I posted a thread yesterday morning about political alienation. Then Starmer made the comments that I referred to in another post this morning. In response I posted this on Twitter in response this morning:
All I want from politics is a decent government, driven by strong ethics, a belief in the power of politics and the state to do good, and with an understanding that there is a system of economics that enables that to happen.
It should not really be that hard.
It should certainly be within the boundaries of possibility.
But right now it seems deeply and desperately difficult to achieve this in this country.
What depths have we reached?
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:
Green Party?
I think the answer to your question of when did the socially democratic majority of this country lose the right to be politically represented, is that it has happened by degrees over the last 70 years, but the most crucial action was in 1995 when Tony Blair handed over the power of policy veto to Rupert Murdoch in order to ensure a Labour election victory in 1997.
Keir Starmer (and the Liberal Democrats?) now obviously believe that no General election can be won if you threaten to destroy the system that has run this country into the ground since 1979 and is currently running amok.
As a child I used to wonder how something as dynamic and effective as the Roman Empire could simply waste away. The last 45 years of neo-liberalism has been an education.
I have come to the conclusion that Labour provides the anvil to the Tory hammer on the assumption that the progressive electorate have nowhere else to go.
Sadly Starmer and his acolytes are part of the ‘system’ and have no intention whatsoever of changing it. I did point out in a previous post that there are two excellent programmes on Al Jazeera that expose the reality of the Labour party today.
The best way for Starmer to reduce the demand for independence , would be to offer a program that appeals to the more egalitarian Scots. Such as proportional representation for Westminster, a very different house of Lords/Senate, more devolution for England, Wales and Northern Ireland, real action on tax havens and stopping the privatisation of health and education.
It would appeal to a lot of people in the rest of the UK too.
Agreed
And how likely is any one of these measures to come about, let alone the whole set?
Julian. “If you fight you won’t always win, but if you don’t fight, you’ll always lose.” You will know that this has been attributed to several people, including Bob Crowe, but whoever said it, it’s true for me. And the first move in the fight is to express clearly what you’re fighting for.
Starmer is not interested in reducing the demand for independence. You rebellious Scots will do what you’re told. End of.
Labour has absolutely no chance of recovering their position of hegemony in Scotland. They kicked out the socialists in the late 1980s and became Tory light in the noughties. The picture of the Scottish Labour leadership sharing a platform with red meat Tories during the 2014 Referendum was the final straw. Labour is finished in Scotland.
I found Cory Doctorow’s essay a good read today: https://doctorow.medium.com/the-end-of-the-road-to-serfdom-bfad6f3b35a9
I think the interesting idea here is that the post-war consensus was a blip on a history of overwhelming control of wealth by the elite. Since the 80s, the elite have been claiming back “their” wealth and making sure working people pay their rent, more and more.
Starmer knows his place, and tugs his furlock, because he’s too afraid of the right wing media to do anything different. It’s now come to the ridiculous point where the Labour party is unable to align itself with the workers, for fear of upsetting their real masters, the financial elite.
It feels horribly like that
The financial elite alone would find it difficult but for the support of a large number of people whose opinions and prejudices are primed by the majority of newspapers.
I think they are the primary barrier to democratic progress.
I read on another blog today that there was a time when the rich actually spent their money on their workers in order to help them, and make them want to work for them. The philanthropy of the Rowntree and Cadbury families came to mind.
Whatever happened to that?
They were Quakers
We are an unusual bunch
And New Lanark in Scotland – worth a visit if you are in that area of Scotland, but you can read its history online.
Chris Gilbert, Sadly you are not wrong.
I would suggest that we are unfortunately prone to a lethargy when it comes to holding political parties and politicians to account far less demanding that they put the interests and economic interests of the vast majority of the people in the country first…as opposed to pandering to wealthy self-interests. A petition to call an immediate general election still only has c.896,000 signatures…and if you want to make your blood boil, read the government response noting the date.
Chris Gilbert is right.
Capital has made a comeback. We let it back in under the aegis produced by Neo-liberal Thatcherism that everyone could become rich or at least middle class and ‘efficiency’.
We were sold a lie that had led to the status quo being more entrenched than ever before – as well as rich enough to buy governments and leaders. They are swimming in money whilst we will swim in sewage and higher sea levels.
Only we can stop this but only if we organise as well as the rich do. That is our only hope. Each other.