Layer 309 . . . Economic Competence, Social Justice, Housing, Education, Working Class Votes and Fairer Voting Systems

.
The real test of the new government will undoubtedly be its economic competence and whether it implements the usual reactionary and recessionary measures put forward by the extreme slashers in the Tory ranks.

Oxzen said this in response to today's Guardian editorial:

The economist David Blanchflower has again said, in no uncertain terms, that any drastic government cuts this year will send the economy back into recession. Presumably Vince Cable hasn't given up this belief either. So now it's down to David Cameron. Does he listen to these individuals - who were effectively the only senior figures who predicted the financial catastrophe - or does he ignore their views and go along with Osborne and co and their simplistic Thatcherite household economics, and their threats of 'the markets'? It's a make or break moment for a man who's recently shown he's capable of rational and balanced thinking, and capable of ignoring the foghorn voices of the extreme right.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/14/ghost-of-christmas-future-editorial?

Cameron must surely understand that he now has an opportunity to show the working classes that he's no Thatcherite who's prepared to create mass unemployment in an attempt to balance the economy. If he can convince the electorate that's he's doing all he can to prevent the loss of jobs and the destruction of industry then he'll create some credibility with low paid working class and lower middle class voters. If not, then a revived Labour party [or the BNP] will again claim the right to speak for them.

In fact Cameron and Clegg have an incredible opportunity to show they're more concerned about the least well-off sections of society simply by doing the following:

1) Make the first £10,000 earned tax free [Already agreed, thanks to the LibDems]

2) Restore the 10p tax band for earnings between £10,000 and £15,000 [Or £20,000?]

3) Follow Boris Johnson's lead and implement a living wage instead of a 'minimum wage'.

4) Implement the recommendations of Iain Duncan Smith's Centre for Social Justice - no immediate loss of housing benefit when claimants begin new jobs; removal of disincentives to work, etc.

It's worth paying a visit to the website of the CSJ:

http://www.centreforsocialjustice.org.uk/

5) Address festering housing issues, and also show they can revive the economy through an emergency programme of house building - decent houses and flats at affordable rents. Cameron needs to come out and say that one of the main mistakes of Thatcherism was allowing the sell-off of social housing without encouraging councils to create more and better social housing. Housing could be a huge vote winner for the new government - everybody wants a decent and affordable home above all other things.

New Labour completely screwed up on these key issues. Clegg and Cameron would be completely stupid not to pursue their stated intentions of greater fairness and social justice by picking up on these crucial matters.

If they can also show that they're determined to get the rich and the super-rich to pay their fair share for a decent society, then they'll be on to a real winner. The new Labour leadership could decide it also wants to do this, but if Clegg and Cam can actually DO IT then they can say, with justification, that Labour failed to tackle these issues in the past, when they had an opportunity, whereas the coalition actually achieved it.

New Labour completely bungled a decade of opportunity to create greater social justice and greater equality. Working people aren't greedy, and don't expect a great deal from governments, regrettably, but they DO want jobs, decent wages, decent homes and decent schools for their kids.

Don't get me started on what New Labour did to education. I've been very fearful of what Michael Banana Gove has in mind for schools, but he's made a decent start by writing a personal letter and letting teachers know he's changing the name of his ministry to - ta ta-ta tah - the Department for Education!

What's more, I'd bet they'll keep this name for the next five years. They must know that teachers were completely pissed off by having to remember some new stupid name every other year. Gove should tell us how much money was wasted on consultants, new logos and new stationery every time New Labour implemented an unnecessary name change.

Check this summary of Gove's letter:

There is, I believe, nothing more important to the fairness of our society and the future prosperity of our country than getting education right.

Improving literacy, raising pupil attainment, extending parental choice, freeing teachers from bureaucracy, improving discipline and closing the widening gap between the richest and the poorest should be our shared goal.

To help us achieve the radical reforms that we will need, I want to refocus the Department on its core purpose of supporting teaching and learning.

In the weeks ahead, I want us to offer all schools the chance to enjoy academy-style freedoms so that heads and teachers across the country can be liberated.

We will also work to allow charities, parents and teachers' groups to open a new generation of small schools with smaller class sizes; introduce a new pupil premium which will ensure more funding is targeted to the most deprived pupils; give schools greater freedom over the curriculum; radically reform our exam system so that all schools can offer a wider range of qualifications; and support our great teachers by giving them more powers to ensure higher standards of discipline.

What's not to like there, providing the new schools don't cause the removal of funding from existing schools? I can even live with the removal of some of the more academically able kids from existing schools providing schools are no longer being judged purely on test and exam success. In fact, the reduction of pupil numbers in existing schools could even be a pre-requisite for creating smaller class sizes in existing premises.

If someone can now convince Gove that schools should be places where pupils enjoy learning for its own sake, and places where the multiple intelligences that children possess are all developed in balance and harmony, and places where children learn to be creative and imaginative, then I for one will be his biggest fan. Can't quite see that happening though.

Then again, I didn't foresee the coalition we now have, with its talk of fairness, social justice and greater equality.

....................................................

As for the Labour party, here are two good letters from the papers this week:

As the Lib Dems finalise their deal with the Tories (It's Cameron and Clegg, 12 May), my ire is reserved for the senior Labour tribalists like David Blunkett who so forcibly expressed their displeasure at efforts to forge a progressive alliance. There is not a shred of recognition that traditional Labour voters regard the New Labour project, in which he played a major part, as an act of betrayal of everything we believed the party stood for. The disastrous foreign policy, the sucking up to the City and big business, the widening wealth and income divide, the squandering of our civil liberties and failure to engage in serious constitutional reform. A pact with the Lib Dems might just have salvaged the party's reputation. Gordon Brown created the opportunity, but you spurned it. You will not lightly be forgiven.

Rod Morgan

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/13/new-labour-past-and-future?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

.......................................................

Diane Abbott's criticism of her Labour colleagues for exploring the possibilities of a "progressive coalition" with the Liberal Democrats is based on a series of outdated assumptions, and her reference to 1931 is way off-beam (Comment, 11 May). She is wrong to imply that with the collapse of Lib Dem-Labour talks a near disaster has been averted; in fact, tragically, a golden opportunity for democracy and the left is being missed.

Labour's rightward drift meant the recent Lib Dem manifesto was markedly to the left on a range of issues, including taxation, the renewal of Trident, immigration and Heathrow expansion. Plus, any "rainbow alliance" would have been dependent on the votes of Scottish and Welsh nationalists and the one Green MP, all of whom have put forward social democratic policies that appeal to many former Labour voters. If we are to strengthen the power of the people to resist the demands of the money markets, it is essential that the left pushes for democratic reform now more than ever.

The introduction of a fairer voting system would have needed to be the basis of any Lib-Lab arrangement. This would have broken the stranglehold of floating voters in Middle England marginals over the political centre of gravity, and would have rewarded Labour for mobilising support in its working-class heartland seats. There was every chance that Labour's own policy would be drawn to the left as a consequence. And the green and radical left could have developed a stronger voice of its own.

Michael Calderbank, James O' Nions and Hilary Wainwright

Co-editors, Red Pepper

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/may/12/end-of-the-rainbow-alliance

...........................................

Unfortunately, as Dianne Abbott made it clear on television last night, neither she nor the majority of her colleagues in Parliament will ever contemplate a fairer voting system or give up their attachment to FPTP. Bastards.
.

Layer 305 . . . Rats and Sinking Ships

.
More and more of the Labour troops are coming forward to say they think Labour can't or shouldn't do a deal with the LibDems - and so the party should let the Tories and LibDems do whatever they want to do. Fucking amazing.

Charlie Faulkener is one who's saying "I think we're doing ourselves damage now, as a party."

And this seems to be the main concern of many of these bastards - they're more bothered about the wellbeing of their party than the wellbeing of the people they're supposed to represent.

I wouldn't be surprised if they quite fancy a period of time out of the driving seat. In which case they should fuck off and let someone else from within their party take over. They should do that anyway.

Many of them will no doubt be thinking they quite fancy making a pot of money from little sidelines elsewhere if they're not in government.

A great many of them are such careerist and tribalist bastards they're no doubt thinking - and rubbing their hands with glee - about the shit that's going to land on the Tories when they start slashing and burning. Pure political calculation, without giving a toss for the fact that over 50% of us actually voted for a left-leaning government.

The final point is that many of these tribalists and careerists don't want anything to do with proportional representation, or even STV. Kate Hooey's one of these anti-PR people who say Labour should jack it in. Fine for her - this is all she's got to disturb her orderly little life. She doesn't bat an eyelid at the sheer unfairness of FPTP either.

Fuck the lot of them. It's going to be interesting to find out sooner or later who were the ones prepared to fight, and who didn't feel a jot of responsibility for carrying out the wishes of the majority of the electorate.

And there's one more category of Labourite that wants to pack it in. There seem to be a few of them who relish the prospect of having an almighty internal punch-up in the aftermath - many of them because they can't stomach the likes of Balls, Alexander, Milibands, Cooper, etc carrying on with their career trajectory, and want very badly to see them done down and beaten up. In many ways I agree, but this is a luxury that the vulnerable people of this country can't afford.


Large holdalls are currently being loaded into the backs of cars at the rear of No 10 . . .
.

Layer 304 . . . Political Dinosaurs, Progressive Alliances, Legitimate Governments, Ashdown, Gary Younge, and The Markets

.
Two of New Labour's biggest dinosaurs - David Blunkett and John Reid - have come out and said the Lib Dems and the Tories should now get on with forming a government. This is at the very moment that a progressive anti-Tory alliance is beginning to gel - an alliance that's vital for keeping out what will be without doubt a very brutal right-wing plan to create a voting system, through constituency boundary changes, that will permanently entrench right-wing power in this country, which the Alternative Vote system will do very little to change, even if it were adopted, which is by no means certain.

Maybe the Reid/Blunkett logic is that a Tory/LibDem government would, by doing its planned fiancial slashing and burning, make itself so unpopular within a short space of time that a refreshed and made-over Labour party would easily win the next election.

What these old Stalinists don't get is that it's the poor fucking infantry that will become the victims of their grand strategy. What's more, these guys are so undemocratic that they'll never agree that proper proportional representation is required to make any voting system legitimate, any more than Stalin would have agreed.

Or do they just want a minority Tory government which can be held in check by the combined forces of the opposition in Parliament? I can see what fun that might be, but again, this is fucking with the lives of real people, who will always be the ones to lose out under any Tory government, no matter how constrained it might be.

I don't know much about Reid, and I don't want to either, but Blunkett for sure is too stupid to realise there's a moral imperative for a parliament consisting of parties which are largely on the left on the political spectrum to work together in order to run the country in a progressive direction that is for the wellbeing of the majority of people and not just the few. The key factor, I say again, is ensuring a fair voting system that will no longer allow the kind of disgraceful and unfair apportioning of votes we've again witnessed. Blunkett can never understand this, given the kind of top-down neanderthal he obviously is. I'm dying to know how many of his constituents agree with his views.

George Osborne's already been on the radio, quoting David Blunkett favourably. What a surprise. Maybe Blunkett could change sides or just agree to join the Tory coalition.

.................................................

In contrast, Paddy Ashdown spoke very well on the Today programme just now. He immediately slapped down the stupid notion that we 'can't have' an 'unelected prime minister', which is an idea I'm very tired of hearing - how many times do we have to say that we don't fucking elect a prime minister under our system?

Paddy pointed out that a Lab/LibDem minority government would not in fact be voted down by nationalists voting with Tories. It would have legitimacy in that the majority of voters support it - just over 50% in fact, which is something that governments have not had for the past 50 years or more. There's a technical majority in Parliament against it in terms of seats and votes, but there are no possible circumstances in which the progressive and socialist-leaning fringe parties would support the Tories, assuming the Tories don't come up with some socialist proposals.

Very well said, Paddy. I'd MUCH rather have him as a prime minister than someone on the Balls/Milibands axis. I now cringe every time I'm forced to listen to the sound of their voices, and that's before I've even taken in what they're actually saying. Whereas Paddy actually speaks like a real person. I do hope Clegg's listening to him. I'd love to see Ashdown installed as a minister too. Since the last government included various 'lords' such as the vile Adonis and the even viler Mandelson, then the future Lab/LibDem government must surely include Ashdown. Foreign minister anyone? I'm off to place a bet.

Ashdown is the perfect antidote to scumbags like Adonis, Mandelson, Blears, Balls and Blunkett. Maybe he should be PM. Now that's what I call an unelected prime minister.

................................................

I'm so glad Gary Younge is back in the country, being a part of what's happening, and commenting on what's going on with his usual sharp analysis. This is part of what he said yesterday:

The people have spoken. Don't let the markets shout them down

The clash of democracy and capitalism is as acute as ever as a discredited financial sector seeks to dictate political terms

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/people-markets-democracy-capitalism

Last Thursday in Sheffield Hallam students who did not have a chance to vote tried to block the path of election officials taking away ballot boxes. In Hackney police broke up a sit-in of voters who were in a similar situation. In several other cities across the country police were called to stem or prevent unrest as disgruntled and disenfranchised voters were turned away by incompetent officials. In Sheffield roughly 100 staged a demonstration outside Nick Clegg's house and tried to post their ballots through his letter box.

The spontaneous militancy, presumably by voters from across the electoral spectrum, to defend the right to vote on election day in the UK was heartening.

It was also encouraging to see more than a thousand people demonstrate on Saturday in favour of proportional representation outside the building where the Liberal Democrats were meeting to discuss their next move. When Clegg goes behind closed doors it's important that he has the demands of his base ringing in his ears.

Whomever Clegg decides to go to the ball with, when it comes to the most crucial issue of the moment – the public debt – he and his partner will be dancing to the markets' tune.

True, there was no Bankers party on the ballot papers . . . but maybe there should have been. For ultimately it is they who will decide how swift and savage the impending cuts to public spending shall be, and it is their endorsement – not the electorate's – that the politicians both seek and feel they need. And if they had been on the ballot they would almost certainly have lost.

[Almost?]

There is no "new politics" worthy of the name that demonstrates at polling stations and in Westminster for proportional representation and does not then go to the City to demand the democratisation of our financial sector.

Not long ago such a demand would have seemed both radical and unfeasible. But no longer. For the stark evidence of recent years is that even though markets remain omnipotent, they are by no means omniscient and anything but infallible. Far from it. The very governments those markets turned to, to prevent a collapse of the financial system during the credit crisis, must now assert their democratic will as that same system seeks to dictate terms over the coming weeks.

This particular contradiction between democracy and capitalism is not new. But during this period of economic and financial crisis in Europe it has become particularly acute.

Greece burned and other democratically elected governments across the Mediterranean panicked after ratings agencies downgraded their public debt – all the indications that whomever you vote for, the markets get in.

The notion that these ratings agencies are simply passing judgment on the creditworthiness of nations ignores how poor their judgment has proved to be in recent times, and in whose interests those judgments have been made.

These bodies that see public debt as a burning issue today foresaw no problems with the unsustainable private debts of the banks investing in sub-prime holdings a few years ago.

The incentives in the market for rating agency services favoured, and still favour, short-term profits over credit quality."

There's a reason for this. These agencies are primarily funded by the banks that they are supposed to be rating, creating what several former officials testified was a fundamental conflict of interest. In the words of Upton Sinclair, "It is difficult to get a man to understand something when his job depends on not understanding it."

So the very sector we bailed out with public money, run by incompetent people who are once again paying themselves bonuses, is now threatening to destabilise the next government unless it fires thousands of low-paid workers, cuts their wages and withdraws the services to millions of mostly poor people.

It's as though you borrowed money against your home to save a wayward relative from penury only to have them roll up a week later in a brand new Porsche and tell you to cut your food bill or they'll repossess the property.

Given the consensus, the markets didn't really care who won or even if there was a hung parliament. Just so long as there was a government that was prepared to wield the knife. All they wanted was stability and austerity.

There are many ways of tackling the deficit that don't hit the poorest hardest; but those are not the ways the markets are most interested in.

The election results have produced parliamentary permutations that make stability unlikely in the face of the market's dramatic demands for a swift and severe austerity plan.

The people have spoken. We should not now let the markets dictate.

.....................

There was a good letter in the Guardian yesterday, from Paul Dunn:

I'm amazed at the cheek of the City, which wants a government installed by today to calm the markets. Perhaps the City could be asked to clean up the graft, insider trading, greed and inappropriate bonus payments by today too?

...................................

The Guardian editorial's verdict is:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/10/liberal-democrats-decision

Any agreement is a means to an end, not an end in itself. The plain fact about this complex and imperfect political situation is that it is nevertheless also a historic opportunity for reform. There is a broad identity of purpose between the Liberal Democrats and Labour that does not exist between the Lib Dems and the Conservatives. Their common approach extends far beyond electoral reform, important though that is. The best reason for exploring and, if possible, making a Lib Dem-Labour agreement is that this would be the best way of ensuring fairness in the handling of the immensely hard decisions on the economy and public spending that will face whichever government now takes office. Electoral and political reform would be a huge additional reward. This is moment for setting the future direction of British politics. The Liberal Democrats have to choose with whom they will now stand.

It could be a very interesting day, again.
.

Layer 303 . . . Whitehall Revisited, and Still Deadlocked

.
This should have been posted this morning. Arrived home this evening to find Brown's announced he intends to resign, the Lib Dems say they now want formal talks with Labour, and the Tories have belatedly said they'll offer a referendum on PR if the Lib Dems stick with them. So it's all still going to plan. Excellent.

.......................................................

First item on Start the Week on Radio 4 . . .  Whitehall, and its geography and history. It's been there as a thoroughfare for 1,000 years.

Whitehall has become a byword for government bureaucracy, but beyond the facade of civil service offices are the rooms that shaped our nation’s history. In Whitehall, a “biography of the most important street in Britain”, Colin Brown explores the hidden gems behind closed doors. From Henry VIII’s tennis courts, to Cardinal Wolsey’s wine cellar and the secret passage still in use today, Colin Brown reveals the long history of political drama and despair, spin and scandal in the street of Whitehall.

Whitehall: The Street that Shaped a Nation is published by Simon & Schuster.

..........................................

Still no conclusion to the talks that have been going on all weekend about the right to govern Britain. This is a good thing. Serious thinking is taking place up and down the country as well as up and down Whitehall and Westminster about the meaning of mandates, political allegiances and the future of politics in this country.

Polly Toynbee wrote a good column yesterday, again insisting that The Lib Dems must not make common cause with the Tories, and will only destroy themselves as a party if they refuse to be part of a grand alliance with the other left of centre parties.

A done deal? No, Tory-Lib is a marriage made in hell

Brown's letter captures a despondent mood. But Labour must not give up on a progressive alliance

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/09/election-clegg-cameron-brown-alliance?

Clegg is right to try all he can to get a deal from Cameron, on the economy as on PR. He can only legitimately turn towards Labour if it is self-evident that no way can this radical and progressive party fold in with a sub-Thatcherite programme. Clegg and Cable are against the £6bn cuts this year, and cautious about removing the stimulus too fast. This marriage made in hell is unlikely. And Labour panickers should take a deep breath (get some sleep) and trust in the great bulk of Lib Dem members who are progressives, not Orange Bookers, decent people. There are more thoroughly conservative types in Labour than among the Lib Dem clan. It would be good for both to bring the two together as repairing the rift in the left is the goal. The likes of Shirley Williams, Tom McNally (their leader in the Lords), Matthew Oakeshott, Charles Kennedy and as many other grandees as you care to mention are not about to end their long and honourable careers tricked into a coalition in which all pledges would be jettisoned within weeks. The southwest Lib Dem MPs who fear alliance with Labour are plain wrong: a large chunk of their vote is Labour people lending their votes, voting tactically, who would not support them again if they turned to the Tories.

The prize of an alliance government, far better than Labour on its own, is still there to be seized. But how depressing to hear old tribalists like David Blunkett today rejecting PR. Labour has its own internal fights to resolve, too.

Oxzen commented:

    "But how depressing to hear old tribalists like David Blunkett today rejecting PR."

Depressing, Polly? Why are you even surprised? Right from '97 the man was an appalling education secretary, one that made common cause with the likes of Woodhead, and took his reactionary and ignorant agenda ever further to the right. What on earth has Blunkett ever said or done that would cause anyone to think he's anything but the most right wing politician within the New Labour camp? He may talk the anti-Tory talk but his politics are well to the right of the Lib Dem progressive wing. Sadly he's by no means the only top-down authoritarian bully within New Labour's ranks.

Why would anyone give a damn any more about what David Blunkett thinks or says? Cheer up Polly - whatever happens next the Labour party finally has an opportunity to clear out both the Blairites and the Brownites and begin to rehabilitate itself as a proper social democratic party. Whether or not it takes it is another matter, however.
.

Layer 302 . . . Tales of Two Cities, Enchantment, Politics, Peace Camps, Demos, PR, and a Progressive Alliance

.
Paddy Ashdown, now pushing 70, showed this morning how to wear an open-necked shirt and still look funky. These younger politicians who wear their normal suit shirts without a tie just look - stupid.

........................................

Here's my recommended viewing for today:

Crisis Capitalism - Naomi Klein and Raj Patel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8Ji_8tI0sbY

........................................

There was a very funny moment on TV this morning when Dame Anne Leslie, the notorious right-wing hag, argued against PR electoral systems on the basis that they let into parliament undesirable parties such as Austria's neo-nazi Freedom Party and BZO. A fellow panellist then pointed out that these are exactly the kind of parties that Cameron and co have joined up with in the European parliament. Brilliant.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_Freedom_Party
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J%C3%B6rg_Haider

.....................................

Tales of Two Cities

1. Venice - by Francesco da Mosto; BBC4

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0078ssj

"Not just beautiful. Enchanting."

So said a guy who's been sweeping St Mark's Square at dawn every day for 22 years. Venice is enchanting.

So here we have it: there's something beyond beautiful. There's something more than aesthetically pleasing and visually stunning. There's another dimension where aesthetics trigger . . . the divine. The transcendental. The spiritual. The realm of satori that lies beyond the merely physical. The connection with the metaphysical; the one-and-all; the source of all meaning and ultimate joy and delight. The source of our higher being. This is what the street sweeper connects with, every morning in Venice, as he watches the sun rise.

This programme is a visually stunning, brilliantly conceived, wonderfully edited, superbly written and beautifully narrated essay on an amazing city.

Now available on DVD.

............................................

2. London

Is London enchanting? Er . . . no. On the whole. London is something else. An amazing place in its own right, but not a place which of itself produces transcendental enchantment; though parts of it can, on certain days.

Arriving in Trafalgar Square yesterday I found it full of Morris dancers and their entourages, plus passing tourists, and this was only an hour after there was supposed to have been a massive demonstration in favour of PR and electoral reform. Hardly an Athens-like scenario.

Walking down Whitehall it was clear that the majority of people were tourists, speaking a variety of languages. This is a weird and not very wonderful street - though it's very impressive. All the financial and political pomp and power of the State is on architectural display. I'd really love to see there, every weekend, parties of visitors consisting of neighbourhood groups giving their young people an educational tour. Children and young people from all over the country should have a right to a guided tour of the throbbing heart of government, in order to stimulate their interest in politics, government and citizenship. How many schools, especially London schools, even bother to do this? You have to experience it, to begin to understand it.

Parliament Square yesterday was full of tents belonging to a peace camp set up as a 'democracy village' by activists who want to see our troops pulled out of Afghanistan, amongst other things

http://www.indymedia.org.uk/en/2010/05/450803.html

 (c) Oxzen Pics

I noticed Sally Bercow had said she'd go to live in a tent in the Square when she was told to move out of the Speaker's flat for the duration of the election. An interesting character.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1233127/Sally-Bercow-I-binge-drinking-ladette-downed-bottles-wine-day-night-stands.html
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/7353788/Sally-Bercow-I-will-sleep-in-tent-in-Parliament-Square.html

(c) Oxzen Pics

There's now an amazing media village on the green opposite parliament, which is dominated by a two-story black-glass prefab belonging to the BBC. This is the studio that was used for the BBC's political broadcasts this morning.

I finally came across the "Demo for Democracy" in Smith Square - which had been organised by POWER2010 and its Take Back Parliament campaign. They gave a huge cheer when Vince Cable emerged from Transport House, which was fronted by a row of police officers, and made his way on foot back to the Lib Dems HQ a couple of streets away, accompanied by chants of "No sell out!"

(c) Oxzen Pics

Walking back past Millbank Tower and Parliament an hour later, after a visit to the Tate - the Westminster village's very own art gallery - I came across Chris Huhne and David Laws on their way to LibDem HQ, deep in conversation. These guys, in terms of influence, appear to be in the top six of the Lib Dem hierarchy. In our current circumstances they are therefore in the top six power brokers in the entire country. Their backgrounds are very interesting - both of them public school and Oxbridge educated politicians who were originally investment bankers, operating deep in the throbbing heart of the City.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Laws
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Huhne

............................................................

Helena Kennedy said on TV this morning that political tribalism is in decline, and her own record in the Lords shows she's always focused on issues and principles, not Party bickering and manoevering. PR allows us to have a more mature and intelligent democracy.

Which is pretty much what Oxzen wrote in response to Henry Porter's article on PR today.

Is this really the end of Punch and Judy politics?

The adversarial system we have lived with for so long is outdated and a bar to true progress

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/henry-porter-proportional-representation?showallcomments=true#end-of-comments

During the election, I took part in a dozen or so public meetings. I was struck by the incredible focus of the audiences. People were paying attention in a way that was quite new to me and was also rather moving. They wanted to believe; they wanted the best for those around them, particularly the new generation of voters, which is what makes the failure in all those polling stations such a scandal. The idea that people in those audiences were divided into first- and second-class voters because of their political allegiance was appalling.

We rediscovered the wonder of free elections last week and saw its potency and that is where we should start on the issue of PR. Two hundred-odd years ago, you might have met a stout man of affairs, probably a Tory, who would have deplored the idea of extending voting rights and abolishing rotten boroughs: he was swiftly consigned to history by the Whigs and their Great Reform Act of 1832. A hundred years ago, you would have met the same type spluttering at the mention of votes for women; he was swept aside by the suffragettes.

Today, that very same conservative voice will tell you that first past the post is the only system that can produce stable, decisive governments. But the view that says we have to tolerate an unfair voting system will go the way of all that self-serving opinion of the past.

The election seems to be telling us to settle on PR as a principle and then find a system that suits our politics. Neither of the main parties properly concedes this need, because it threatens their power, but a hung parliament is the clearest possible hint to them that we demand changes in the political culture that are more than spin.

Part of the British genius for progressive reform is that we used to understand that with each advance in people's rights and enfranchisement, government improved. PR is not a threat to government, but the only way to renew its legitimacy and improve its performance. PR means progress as well as equality at the ballot box.

Oxzen commented:

Good article, but

    . . . with each advance in people's rights and enfranchisement, government improved.

There have been important advances, but it's not clear that government has always improved. Would you say that the Blair/Brown government was an improvement on the Attlee government, which was arguably our one and only socialist government? Would Attlee have left it to the markets to dismantle, asset-strip, sell off, and cease to invest in British industry, and inflate property bubbles?

The reason that PR is essential, and has been adopted by more enlightened countries, is that it encourages and enables government on the basis of coalitions around ideology, and not just personalities and parties. The age of 'broad church' parties such as Labour and the Conservatives, which mainly provide career paths for professional politicians, has to come to an end. People need to know what and who they're really voting for when they take the trouble to vote. The New Labour brand fooled far too many people for far too long. A trade descriptions act is needed for politics as well as retailing.

Government on the basis of which party has the biggest share of seats and/or votes, even though their share of the vote is way below 50%, is almost as childish as government on the basis of personal popularity contests between individual politicians. This is what now enables the Tories to claim they have a right to govern when they know very well that the majority of voters are against them ideologically, and probably always will be.

The nonsensical neoliberal theories of market efficiency have been tested to destruction, trickle down economics have been shown to be a deception, and only government by coalitions of social democrats and others on the left is going build a better Britain based on social justice and sound economics. It's time for our politics to grow up and for politicians to persuade people to vote for them on the basis of where they really stand and who they'll work with in a balanced parliament. This is what happens in mature democracies.

The Tories have nothing to offer this country - certainly not PR - but New Labour are little better, unless they now admit they've been seriously going down the wrong road for the past 13 years.

..........................................

Alex Salmond has said that the country now needs a "progressive alliance" consisting of all the anti-Tory parties coming together. Can't argue with that.

(c) Oxzen Pics

.

Layer 301 . . . The Day After The Day After : Demanding Democracy, Taking Back Parliament, All Along The Watchtower, and Having A Laugh

.

“There must be some way out of here,” said the joker to the thief
“There’s too much confusion, I can’t get no relief
Businessmen, they drink my wine, plowmen dig my earth
None of them along the line know what any of it is worth”

“No reason to get excited,” the thief, he kindly spoke
“There are many here among us who feel that life is but a joke
But you and I, we’ve been through that, and this is not our fate
So let us not talk falsely now, the hour is getting late”

All along the watchtower, princes kept the view
While all the women came and went, barefoot servants, too

Outside in the distance a wildcat did growl
Two riders were approaching, the wind began to howl . . .

http://www.bobdylan.com/#/songs/all-along-the-watchtower


Oona King, ex-MP for Bethnal Green and Bow, on the radio this morning, spoke about her 'inheritance track', and incredibly chose my own track - Jimi Hendrix's version of Bob Dylan's 'All Along The Watchtower'. Amazing woman, this Oona. Love her to bits. She's so well-off being out of politics - and she knows it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oona_King

I don't know why I'm so amazed that Oona chose this track. I'm more amazed that everybody doesn't choose it.
.....................................


There was a superb episode of The News Quiz yesterday - one of the best ever. It's now in its 71st series. A real national gem. Thank goodness for Sandi Toksvig, Jack Dee, Jeremy Hardy, Francis Wheen, and Sue Perkins. Comic geniuses, every one of them.


http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00s7fb0/b00s7f5z/The_News_Quiz_Series_71_Episode_4/

"The UKIP campaign didn't really take off, did it?"

"Zak Goldsmith's mate! - Hooray!"

"Hazel Blears is back in Eccles and Salford . . .  or Salford and Eccles - depending on which way she's flipped them."

"Nick Griffin blamed his rout on immigrants that didn't vote for him."

The polling stations were obviously run by the people who run the Post Office.

In Hackney there was a sit-in after disgruntled voters realised the polling station was much nicer than their homes.

The markets! - "We're all disoriented! - let's do something something mental, like sell pork bellies."

Four points all - we've got a hung quiz!

The headmaster at Eton says he's not just looking for brainboxes, but all-rounders who can rub along with other boys.

Lembit Opik lost his seat - but at least he's now free to return to the mothership.

.................................................

Actually I take back what I've said about The Opik. He was on Election Have I Got News For You, and was very funny indeed - in a hurt, humbled and unemployed kind of a way. Great gurner. Can also play the harmonica - for spare change.

............................................

Two more of the nation's comic geniuses also appeared in an election special yesterday - Paul Merton and Ian Hislop. At one point in the programme they moved around and sat together in a coalition, at the suggestion of Jo Brand, who was chairing.

"Especially recorded after the election so that we'd know what the result is."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00sbqfw/Have_I_Got_News_for_You_Series_39_Have_I_Got_Election_News_for_You/

"We have no government. Does that mean we can do whatever we want?"

"The result of the election's still up in the air - unlike UKIP's plane."

Merton even made himself laugh at his mime of Gordon Brown slipping out of his troosers round at the house of that "bigoted woman".

"You should really write porn", said Jon Richardson, who was also very good.

Quick as a flash Merton replied, "Too busy living it, mate!"



"Now they're applauding pornography! After the air crash this audience'll applaud anything! I've got a dead kitten in my pocket!"

........................................

Malcolm Tucker's May 7 outbox

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/07/malcolm-tucker-may-7-outbox

It's time to throw in the towel and call in Dave "Dude, Where's My Majority?" Cam and let him deal with the horrendous fuck-pie of cock-stew that's bubbling. Let him do the cuts. Where there is discord, may he bring petrol bombs. Where there is error, may he bring bullshit. Where there is doubt, may he bring Osborne. And where there is despair, may he bring the noise.

Let's get some kip and catch you on the flip side.

Regards,

M x

..........................................................

Polly Toynbee has another must-read column in the paper today -

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/08/hopes-decades-clegg-unthinkable

The hopes of decades rest with Clegg. He must hold his nerve

For once, Lib Dems are in a position to demand crucial voting reform. A once unthinkable progressive coalition is on the table

If not now, when? For the first time the prize is within grasp. The people have spoken – and none of the above won. Radical reform to an electoral system that has fallen apart is at last on offer. The deadly duopoly between two moribund parties has broken. But will it be cobbled together again as if nothing had happened?

All depends on the nerve of Nick Clegg. Has he the spine and the iron resolve to stick to the one condition that offers a chance of a progressive future?

All through the election the Conservatives' City friends have done all they could to spook voters into fearing coalitions, though coalitions offer the most stable economies across Europe. Imagine the reassuring sight of Alistair Darling and Vince Cable working together to steady the markets, deciding together how to cut the deficit with the least damage and the fairest tax rises. Those who believe in electoral reform want exactly this kind of open pluralism. To make it happen, join the electoral reform protest in Trafalgar Square today at 2pm.

........................................

Demo for democracy, Saturday May 8th 2pm Trafalgar Square

http://www.power2010.org.uk/blog/entry/demo-for-democracy-saturday-may-8th-2pm-trafalgar-square/

POWER2010 is joining together with other organisations to Take Back Parliament.

If enough of us turn out and join the call for reform the politicians will be forced to listen.

"The Tories got 36% of the vote, but Labour and the Liberal Democrats, promising a referendum on electoral reform, got 52% of the vote. There is an undeniable, democratic mandate for Parliament to deliver that referendum."

.

Layer 300 . . . A General Election, A Hung Parliament

.
It was a big enough challenge just to find the polling station - the signposting was pathetic, and I wasn't the only one walking round in circles. It was even more irritating to find a long queue to get in! First time this has happened to me - it was almost like something out of Soweto.

So why the queue? Obviously a bigger turn out, but why only 4 booths, and only one person dishing out the ballot papers? This was rubbish organisation. Even so, everyone was surprisingly patient.

Elsewhere, however, it seems there were even longer queues, and in fact hundreds of people were unable to vote by the deadline at 10.00pm. There appear to be places where polling stations have been occupied by sit-ins of frustrated would-be voters.

My daughter said she'd been intending to vote, in her safe seat constituency, but on seeing the length of the queue she'd turned round and gone home to her family. There were probably hundreds and even thousands like her.

Cameron's speech in his constituency was measured and sensible. I guess the Tories are fortunate to have him as their leader and figurehead - and where would they be without him? The Tory party would still be up shit creek if they were relying on polibots like Hague, Osborne and Gove.

Lembit Opik's been thrown out by his constituents. What a joker he was. What a prat.

Another prat is Bill Wyman - interviewed on TV he said he wants a Conservative government. So much for being a working class hero.

Jacqui Smith and Charles Clark defeated! Excellent. Well done Redditch and Norwich.

=================================

It's now official - we have a hung parliament. Very good news. Tories massively pissed off, especially as they were looking at a 40%+ share of the vote prior to the election.

Lib Dems more or less kept their share of the vote in spite of having the most radical policies - not replacing Trident; PR; mansion tax. There's no question the mansion tax promise cost them dear in the Tory/Lib marginals.

Brown can't stick around for long, and will certainly be gone by the time we have another election. Possibly by the autumn. Very important for middle of the road English voters that Labour is headed by a genuine social democratic English person. Can they find one, though? Picking one of Brown's current cronies just won't do.

Tories sounding shit scared of a possible referendum for PR if they can't form a government. They were pinning such hopes on creating newer and fewer parliamentary seats to give them a guaranteed electoral advantage.

==============================

To the surprise of many Clegg, on his arrival in London, told us all that he was sticking to his view that the Tories should have first shot at offering a referendum on PR, if they thought they could be a government that acted in the national interest. Or words to that effect.

Brown then very smartly came out of No 10 and said he was content to wait whilst Clegg talked to Cameron, and they could have all the time they wanted!

Around 2.30pm Cameron, looking pretty rattled, made a feeble little speech in which he offered merely a cross-party committee of enquiry into electoral reform. As well he might. He knows, and we know, that the Tories would be doomed by PR, in that this country has a permanent majority of social democratic and liberal people. Had Cameron been able to offer a referendum on PR there and then - it would undoubtedly have been all over for Gordie and New Labour. But he can't do that - he'd be shafted by the people who actually run the Tory party, within days, if not hours. His only hope now is that Clegg and co will be tempted by an offer of cabinet posts, a deal on the timing of the repayment of national debt, and the smell of real power.

And so what it all comes back to is the single issue that this election has been all about all along - thanks to the TV leadership debates. Gordie has already said he'll legislate for a referendum on PR as his urgent priority, if he stays as PM. Everyone with half a brain knows that this is a potential turning point for our constitutional and electoral history. It's now or possibly never for PR, or at least for very many years, and possibly a lifetime. Everyone now realises that Cameron's priority would be to fiddle the constituency boundaries to give the Tories a perpetual advantage.

And if Clegg fluffs this one, then his party will be doomed as well. Personally I think he's played his cards very well. He's forced the Tories to say yea or nay to PR, and to have their say about it immediately. I think he's smart enough, and he has smart enough advisers, to go with Gordie's offer, just as soon as Cameron confirms he'll never allow us to vote on PR.

What will then follow a Lab/Lib deal is a referendum within months, followed soon after by another general election, by which time Labour will have found a new party leader and a new set of policies.

In many ways this is a better day than the one following the election in 1997, given that the Blairs, Mandelson, Brown, Blunkett, Straw and co were always a revolting crew. This is assuming that those in favour of full PR can win their case in the referendum, and assuming Clegg does the right thing this weekend.

I think Cameron's failed. I think things can only get better.
.

Layer 298 . . . Monbiot, Parasites, Paralysing Fear, Mass Democracy, Brown, and Momentous Times Ahead

.
I was looking for some images of parasites to use here, but on Google they're too disgusting to even consider. So let's settle for these instead:
parasite

 Mandelson

George Monbiot's column this week was enjoyably hard-hitting:

New Labour is a parasite. A vote for them is born of fear, not hope

Voting with fear has let this movement for social justice abandon everything it stood for. On Thursday we must heed our hopes

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/parasite-new-labour-fear-hope

Cling on to nurse for fear of something worse. Though she has become crabbed and vicious, though she has usurped our parents, swiped our inheritance, binned our toys and sold the nursery, we must cower behind her skirts for fear of the beasts that prowl beyond. This, in essence, is what Polly Toynbee, Jonathan Freedland, Seumas Milne and Nick Cohen  are now telling us to do.

By instructing us, over the years, to heed fears, not hopes, such voices have allowed Labour to abandon everything it once stood for, and hand us, trussed and oven-ready, to big business and the Daily Mail. We'll be trapped like this for ever, in New Labour's Bermuda triangulation, unless we vote for what we believe in rather than just against what we don't.

This paralysing fear has licensed four tragic developments. It has allowed a parliamentary consensus to form that is well to the right of public feeling, alienating voters. It has created space for ideas – such as the creeping privatisation of almost everything – which were unacceptable to previous generations. It has allowed the Conservatives to appeal to moderate swing voters: if there is so little that divides the two parties, such voters figure, can the Tories really be so bad? And it has permitted a once progressive party to form the most rightwing government this country has suffered since 1945.

Let us begin where my colleagues claim the party's record is strongest: poverty and inequality. During the first seven years of the Labour government there was real progress on poverty. But from 2004 onwards the trend went into reverse. In the three years to 2007-08 the number of people in households living on less than 60% of median income rose by 1.3 million – producing a total better than in 1997, but worse than in 1989. This was before the recession hit, so God knows what the next set of figures will show.

The number of people in extreme poverty (living on less than 40% of median income) never substantially fell: it held steady through the first eight years of Labour government, then rose. There are now 700,000 more people in this condition than when Labour took office, and more than at any point since records began. The average real incomes of the poorest tenth declined by 2% in the 10 years to 2007-08. These figures, again, predate the recession.

The rich, on the other hand, have seldom done better. Of the extra income enjoyed by British households over the Labour years, 40% has accrued to the richest 10% (all references are on my website). The richest 1%, according to Injustice, Danny Dorling's new book, have captured a higher share of national income than at any time since the early 1930s. Inequality in the United Kingdom is now higher than at any point since consistent records began, in 1979. I feel that needs repeating. After 13 years of Labour government, the UK has higher levels of inequality than after 18 years of Tory government.

The old workers' party has switched allegiance to the bosses, handing key positions to corporate executives and private equity tycoons, even appointing Digby Jones, the neanderthal former head of the CBI, a minister of the crown.

Having promised to scrap it when in opposition, it has extended the private finance initiative into sectors the Tories didn't dare to touch. Labour left sweeteners in PFI contracts for corporations to find, rigged the figures to make it look as if the scheme delivered value for money, then had to bail out the private operators when it began to collapse.

While Labour has liberated billionaires, it has trussed up the rest of us with 3,500 new criminal offences, including provisions that allow the police to declare any demonstration illegal . . . It has colluded in kidnapping and torture. Britain now has more CCTV cameras than any other nation, and a DNA database that is five times the size of its nearest competitor. The number of prisoners in the UK has risen by 41% since Labour took office.

This government blocked a ceasefire in the Lebanon; sacked Britain's ambassador to Uzbekistan after he complained that the regime was boiling its prisoners to death; gave aid to a Colombian military that collaborates with fascist death squads; announced a policy of pre-emptive nuclear war; and decided to waste our money on replacing Trident. But worse, far worse than any of this, it launched an illegal war in which hundreds of thousands have died. This is the government that colleagues of mine on the Guardian want to save.

This is New Labour. It has colonised a movement that fought for social justice, distribution and decency, rewired its brain and delivered it to the fat cats who were once its enemies.

I understand the hazards of voting for the smaller parties and allowing the right-hand glove puppet to replace the left-hand glove puppet. I know that the Tories are even worse than this government. But by voting for the candidates on the list compiled by the democracy campaign Hang 'em – not all of whom are Liberal Democrats, but all of whom are reformers with a good chance of taking or keeping seats – we can break this rotten system while remaining true to our beliefs.

Whatever the outcome of the election, the real fight begins after 6 May, as we build a mass democracy movement that ensures that we can never be colonised by a parasitic political class – of any colour – again. It starts with a rally in Parliament Square at 2pm on Saturday. During and after this election, we must demand something better, rather than fleeing from something worse.

..............................................

Nice to see you!

Ever since the 'just a bigoted woman' incident took place Gordon Brown seems to have given up on chatting with 'the people' (quelle surprise) and has reverted to the traditional big speeches to mobs of people in town centres kind of approach. Surprisingly, he suddenly seems animated and passionate about some genuine beliefs, and he's managing to attack his opponents to some good effect. But is it too late? The latest poll puts Labour up to 30%, and the Lib Dems down to 26% - a reversal of the position a week ago. Possibly a good thing for a hung parliament since it would give Labour the biggest number of seats of the three main parties, and thus make it more difficult for Clegg to go with Cameron & co in any circumstance, even if the Tories were to offer a referendum on PR, which they won't, and which Brown has already pledged to do.

Yesterday Brown had a column in the Guardian, saying some sensible things, to which one can only say - yes, but why the fuck didn't you do this stuff 13 wasted years ago?

Don't kid yourself, Nick. No Lib Dem I know sees any Tory progressive bond

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/03/in-tory-labour-marginals-vote-labour

Doh!

I passionately believe that in the momentous times that lie ahead, Britain needs a new model for running our economy and a new way of doing politics.

True. Why haven't you done it already?

A progressive agenda for economic and political reform under Labour.

Good. Why haven't you done it already?

The economic crisis has taught us that we need a global constitution for our financial system, with a global system of financial sector taxation to underpin it.

I think we knew this a long time ago. But why didn't you even show any interest in starting this off in Britain when many of us were demanding it? You haven't even been making the argument in favour of it till now.

These reforms will help bring about a new era of social mobility which will strengthen and extend Britain's middle class.

Bastard. What about strengthening and improving the lot of the working classes? This is pathetic language, coming from a self-proclaimed middle class man who's presided over 13 years of declining 'social mobility' and increasing inequality.

I want to seize this moment to place progressive ideals at the heart of a new constitutional and political settlement.

Bastard. The right moment to seize it was when you came to power with a landslide, not when you're about to be booted out. Three wasted landslides, and only now he talks about a new constitutional and political settlement.

I know in my bones that Labour is the only party with a passion to eradicate poverty.

And I know in my bones, and in my grey matter, that not only has New Labour not diminished poverty significantly, or increased the real incomes of the majority of our people, or reduced inequality, it's never even shown the slightest 'passion' in any of its actions to actually do something truly significant.

We will stand by our obligations to the elderly by delivering a national care service, allowing more people to live in dignity in their homes.

Why haven't you done it already?

A vote for Labour is a vote for electoral reform, an elected House of Lords, fixed term parliaments and a right to recall your local MP.

Why hasn't New Labour done these things already!!!!!!!!

 Sorry!

.

Layer 297 . . . Self Belief, Up All Night, Zzzzzzzzs, Michael Gove, Bananas and Proportional Representation

.
The guy doing Thought for Today this morning told us that 'self belief' is the most important quality for political leaders. Which is why it's also very important - I'm sure we'll agree - that our next leaders are Old Etonians who carry an ironclad self belief with them at all times - thanks to having been to the nation's elite school and therefore equipped with, and armoured by, an elite education. Not.

It seems, according to the radio, that Cameron was up all last night - campaigning, not shagging - popping up hither and yon to annoy groups of nightshift workers up and down the country.

We also heard on Today that sleep deprivation usually gives those who are deprived of their zzzzzzzs very strong feelings of great optimism, and delusions of grandeur. Since Cameron already had those feelings and delusions, thanks to being a smarmy toff and an Old Etonian, the effect on him must be amazing. Today we can expect him to announce that he, and not Raj Patel, is the Messiah. By Friday he could be claiming he's the Prime Minister. Fucking hell!

Thank goodness for Michael Gove, who I seem to be noticing more and more frequently. I'm fascinated by him - especially the way, uniquely it seems in this election, he sniffs after making a comment, or whilst listening to a question. Is it OK to sniff whilst live on air? Is it necessary? Is this a sign of someone who has so much self-belief he doesn't even monitor his own snot-controlling behaviour? But why doesn't someone tell him?

It seems to me that Gove has been used by the Tories during this election as their front man and spinner-in-chief for interviews on radio and TV - presumably because he seems, or seemed, to be capable of maintaining an even keel, smoothly navigating semi-tough questioning and maintaining a kind of insouciance and cheerful reasonableness, which must stem from quite a strong self-belief.

This morning, however, thanks to the blessed John Humphries on the Today programme, he finally blew it - and we had a proper glimpse of what Gove under pressure, losing his rag, might look like. Very nasty indeed.

This is brilliant. Humph pressed him on his objections to proportional representation, and Gove blurted out,

"Show me a disinterested academic who supports PR and I'll show you someone who's been a member of the Labour party or the Liberal Democrats for the past 20 years!"

So Humph quoted him two who weren't, and aren't. Boom!

"This is blind date politics! Clegg's voice is seductive! You don't know who you're going to end up in bed with! Ed Balls! Harriet Harman! David Miliband! If that's democracy - then I'm a banana!"

"Thank you for that offering", said Humph, smoothly.

Gove then went on to dig even deeper, and blathered, "It's the people who decide! - Not politicians in smokeless rooms!" - by way of confirming that he'd properly lost his cool. The correct expression is "Smoke-filled", you twat! Such a quaint and inappropriate expression, anyway.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_8661000/8661467.stm

PS Millionnaire property-flipper Gove, MP for Surrey Heath, had the nerve to accuse the current government of 13 years of failure, social division and increasing inequality. Clearly he thinks the Tories' 17 years of the same stuff was a much greater achievement.

PPS Since the vast majority of nations and people around the world seem to agree that proportional representation IS proper democracy, then clearly Michael Gove IS a banana. You can't fault his logic.

.

Layer 296 . . . John Gray, A False Dawn, Raj Patel and the Value of Nothing

.

John Gray's book, "False Dawn: The Delusions of Global Capitalism", first published in 1998, has been reissued with a new introduction by Granta Books.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_N._Gray

Below is Gray's critique of Raj Patel's latest book. It's interesting that in it he refers to 'ancient European Stoic and Epicurean philosophies' and Buddhism. It's highly likely, it seems to me, that these philosophies will have an important role to play in bringing about a more enlightened age in which people finally understand that wellbeing and happiness do not stem from materialism and the satisfaction of cravings for status, luxury, excitement, novelty and stimulation.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2009/dec/13/value-nothing-raj-patel

The Value of Nothing by Raj Patel

Raj Patel is right that we need to rethink our notions of value, but his solutions for a better world do not convince John Gray

Economists are taken seriously by governments because they claim to be practising a type of science that can predict the future and help manage our lives. Yet very few economists forecast the current crisis and it is hard to think of any economist who has come up with compelling ideas about how to deal with it. Underpinning all the stimulus programmes is the faith that if only we can restart growth of the sort that was suddenly curtailed two years ago, all will be well. But growth of that kind – debt-fuelled expansion that inflates the value of financial assets while depleting the material environment – is what got us into the present mess. If this is the best economists can do, it is hard to avoid concluding that there is something basically wrong with their discipline.

Much of what passes as economics is ideology and ideology only works if those who produce it also believe in it. The difficulty of the present situation comes from the fact that while few any longer believe in the free market, no one has an alternative to it that is able to command widespread support. Predictably, the financial storm has jolted moribund Marxist theories back into a semblance of life, but there is no popular interest in overthrowing capitalism. The idea of a post-market economy is today what it has been for decades: an intellectual toy rather than a serious political project.

For all his forensic dissection of free market thinking, this is a predicament that Patel cannot escape. The first half of The Value of Nothing, showing the unreality of efficient markets and Homo economicus, continues the demolition of market fundamentalism that events have set in train. The second section, where Patel discusses options to the hegemony of the market, is markedly less convincing. He gives examples of local resistance – shack-dwellers in Durban demanding the right legally to settle on public land, participatory budgeting by popular assemblies in Porto Alegre, Brazil, and numerous other cases where he believes new forms of common life are emerging. But when oppressed minorities have improved their lot, will they not want to live as most people in affluent societies do?

Patel fails to confront the most fundamental contemporary fact, which is that the majority of people in every country clearly want a type of economy – the sort that rich countries have enjoyed in the recent past – that the planet cannot sustain. A passionate activist, he believes problems of resource scarcity are man-made and can always be solved by fairer distribution. However, the growth-oriented lifestyle of rich countries is not unsustainable because it is unjust; it is unsustainable because the Earth's resources are unalterably finite. It may be true that the imbalance between human demands and the environment could be diminished if enough people rejected material affluence as their main goal in life. But this is an extremely nebulous possibility and one that highlights the deepest difficulty for Patel's analysis.

Oscar Wilde may have been right that people know the price of everything and the value of nothing, a remark Patel cites at the start of his book, and which gives him its title. But what is value if it is not price? It is telling that when trying to flesh out a non-market account, Patel turns to religion, in this case Buddhism. The Buddhist tradition gives him what he needs – an understanding of human wellbeing that does not centre round the satisfaction of wants. Like the ancient European Stoic and Epicurean philosophies, Buddhism proposes that happiness lies in shrinking the self – in giving up our wants, rather than forever chasing after them. It is a thought that occurs to many well-off people from time to time, but it is hard to imagine large numbers of people ever acting on it.

Theories of value that focus on curbing desire run up against the demand for self-realisation, which is one of the strongest impulses in modern life. To be sure, the pursuit of self-realisation does not often result in happiness. But is it happiness that most people are pursuing? Or is it stimulus and excitement? In the Himalayan Buddhist kingdom of Bhutan, Patel informs the reader, the introduction of satellite television has been followed by a crime wave. He seems to think this fact somehow strengthens his argument. But what it tells us is that no culture can now resist the dangerous charms of a life spent in insatiable desire.

This is an incredibly negative outlook about the prospects for changes in the ways that people think and behave. If we can see something needs to happen, and then just say, "Oh, that'll never happen - people are far too selfish", then this is just cynicism, and there really is no hope for the world.

As for his closing sentence - let's consider that Cuba has at least attempted to resist capitalist consumerism and exploitation. And if it hadn't been for the American blockade of Cuba then who knows what the country might have been able to achieve in terms of both prosperity and healthy lifestyles. As things stand, Cuba has done far more per capita than any other country in terms of literacy, and in sending doctors to work for free in third world countries.

We then need to consider the role of education, which currently does little or nothing to help children grow up with a thorough understanding of philosophy and ethics, let alone train them in unselfish lovingkindness. John Gray ought to at least consider that we could establish an education system that enables young people to see through the lies and deceptions of our society, and equips them properly for living a productive and creative life, with all their intelligences fully functioning - intellectual, social, emotional, instinctive, spiritual and physical.

"It may be true that the imbalance between human demands and the environment could be diminished if enough people rejected material affluence as their main goal in life."

Of course it's true. What we need is a critical mass of people who actually care about the planet, with enough effort to create a proper system of education and a better understanding of what's needed for a good life. We also need governments that have a clear vision of the tasks that must be tackled, beginning with "How to reshape market society and redefine democracy".

............................................

The Value of Nothing

How to reshape market society and redefine democracy

http://rajpatel.org/2009/10/27/the-value-of-nothing/

“This is a deeply thought-provoking book about the dramatic changes we must make to save the planet from financial madness” — Naomi Klein.

Both the corporate capture of government and our current financial crisis, Patel argues, are a result of our democratically bankrupt political system.

If part one asks how we can rebalance society and limit markets, part two answers by showing how social organizations, in America and around the globe, are finding new ways to describe the world’s worth. If we don’t want the market to price every aspect of our lives, we need to learn how such organizations have discovered democratic ways in which people, and not simply governments, can play a crucial role in deciding how we might share our world and its resources in common.

This short, timely and inspiring book reveals that our current crisis is not simply the result of too much of the wrong kind of economics. While we need to rethink our economic model, Patel argues that the larger failure beneath the food, climate and economic crises is a political one. If economics is about choices, Patel writes, it isn’t often said who gets to make them. The Value of Nothing offers a fresh and accessible way to think about economics and the choices we will all need to make in order to create a sustainable economy and society.

Read Chapter One here:

http://us.macmillan.com/CMS400/uploadedFiles/Picador/Raj%20-%20first%20chap.pdf


http://rajpatel.org/

.........................................................

John Cleese on PR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NSUKMa1cYHk
.

Layer 294 . . . Heads, Tests, Preston, Maitreya, Zen, Bodhisattvas and Low Points In Human Existence

.
I don't know whether to draw attention to this or not, but Peter Preston is back in the Guardian today with another pile of crap about schools, headteachers and SATs. Depressing.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/may/02/teachers-sats-test-boycott-union?

What can one say that hasn't already been said? Thank goodness for CIF and all the Below The Line contributors. But why on earth does the Guardian continue to give this man space for his ludicrous views? If he's so desperate to have them published he ought to take them to the Daily Mail, which is where they belong, along with those of Melanie Phillips & Co. Which reminds me - she seems to have gone quiet lately . . .

Oh no she hasn't. Or if she's piped down a bit, she's still churning out her stuff in plenty of places. If you really want to know where - http://www.melaniephillips.com/

See also:

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2009/10/layer-206-more-damned-targets.html

http://oxzen.blogspot.com/2008/10/layer-78-education-regulation-and.html

....................................................

The Maitreya

This Maitreya thing is really quite interesting. I found this today on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maitreya

Maitreya is a bodhisattva who in the Buddhist tradition is to appear on Earth, achieve complete enlightenment, and teach the pure dharma. According to scriptures, Maitreya will be a successor of the historic Śākyamuni Buddha, the founder of Buddhism. The prophecy of the arrival of Maitreya is found in the canonical literature of all Buddhist sects (Theravāda, Mahāyāna, Vajrayāna), and is accepted by most Buddhists as a statement about an event that will take place when Dharma will be forgotten on Earth.

One mention of the prophecy of Maitreya is in the Sanskrit  text, the Maitreyavyākaraṇa  (The Prophecy of Maitreya). It implies that he is a teacher of meditative trance sadhana and states that gods, men, and other beings:

    "will lose their doubts, and the torrents of their cravings will be cut off: free from all misery they will manage to cross the ocean of becoming; and, as a result of Maitreya's teachings, they will lead a holy life. No longer will they regard anything as their own, they will have no possession, no gold or silver, no home, no relatives! But they will lead the holy life of chastity under Maitreya's guidance. They will have torn the net of the passions, they will manage to enter into trances, and theirs will be an abundance of joy and happiness, for they will lead a holy life under Maitreya's guidance." (Trans. in Conze 1959:241)

This all sounds like standard mainstream Buddhism, which, to a Zennist, is . . . a little simplistic.

By the way - this guy is huge!

In Theravada Buddhism, a bodhisattva is one who is striving for full enlightenment (Arahantship in Pali), whereas in Mahayana Buddhism, a bodhisattva is one who has already reached a very advanced state of grace or enlightenment but holds back from entering nirvana so that he may help others.

Maitreya's coming is characterized by a number of physical events. The oceans are predicted to decrease in size, allowing Maitreya to traverse them freely. The event will also allow the unveiling of the "true" dharma to the people, in turn allowing the construction of a new world. The coming also signifies the end of the middle time in which humans currently reside (characterized as a low point of human existence between the Gautama Buddha and Maitreya.)

.............................................

The Election

A low point of human existence? It certainly will be if Cameron & Co are in Downing Street by the end of this week. Or at least a low point in the sad recent history of this country - downhill all the way from Thatcher and then on through the eras of Major, Blair and Brown. If people can't see by now that neo-conservative ideology and neo-liberal economics have created the financial disasters, and they still want to elect sons of Thatch such as Cameron, Osborne and Gove, then we really are at a very low point.

The good news, however, is that the polls are still showing that solid support for the Tories is around the levels that Michael Howard achieved - the low 30%s. This is no more than their core vote - i.e. there will always be this nucleus of reactionary and self-serving opinion, come what may. In any normal distribution there will always be a hard core of about one third who don't give a shit about anyone but themselves and those who are already well off. The opposite third will tend to put the good of society as a whole above their own (financial and material) self interest. The middle third will always have a vague belief in 'fairness'.

Had New Labour done the right thing at some point during the past decade we'd already have a political system that would, through proportional representation, guarantee government by the more enlightened two thirds, keeping in check the one third who are basically either dupes and idiots or fat cats and would-be fat cats.

I used to think you couldn't really blame the wealthy for wanting to protect their own interests against those who'd like to have a more equal society, but since the publication of The Spirit Level even they should be able to see that the haves as well as the don't haves actually gain from greater equality. That's to say - they'd see if only they were looking. Enlightenment and clear vision, however, are not on their agenda.
.

Layer 292 . . . Depressing Memories, Future Dread, Faith Schools, Car Crash Politics, The Liberal Moment, Four Lions and Cameron

.
This morning I found myself thinking about what it felt like the day after Thatcher was elected to Downing Street - the day that joy and hope was banished from the thoughts and feelings of anyone with any kind of progressive political mindset. The staggering sense of frustration and outrage, the anger, the disbelief, and ultimately the depression . . . the state of utter joylessness and disillusion.

How could this weird little twat of a woman, this ignorant, silly little shrill person, be the leader of a country like Britain? The simple answer was, and is, that Britain, and especially England, is a silly little benighted, materialistic, unspiritual, ignorant basket case of a monarchy and a country whose people allow themselves to be brainwashed by a notoriously biased and vicious right-wing press which is run by a group of vicious and nasty right-wing press barons. It was then, and it is now.

This is not to say that the people of England, and specifically the people who vote Tory in the shire counties and the southern part of England, are bad people. Most of them are decent, reasonable, thoughtful and kind. On a good day. But what kind of people tolerate bigots, vote for Tories, Ukips and BNPs, and buy so-called newspapers such as the Sun, the Star, the Mail, the Express, the News of the Screws and the Telegraph? Let's face it - not what anyone with half a brain would call enlightened.

So what's kept them in such an unenlightened state? It's the culture wot done it. It's the whole set of assumptions and prejudices which are dressed up as 'common sense' and 'the way we do things in this country'. It's the values propagated in newspapers and the rest of the media, and also in schools. It's the inability to think critically and the lack of understanding about alternative value systems and ideologies. It's the acceptance of a State in thrall to a monarchy and other reactionary vested interests. It's the weakness of alternative forces, and the inability of those forces to connect with those whose schooling and whose access to more enlightened modes of understanding has let them down.

Doomed. We're all doomed. I thought Marina Hyde's regular Saturday column yesterday was pretty bleak and doom-laden, but she has good cause to be filled with fear and dread about what'll happen if the Tories do well and get themselves into power this Thursday/Friday, which looks quite possible, barring a miracle and the anti-Tory vote actually turning out in droves.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/cameron-election-no-real-change

...................................................

Faith Schools

I turned on the radio this morning - which isn't something I normally do early on a Sunday morning - and listened to spokesmen from all three of the major parties saying they'd be quite happy to open more and more faith schools 'if that's what people want'. Doomed.

These fuckers were talking about 'parents rights' to have their children educated in a faith school. Nobody gives a fuck about children's rights to be educated in schools that allow them to grow up in an atmosphere that's not dominated by mumbo jumbo about 'God' and 'faith' and deference to 'those who know better'.

Fucking unbelievable.

Vernon Coker is a fucking disgrace to a once-proud and once-progressive party. He's a real gem in the crown of a disgusting shambles of a knuckle-dragging crew calling themselves New Labour.

..............................................

Car Crash Politics
And talking of New Labour, the print version of yesterday's Guardian featured across pages 12 and 13 a brilliant photo of Brown and his inner circle from the Cabinet lined up in front of some ridiculous mobile posters mounted on trucks. All that was missing was the actual firing squad.

[Strange, though, that the Milibands were missing.]

So who was there, alongside Gordie in his pink tie and grey shirt?

Mandelson, Alexander, Darling and Balls - all looking like they'd just arrived from a board meeting of some merchant bank - all dark suits and sober ties.

Alan Johnson in a light grey suit, standing in the pose of a slightly bemused insurance salesman.

Yvette Cooper in a buttoned up  blue coat from Debenhams, whose hem ended a few inches above a dark skirt which itself was a few inches too long.

Harriet Harman in her usual appalling baggy trousers and sensible flat shoes, and her usual naff necklace and tailored tight jacket.

Tessa Jowell looking like fuck knows what in a kind of shortie lumber jacket, too-tight light-grey tailored trousers, vile little flat shoes and a grey rouched top! Not to mention grey roots badly in need of re-doing.

The entire photo-op was ruined for Brown, but saved for the rest of us, by some dork crashing into a nearby bus shelter and wrecking the front of his car! It seems Brown's trusty aide-de-camp, a certain Sue Nye, was one of those who actually went to help the hapless twat who'd crashed. Obviously our actual government did nothing at all to assist.

This Sue Nye, incidentally, who has performed in this role for several previous Labour leaders, is married to a certain Gavyn Davies, another New Labour supporter, who also happens to be a very rich bastard thanks to being a top merchant banker - with Goldman Sachs, since you ask. Or at least he used to be with G-S. It seems he now 'runs private equity funds'. And so it goes. New Labour are not just in bed with the fat cats and the bankers - they ARE the fucking fat cats and bankers.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/30/car-crash-labour

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2010/apr/30/election-brown-sue-nye-profile

.....................................................

The Editorial
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/apr/30/the-liberal-moment-has-come

Having referred in Layer 291 to yesterday's Guardian editorial supporting the Lib Dems, I've now re-read it a couple of times, and I think it's an extremely well-written piece which sums up really well the failings of New Labour and the reasons why the Lib Dems should be strongly supported in this election by those who call themselves liberals, social democrats, socialists amd progressives. Well done Guardian. A hung parliament, and the possibility of proportional representation, is crucial.

This isn't to say that the LibDem approach to economics or their ideology is perfect. In fact they're very reactionary on wanting to inappropriately & prematurely deflate the economy, thereby damaging public services in the process. They don't even have a coherent ideology. They DO, however, demand proper proportional representation - and so should we.

................................................

Four Lions

I heard on the radio this morning someone urging us to go and see the new film by Chris Morris - 'Four Lions'.

Have a look at this promo:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ew-SrlQ9tlI&feature=channel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NuNybnoxqVE&NR=1
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6Uglk7QyxKs&NR=1

Lots more clips and trailers on YouTube.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/culture/2010/may/01/chris-morris-four-lions-interview

......................................................

Cameron

On Andrew Marr's programme this morning Cameron gave a pretty convincing impression of someone who speaks passionately about his genuine beliefs, and with a certain amount of intelligence and perception.

He even supported the idea of 'fairness', cutting the salaries of cabinet ministers and bureaucrats, and giving a 'living wage' to those at the bottom of the pile, which is something that Thatcher would never have done.

However, he'll never support proportional representation, and above all else he's a slick salesman. Marr completely failed to challenge him on education & schools, and his intentions to privatise even more public services.

Thatcher soon morphed from a prattish lightweight into a ghastly nightmare of a crazed authoritarian dictator, driven by extreme right-wing economic, political and social ideologies. Cameron could easily do the same, especially when he starts slashing and burning and throwing even more millions out of work. If the roof caves in we can be sure he'll be on the side of Big Finance, the City, vested interests and fat cats.
.