It is rare that I out much weight on anything Janan Ganesh writes in the FT. His very obvious support for just about everything George Osborne says does not put us on a common wavelength but this headline from today's FT drew my attention:
Cameron has surrendered to his party's vote-repelling right wing
Even the anti-austerity, anti-nuclear, anti-fracking Greens are seen as nearer the centre
The first sentence is pretty much agreed, by common consent. The second is the interesting one. It says a ot about Ganesh that he thinks being anti-austerity, nuclear and fracking extreme. It says a great deal more that he has to be reminded that a lot of people disagree.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Since Ganesh supports Osborne it bodes ill when such are represented by him as extreme when you consider ‘extremists’ are the very people Osborne’s colleague Cameron openly wants to have censored from the internet david-cameron-warns-internet-companies-of-their-social-responsibilities-in-the-battle-against-extremism.
It says a lot about the state of our democracy as well-that a Government can wield such ideological power with barely 30% support. The same could have been said during Thatcher’s time when, even at the height of power, she barely had 34% support.
When will the light bulb go on that we are not living in a democracy?
They’re actually doing this with no support at all. They never said they’d behave like this when they were campaigning and their excuse for their current behaviour is when they got in they found there was no money available to enable the policies for which they’d received votes. They have no mandate whatsoever. When they got in which I remind you was due to a shady backroom deal the electorate wasn’t privy to, they and the LibDems collectively should have formed new policies and gone to the people with them; in short, had a new election. They didn’t so as I say, they have no mandate at all. There’s a positive side to this though. According to international law (as I understand it) when debts are incurred by a government which clearly aren’t reasonable and are only in favour of a minority associated with supporters of that government then all such debts can be declared odious and cancelled. I believe we should be looking towards this end. We’ll probably have to do it for the incoming Labour government too as they seem cut of the same cloth as the Tories.
Sorry Bill – but this is in fantasy land
The Coalition is a wholly legitimate government even if you don’t like it
Simon
You pick on the coalition and Mrs Thatcher and complain that they have/had no mandate. In 2010 the Tories polled 36.1%, form a coalition and you complain. Yet Labour in 2005 polled only 35.2% and formed a government with a comfortable majority.
You criticisms of our electoral system might hold more water without an apparent political bias.
Richard is right, we have to accept the result under the system we have and campaign to change it if we think it wrong. But you can’t complain just because you don’t like who won.
Incidently, the Conservatives under Mrs T in her 3 election wins polled 43.9%, 42.4% and 42.2%. Quite how you tabulate that as ‘barely 34%’ is somewhat baffling.
Even John Major at 41.9% bettered Tony Blair in 2001 and 2005.
Geoff – I wasn’t being political in the sense you mean and agree it would apply to the Labour party. However, the ideological changes being thrust through at present have much further reaching effects on democracy than ever before which raises the bar on this issue.
Regarding voting figures: if you subtract the percentage of the electorate that didn’t vote you will find Thatcher’s 43% reduces to something like 34%.
Leaving aside Bill’s excellent point about the censorship of what is “extreme” – and I agree, because I’m sure Cameron and co’s close association with the Chinese government has given them an idea or two about how to close down dissent (if they had any doubts, before, of course )- I wanted to give an illustration of how wide the divide is between those who care about the impact of austerity and those who do not. And indeed, the many who revel in it.
Tucked away in the back of a recent edition of Private Eye was a story about the auctioning (tendering) of the care needs of disabled people. The story notes that as the number of residential homes has declined over recent years, combined with the increasing financial pressure local authorities have faced since 2010 (ie. austerity), an increasing number of councils are using “brokerage” sites ‘…accessible to care providers, so that they can put in a competitive bid for people they might want for their homes or accommodation. Bidders are advised how much financial support might be expected from the local authority and given a deadline for tender.’ (PE, 1380, p.32).
Now, call me an old softie if you like, but when I read this and the full story of some of the people affected – including their families, of course – I was astounded, appalled and angry. Since when has it been acceptable in a supposedly civilised country for the care of such vulnerable people to be auctioned off as if they are a commodity on eBay! Private Eye described it as ‘a shameful state of affairs’. Personally I’d call it a crime against humanity and have those causally responsible (and yes Osborne and co, that goes back to you), prosecuted accordingly.
This is just one, awful, example of the impact of austerity and the obsession of neoliberals with the marketisation of everything, even suffering. To my mind anyone who believes that is acceptable and “right” isn’t human. Period.
Agreed
This seems to be the logical continuity of Marx’s ‘fetishism of the commodity.’ To render all social relations a process of commoditization is reaching its ne plus ultra. It may have to get worse before it gets better.
Austerity is abhorrent on every level from the broadest societal level to the most personal level; it is part of the love of money that is at the root of all ‘evil’: “A £2.4m grant spent on helping women flee domestic abuse, homeless people and struggling families has been withdrawn from Sheffield Council.
The Local Welfare Provision Grant was axed as part of the Local Government Settlement announced last week.
It funded the Sheffield Local Assistance grants and loans, which can be given to people in an emergency or crisis when there is a risk to their health and safety, or when people are under ‘exceptional pressure’.
The grants are often used to buy household furniture or essential items such as bedding and last year aided 3,247 people.
The Government says local welfare will now be paid for from council general funds.
Coun Ben Curran, cabinet member for finance, said the council would do ‘all it could’ to protect the most vulnerable people but it would be difficult because of Government cuts that have squeezed other budgets.
“The government’s decision to abolish this funding is a kick in the teeth to individuals and families who have relied on it when facing an unexpected financial crisis,” he said.
“Life is tough for an increasing number of people. Living on a low income means many across Sheffield are living hand to mouth and many don’t have the ability to save.
“That’s why this funding was so important. 
“The council used it to provide emergency support to people who fall into unexpected crisis – like women fleeing domestic violence, and the homeless” http://www.thestar.co.uk/news/crisis-cash-fund-withdrawn-in-sheffield-1-7019245
I think your first three words summarise the situation well