Hughes distinguishes between a "hard reality" and a "easier world of opposition" with total disregard for the disillusionment the Party is stirring up in the public. The implicit message is that the public are fools for falling for the Lib Dems' promises. The voter should have known better than to believe that politicians are honest and have moral fibre. Of course, the average voter is well aware that politicians lie and betray pledges. Simon Hughes is only digging his party's grave by insisting that we abide such conduct. The Lib Dems have probably convinced themselves that the public is being immature and should learn to understand the nature of politics. This patronising attitude will contribute to the downfall of the Liberal Democrats over the next few years. No doubt the Liberals will have to recreate itself in order to survive.

There is No Alternative.

The political fallout of the cuts itself is potentially dangerous as the disillusionment with the Establishment is exacerbated, as it has been so often in the past around the world. The left-wing opposition to the government is just building momentum and we've already seen a resurgence of extremist politics during the recession. The widespread disillusionment is accompanied by a wave of misinformation that is aimed at leading people to believe that the country is overrun with foreigners, scroungers, drunks, promiscuous and murderous yobs. A culture of fear has been brewing for years in this country. But the economic inequalities which have produced much of the social decay and rot in society are quietly kicked under the rug. The struggle of the working-classes against elites is displaced onto rebellions against the welfare state, multiculturalism and tolerance. The lip-service of the Con-Dem Coalition to progressive change will only serve to nurture anti-politics in Britain.

Hughes is not alone in his complicity in trampling the legacy of social democrats and compared with Chris Huhne, another member of the Beveridge Group, is a less of a sycophantic shithead. Simon Hughes has accepted the role of peddling the prescription of cuts and higher tuition fees to the public - an Avon lady for Thatcherism. Over the next 6 months Hughes will be taking his sales pitch to colleges around the country. No doubt his article is part of this new found role in the Coalition. Speaking of which in the article he goes onto claim that the Lib Dems have replaced Labour as the "constructive party" of progressive politics. The grounds for this claim are that Labour is advocating a graduate tax which is no different to the higher tuition fees enacted by the Coalition. Another old trick by party hacks is to point the finger at Labour and scream "They're no better!" A fine demonstration of capitalist realism and the cynicism of the political class who can't justify their actions so they seek to discredit the Opposition. This will no doubt contribute to the disillusionment with mainstream politics.


From here Hughes points out to readers that Labour made false election promises and pledges. Stressing the Lib Dem commitment to an elected second chamber of Parliament, voting reform, localism and taking people earning less than £10k a year out of tax altogether. It is true that there is some ice-cream to be found in the bowl of dog shit the Coalition is trying to feed us. Even in regards to the education cuts and tuition fee hikes. Hughes goes on to claim that these changes are not possible without Lib Dems in government, which may be true. But it is also true that the Conservatives might not have been able to ram through the cuts and regressive taxes as a minority government. The Liberal Democrats have enabled the Conservatives to erode social democracy, the gestures left over for the Liberals to make are mostly meaningless progressive tokens - from referenda on devolution and voting to diluted control orders and opposition to ID cards.

The Thatcherite mantra of "There is no alternative" is alive and well in the last paragraph of the article. The budget deficit is also added to the list of reasons we can't have a decent government, as if he nearly forgot about it and quickly slipped it in at the end. The necessity of the cuts is implicit and Hughes tries to extend this to the Con-Dem Coalition itself "The alternative to coalition was a single-party Conservative government. I have no doubt about which I prefer." While it is true that a minority Conservative government would have been less liberal than the Coalition it would have also been less powerful. The Conservatives may have been forced to compromise by a Lib-Lab Opposition combined with the grass-roots protests to the cuts. The very presence of the Liberal Democrats in government is indicative of the poor excuse for a democratic process we have in the UK. MPs are elected and then we watch as they collude with one another to appoint each other to various roles. The seats are sold and public policy is the price.

A Year of Living Rough.

 

8 months since the Coalition took power from a bankrupt Labour government and the pitch hasn't changed one bit. Still the government claims to be leading the "Good Fight" against a budget deficit created by a one-eyed dour Scotsman. Though the Conservatives have stopped going around promising change and no longer speak critically of the politics of the last 30 years. As that might be a fly in the ointment when the public notice the similarities of the current regime and those we've endured since 1979. The shadow platform of the Lib Dems is now laid bare for all to see, with the consequences visible in plummeting approval ratings. Meanwhile New Labour has found a new leader who strongly resembles a Simpson, which isn't bad considering the Conservative leader looks more like shiny evil than an actual organism. On a more serious note Ed Miliband made positive detours from the lurch to the Right by the Labour Party, which saw Britain being led into wars for oil and gas, but has presented a luke-warm opposition to the Con-Dem Coalition on the cuts and tuition fees.

David Cameron, the harbinger of an austere Dickensian future, has issued a New Year message which begins by reassuring us that he is an optimist when it comes to people, human nature and the future of Britain. Going onto claim that the Prime Minister begins the New Year with the same positive outlook he had back in May. In doing so Cameron displays a caution for negativity, which can be a turn-off for voters, opting for a golden mean of rhetorical prestidigitation. He stresses that if we resolve the "real problem" of British society, namely the budget deficit and the economy, we can be one of the "international success stories of the new decade". Then Cameron reverts to a commonsensical position, "We have been living seriously beyond our means, we have to sort this out. Every sensible person knows this." He then posits that it would be easy to delay the cuts and highlights action (e.g. immediate and savage cuts) as the right course to take. This is a conscious attempt to evoke not only the dark outlook of conservatism but also the "idealistic" side of resolving problems by preserving traditional values, responsibility and order.

Keep in mind that the Conservative Party of today is most definitely Thatcherite, if not hyper-Thatcherite, in character and the only traditional values that matter are the ones established in 1979. Forgot community, civic duty and responsibility. Remember individuality, freedom and self-interest. Private vices equal public benefits, or so they will claim. Buying goods produced in sweat shops is good because it employs children, keeping them from abuse and sexual exploitation (in theory), this is the thinking of the Conservative Party. The Coalition is not lying in claiming to be creating the "Big Society" as a society in which government is small may be one which could be considered "big". Public relations at its best.  We've been sold cuts from the very start of Cameron's term. The long-term aim is small government, where everything from the NHS to the BBC is privately owned and taxes have been cut in half - more like Goldwater Conservatism than Red Toryism.

The Prime Minister goes on to say that "Britain has a really bright future to look forward to. 2011 is going to be a difficult year as we take hard but necessary steps to sort things out. But the actions we are taking are essential, because they are putting our economy and our country on the right path. Together, we can make 2011 the year that Britain gets back on its feet." This is emotive waffle, words typed up to sound nice and reassure the listeners to the insecurity of the path the Cameron ministry is taking this country. Following this waffle Cameron inserts some interesting claims, apparently New Labour racked up the biggest deficit in peace time history. Actually government debt didn't drop below 70% until the late 70s and early 80s under the Irony Lady, before that it was well over 100% for almost 50 years and during that time the welfare state was constructed. He goes on to evoke the widely covered crises in Greece and Ireland, even though we're not in the same situation as either country. Let alone the hypocrisy, David Cameron has backed the bailing out of Irish banks this year and will not doubt do the same during the next financial crisis here.

It becomes evident that Mr Cameron fears the country's credit rating is at stake, that we're facing rising interest rates and falling business confidence, before keenly reiterating that the deficit was inherited from New Labour and Gordon Brown - Labour's John Major. He conveniently forgets to mention that the Irish debt increased following huge austerity measures and that Britain had the lowest debt in proportion to GDP out of the G7 countries. After this Cameron goes on to claim that the Coalition has already "pulled Britain out of that danger zone" through some tough decisions in the Budget Review. At this point the Prime Minister introduces a justification, the ends justify the means, economic growth is predicted to rise from 2011 and even further in 2012. After attributing the growth achieved in 2010 to the Coalition's policies, and not Labour's "imprudent spending", Cameron concludes that we must swallow the Con-Dem prescription of austerity. He then repeats the old Thatcherite mantra "There is no alternative" and claims that it would be irresponsible to avoid cuts.

Following this is a load of noise about intentions, the national interest, aspiration, practicality and not ideology, as well as a reminder that "We're all in this together" before claiming contradictorily that "We want to bring people with us". Some noise about economic dynamism, more bank lending, greater deregulation and greater investment in the "sectors of the future". All of which is so vague no one could oppose them, except the part about deregulation which partly caused the financial crisis. After all this noise, the Prime Minister reminds we the people of the threat of international terrorism and radical Islamism. Noting the recent arrests of terrorist suspects the Prime Minister states this government will give the police the full support and defeat those who threaten our values and way of life. Just like New Labour the Con-Dems are looking to get the public to accept repressive policies - whether it be an attack on civil liberties or the welfare state - by evoking patriotism and advocating defensive violence against an external threat.


To avoid any scandals Mr Cameron highlights that the threat of Islamist violence is from a minority in the Muslim community. Soon after Cameron ensures that the door for more wars overseas is open by saying "We also need to take action with our international partners (US) abroad." As WikiLeaks has shown we are currently in the grips of another pro-American government, which has no problem with paying £80 billion to replenish American nuclear weapons we're allowed to hold onto and use when Washington gives the order. In the last minute the message descends into pure emotivism, the words were mostly hollowed out for public consumption, like a speech at a fascist rally. The emphasis is on making Britain is a "better, stronger and safer country" which is a meaningless platitude as no one would ever want to make Britain worse, weaker and less safe. The New Year message ends with words crafted by a PR-team "If 2010 is the year we stopped the rot, we can make 2011 the year that Britain gets back on her feet." To the government the public are a bewildered herd to be feared and manipulated, this is the reason behind the rhetoric and the gloss.