- To increase the power of the people and reduce the power of the State funded elite. We claim 100 ordinary people usually solve a problem and add value to the nation whereas one “expert” thinks they have an answer but it only benefits them.
- The free world is based on Contract, Choice and Consent. Most of the world isn’t. It is these core principles which form the basis for freedom and democracy. Relationships at every level from the social to the political must reflect these core principles, and we must preserve them to preserve out freedom.
- We are the slaves and the victims of indebtedness. Only the elite benefit from our indebtedness. Austerity and Anti-austerity are the right and left wing elite making us pay for their power and position.
- We believe that too many people are criminalised through stupidity, weakness and greed. They can be effectively punished without the cost of a prison place, by tagging, tracking etc . The tax paying people want expensive prison to protect them from the dangerous sexual and violent predators. We can be protected from the weak, stupid and greedy at their expense not ours
- We all learn in different ways and at a different pace. Selective education is not wrong unless those who benefit from it have a lifetime of financial and social advantage over others. We believe that the grammar schools can benefit everyone even those who don’t get access to them, but only if the rewards for academic success don’t create long term financial inequality for the many.
- The whole western world is built on debt based “aggregate demand”. We buy loads of stuff but don’t make stuff and this is what is called by the elite a “real economy”. It is not an economy at all it is a scheme which turns our debt into their wealth and toxifies the planet. We must all reduce our aggregate demand to slow and reverse the destruction of our precious planet.
The world goes through revolutionary upheavals every hundred years or so and semi-revolutions every half century. The last one in the UK was in 1997 when Tony Blair acquired the mandate to secure the state’s total moral and social dominion over its people. In the U.S. Clinton achieved the same thing. The whole “third way” was based on the idea that the intellectual elite knew better that the public what was good for them. To avoid this process of change being merely “utopian” i.e. just aspirational froth, the left wing liberal elite knew that there would have to be some underpinning economic model that could funnel funds into the projects that would save the people from themselves and deliver Blair and Clinton’s New Jerusalem. They believed it would work because they didn’t really understand it. They were lawyers not economists.
The economic model that developed was one where Government spending would be deployed to supposedly boost economic growth and this in turn it was believed would empower people to achieve their potential. The era of naïve economics and identity politics was born, to a fanfare of “things can only get better” by D:Ream.
The public were in part seduced by this model. Blair seemed like a nice guy – and who could argue that in the UK public expenditure was there to be spent on health, welfare, and achieving via every public-sector outlet, the vision of a multi-coloured kaleidoscopic Great Britain; a Britain shorn of reactionary forces like national pride, belief in the family, and personal responsibility. Who needs that stuff when the state is there to go beyond intervening from the cradle to the grave and can now usefully occupy itself interfering with the public’s mind too? These old ideas thought the new left would be consigned to the dustbin of history, just as surely as bonded serfdom and illiteracy had been.
The only problem was that the economics didn’t stack up if you knew what was really going on. So along with the Financial Crisis of 2007/8 the other consequences of this utterly naïve model have been expanding wealth inequality and the inability of the state to make good its 1997 social and welfare promises (regardless of who is in power) and a growing burden on the taxpayers of the present and future to pay to keep this whole shambolic system in existence.
This misfiring model is what we at a Blue Revolution call the Secular Western hegemony or more simply “secular westernism”. This secular western model is well established and will need a new revolution to shift it. Not a Red Revolution because Red Revolutions are, like the Red Revolutions in China and Russia or indeed the UK after World War II, effectively a triumph of the state over the individual, albeit with an initially benign intention.
A revolution will be needed because just like the aristocrats in the past, the modern big winners of the state system, the politicians, bureaucrats, charity chiefs, and third sector organisations, the publicsectocracy as we call them, won’t want to give up the power, status and wealth that goes with their elevated positions. They also will not want to re-order the economy to reduce the number of super-rich who benchmark “top” wages and provide funding and sponsorship for elite causes including political parties.
If you believe that today government, democracy, welfare, international relations and basic rights don’t pass the sniff test, you may be feeling the initial stirrings of becoming a Blue Revolutionary. So Please read on.
Next – A Brief History of Time
A Brief History of Time.
THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY TO PRESENT DAY
If we go back in time and consider the lot of the fabled “hard working family” in the 17thth century we would see a family divided internally by gender and sociologically by class. This was the period when the feudal system was going through its death throes.
The old certainties so beloved of the rich and powerful were being challenged by an aggressive merchant class who were not prepared to bow down to “natural authority” but who were increasingly of the opinion that they were as good as anyone else and indeed could prove this through what they could achieve socially and economically. The capitalist system was being born. Its father was the old feudal system and its mother Protestantism and the ranks of people who had died to preserve it in the face of Catholicism’s sclerotic stranglehold over economic growth and social progress.
Like the King and Queen based feudal system, Catholicism (another feudal system with a Pope) didn’t like the demand for freedom to do one’s own thing. Authority was top down. The people who could see opportunity for self-advancement were initially considered a threat but through sheer perseverance over the next century they held their nerve and by the middle of the eighteenth-century Britain was a prosperous, technologically advanced nation of entrepreneurs. On the continent, the feudal ways continued; this feudal and Papal patronage gave rise to poverty and revolution. As with Brexit, Britons saw the writing on the wall even then.
With a protestant, Britain powering out value from its factories and farms, wealth grew, and with global expansion the culture of Britain’s capitalist system became more embedded in Britain’s empire than any other empire since. Tribalism went into a slow retreat as Britain’s Empire became a proletarianising force. Just as feudal serfs became “workers” under capitalism, so the tribes of Africa where they were urbanised became “workers” too.
Now those on the traditional “left” will claim this was all immoral, a cultural imperialism. However, we at a Blue Revolution don’t claim it was all good, but we need to be objective because our feudal or tribal family was riddled with inequalities and cultural abuse. Many horrors we observe today were cultural norms until capitalism challenged the legitimacy of them. Those who claim some golden age of tribal culture are as naive as someone saying “please sir I’d like to be a serf”!
Like tribal families, feudal families also had to live with an economic uncertainty (called starvation!) that capitalism had started to eradicate. These are practical improvements, however. What was important about the capitalist legacy and its spread into the British Empire was that it created the principles of “Contract”, “Choice” and “Consent”, the three C’s.
No person alive in the free world would in our view want to go back to a situation where their lives were contingent upon the erratic will of another. Capitalism’s relentless march from Britain to her colonies at least in theory, stopped arbitrary abuse in its tracks. Of course, abuse went on but wherever the light of capitalism shone it was clearly immoral abuse. Capitalism was a system that had at least in theory, personal freedom at its core and that freedom was premised on the three C’s.
Now anyone reading this will say “what about the working class” and “what about women”. Those with some knowledge of left wing politics might ask about “alienation” and “exploitation”. To which we would say; yes, you are right. All of those were issues for capitalism.
In capitalism’s defence, we would argue that its mother might have been Protestantism and the three C’s but its father was the feudal system. So, like feudalism it comprised structure and hierarchy. It might have created theoretical principles and thus conferred “rights” but if you were poor, or a woman you could not exercise those rights. The last two hundred years has been about rights that existed in theory (and for some; heterosexual, middle class men in practice) being extended to other groups too. But before condemning Capitalism outright please consider that without Capitalism these “rights” (Contract, Choice and Consent, freedom and democracy) would not have existed at all. So, whether you are a woman, gay, trans, bi, or simply poor, the rights and freedoms you have you owe to Capitalism. Which brings us nicely onto “socialism”.
In the previous section, we looked at “rights” and identified that the important rights we now enjoy were created when Capitalism emerged from the feudal system. It has taken a long time to extend the rights afforded by capitalism to as many people as possible. Roughly the progress of rights went something like this; it began with a working class man’s right to contract freely for employment, then an unmarried woman’s right to contract freely for employment, the right to vote for working class men, the right to clean water and air, the right to a decent home, the right to vote for women, the right to a good education which could elevate the workers into the establishment, the right to health care, the right to freely contract and gain fairness at work for all women, then more latterly the right to be who you feel you are, unconstrained by social norms or conventions. These are a throwback to tribal or feudal ideas. More recently these latter rights have been described as “identity politics” but the link to capitalism has been obscured by the liberal left claiming them as their own.
To extend the rights to as wide a constituency as possible and certainly to extend rights beyond those which were simply necessary for the capitalist system to function (rights to contract for work by unmarried women for example) it was necessary after the Second World War for the government to step in. Capitalism had some of its father’s feudal DNA so when the hierarchy was working for the benefit of the capitalist class, the capitalist class saw no need to change anything. The whole system of government and the law propped up this capitalist perspective and the system became like the old feudal system, sclerotic or fossilised. The class system became more fixed than free to move up and down for too many people. After the war working people wanted change.
In 1945 the landslide Labour Government came to power and introduced a programme which had been influenced by left wing thinkers and academics like Karl Marx. These thinkers could see that whilst capitalism had liberated men from feudalism it had stopped short of liberating everyone and the reason was that the value or wealth created by capitalists, the capitalists wanted to keep. The government had the power to intervene and re-distribute the capitalists wealth and did so, nationalising industries and creating the welfare state. This was remarkable and for an adult population many of whom were born during Queen Victoria’s reign or raised by people born during Victoria’s s reign. It was liberating, offering freedoms and opportunities only capitalist money could have afforded previously, such as the working classes entering the “establishment” and complex health care free at the point of delivery.
Unfortunately, things started to go wrong in the 1950s. Where we are now (2017) is a legacy of things going wrong back then. Some of the things that went wrong are down to “the establishment” feeling threatened by the power of the workers and some of what went wrong is down to the workers themselves.
The Blue Revolution is an attempt by informed “non-experts” to start a new revolution, to take the legacy of capitalism and socialism and forge a new future of freedom and personal fulfilment whilst continuing to deliver the food that graces the table and a hand to rock the cradle. Be part of this revolution.
Next – The New Elite
The New Elite
As we have traced the course of history from tribalism to socialism after World War Two we have only made fleeting reference to “elites”. Every culture will have elites…..a Blue Revolutionary culture if we ever get that far will have elites but in a Blue Revolution the elite will be there by public approval, there will be no “status” to be had by being in parliament and indeed leaving the elite institutions will be no more a wrench or humiliation than changing jobs. It certainly won’t be like it is now with the spectacle of the powerful clinging on to rank, position and wealth after events like Brixit threaten their status.
In Tribal times the elite would have been a Chief and possibly an all-male “council” of some sort, a witch doctor or soothsayer. In the feudal system, it would have been the King, the aristocracy and Privy Council. In capitalist times, it was the “state”, the courts and government, and legislature doing the bidding of the capitalist elite … doing the bidding of business and commercial interests.
Take a minute to think about who might be part of the modern elites.
You may have come up with Hillary Clinton, Rupert Murdoch, Tony Blair, David Cameron, George Osborne. The chances are you didn’t come up with HM the Queen or an array of aristocrats with ancient titles or any industrialists or entrepreneurs. That is because the modern elites are different from the elites of even 100 years ago.
Modern elites are not there because of historical accident or because they are talented scientists or business people (whatever they might like us to believe). They are there because they have enough money (usually government money) and networks and influence.
To get into the modern elite you need to have a magic something … a connection somewhere you can use, some money to allow you to make use of your connection, some useful associations (from private schooling perhaps) of which your new connection can take advantage. All of this is assisted if you are close to someone already in power and have the right social skills and quality higher education.
This is the formula used by the Blair family, the Kinnock family, the Clinton family and a whole host of other people who have become known as the “liberal elite”. They have the right values. They believe in Contract, Choice and Consent at their level of society and at ours too. But for us they believe the accent should be on other rights and here is the rub … these rights are “identity rights” or “human rights” or “welfare rights” all upheld for us by them!
The rights the liberal elite over promote are rights that apply to those at the bottom of the social pile; they are the people whose existence the liberal state elite need to justify relieving the modern blue collar workers and business people of taxes to uphold these rights and their system. Hence, we see a proliferation of laws and litigation against soldiers, junior public sector ranks and a judicial upholding of the rights of terrorists under the Human Rights Act. All this creates jobs for the public funded liberal elite. No one wants to see abuse of anyone but the elite have turned such cases into a well-paid industry for themselves. How very liberal elite of them!
The elite believe that you have the right to be who you want to be; and anyone who doesn’t accept that is reactionary and must be against their “progressive policies”. They don’t, however, believe you have the right to have real influence over public policy or economic policy. That is a matter for them; they are after all the liberal elite.
Of course, they will argue that with identity politics you can be who you want to be. You can be transgender, they will even get the tax payer to pay for the operation and pay one of their barrister friends for any legal action you encounter around discrimination at work. But please don’t comment on Brexit, taxation, monetary policy immigration … leave it to them.
If that were not enough, they engineer things so that this process is repeated generation on generation which is why we call them the publicsectocracy. Their children, steeped in the language of “rights” take over the positions within the state vacated by their retired (usually early!) parents.
The liberal elite need to be dealt with, not by a bloody revolution but by simply allowing “the people” the “Blue Collar workers” to determine how access to state power is managed and maintained and this can be done through existing political arrangements. They, the arrangements, just need tweaking! Basically, the state now works for an elite and not for the people who pay for it and moreover because the elite expect to receive an elite salary the state costs the taxpayer too much.
Next – Overview
The first non-negotiable for anyone standing on a Blue Revolution ticket is the commitment to support a policy which limits the power of the elite. This is what President Trump says he wants to do, but will never be able to do … but here in the UK we believe we are mature and flexible enough as a democracy to do it. This is how it works.
In the UK. there are about 12,000 elected representatives at every administrative level above parish council. These people or councillors, come from every walk of life and unlike Westminster MP’s generally don’t go through a rigorous two-day selection process that weeds out eccentrics and potential trouble makers. These people connect with local communities, reflect local communities, and respect local communities. They need to have a voice and not as a party member but as a member of their respective community first and foremost. The party-political system works in the interests of bureaucracies known as parties and this takes away the sense that politicians work on behalf of the people. Political parties are a microcosm of the state itself. The modern state reflects an exclusive system that existed even before working class men had the vote.
When some members of the “liberal elite” identify a democratic deficit (large numbers of people not voting in elections for example) which suggests we are not as democratic as they would like to pretend we are, their solution is to extend the franchise to sixteen year olds. This is a confidence trick. Having more people voting for the same tired old eighteenth century system is not the answer. It is all very well throwing aside some eighteenth-century beliefs like homophobia, but preserving eighteenth century institutions, so that the elite can preserve their own status and position is hypocrisy in the first degree.
The answer to this issue is relatively simple. If you look at parliament you will observe people sitting; some speaking and some merely observing proceedings. In the community, there will be people who would make valid contributions but can’t as they don’t sit in parliament. The solution is to create what we call a legislative college. This idea is technology backed and allows any “elected member” from lower administrations to “come in” on a parliamentary debate. Their image projected onto a screen that can be televised in the house and on “parliament today”. The MP for the area will have some real competition from “lower tier” authority members and will need to ensure that their profile is maintained if they are to preserve their seat. All excellent for democracy.
Opponents will say it will make governing impossible. Rubbish! It makes the executive more accountable. The composition of government will still be drawn from the composition in the House of Commons and whilst we do see the possibility of extending the “parliamentary” vote to include “lower tier” members, in the first phase it will simply be a video linked “right to be heard”.
To develop this idea….which we are told is technologically very possible and get it past the “elite”, we will need to have a Blue Revolution. It is the first plank of our revolutionary agenda. Ultimately it will mean for example that no government can take us to war by relying on a supine and docile parliament and no government can escape the reality of its policies on the ground. It won’t, as will be claimed by the elite, simply be a green light to the awkward squad, as for every person criticising, for example welfare cuts, there will be someone supporting reform of a system which is well beyond its sell by date.
Manifesto pledge number one is therefore a Legislative college giving power to more people.
Next – Contract, Choice and Consent
Contract, Choice and Consent
In our introduction and brief history of time we referred to Contract, Choice and Consent as the three major social advances that came with the birth of capitalism. We also said that the state after World War Two was needed to ensure these rights had the widest social application. Thankfully we still have Contract, Choice and Consent and long may they last preserving freedom and democracy, but something has happened to the way these concepts are understood and deployed by the modern state run by “elites”.
Firstly, for nearly two hundred years the three C’s were for most people theoretical rights and could not be exercised unless you were male, had status and money. Over time and with the scaling up of the state in post war Britain these theoretical rights became available to more and more people. It made no sense for the state to impede people’s rights…after all a right is a right and money, gender or class alone should not determine whether the right could be exercised or not. Thus, we had votes for working class men, women and equal pay all extending the contract, choice and consent process to more and more people over about a century and a half.
However, whilst to contract, choose or consent using these universal rights should never in most circumstances be impeded by the state or prevented by public prejudice (unless it is widely and universally considered immoral such as child abuse) it should not necessarily be the sole duty of the state to promote or fund the exercising these rights. If the state goes beyond protecting a right (for example protecting someone’s right to be transgendered) and moves towards paying for someone to choose this identity, then beyond a certain point the state loses the public’s consent. This is the situation the elite have placed the public in.
Of course, we should respect someone’s right to be transgendered but it is a matter for them as to what extent they can exercise that right.
I might wish to choose to have a Ferrari but whilst I have the right to own one I can’t see that it is incumbent on others via the State to pay for it. A Ferrari is a lifestyle choice that should be protected and preserved but it is not for the state to pay for it.
Now we can imagine many will agree with that, hardly revolutionary stuff. However, that bit wasn’t particularly revolutionary; the next bit is a little more challenging.
The principle above applies not only to gender transformation and Ferraris but to having children too. Having children has become a life style choice over which the public at large have little choice but to pay when parents knowing full well they can’t afford children, go ahead and have them anyway. The elite – clueless for a solution to a growing moral and financial crisis – pay themselves a fortune so they can continue to throw taxpayers’ money at the problem. The resulting mental health problems, domestic and child abuse and crime are for the State industries that employs large numbers of them. Industries managed and led by the well-motivated benign elite. Or maybe not.
We at A Blue Revolution consider that western morality has become infused with a careless “do as you like” which has reduced too many adults to behaving like overgrown children, docile and fed a diet of welfare top ups and identity politics. One spin off from this process is that too many people buoyed up by welfare no longer make grown up informed choices about things like having kids, or getting a job.
The result is that divorce and childbirth still define the lot of too many women and girls who become “single mums” and we believe this has led to an epidemic of mental health issues for both genders as adults and children alike. Boys too are affected by mental health problems and the prisons are bursting with these victims of the dismantled moral state. Whilst capitalism offered the three C’s its Christian wing also imposed a strict moral discipline that forged capable adults from obedient children. The modern state, managed by our elite, has given up any pretence of genuinely promoting social values beyond that of perhaps “consumer”. The reason being that modern elites don’t understand where value comes from and believe that what you are paid is what you are worth as this reflects what you can spend. And they spend a lot.
So far, we at A Blue Revolution consider having children to be a grown-up lifestyle choice and the cost of raising them (not educating them) should be borne by the parents, carers or significant others in whatever manner is safe and affordable. The idea of children being a moral hazard for those having children with no financial means of supporting them other than welfare, must be re-established.
The relationship between adults must stop being childishly irresponsible and based on levels of personal consumption. The marriage ceremony is no longer fit do public duty. With a day’s glamour and a few “vows” it owes its existence to a time when people were illiterate and the power of the ceremony would make the community enforce moral behaviour…or else! A bit 18th century but back then having children you couldn’t afford was for some poor wretches unavoidable and a passport to the workhouse. Today it is downright irresponsible, stupid, lazy and greedy, but reasonably well rewarded thanks to the liberal state.
Our solution is that a contract should precede a birth and the contracting couples on whatever basis, agree to share the responsibility of the child they are having. A child with no planning or contracting sees the state take over care and no financial advantage applies to either parent. If parenthood is in doubt, then a mandatory DNA test checked against a national database will ensure parents are responsible for their offspring.
So, manifesto pledge number two is: make contracting the foundation of the British way of life. Nothing is given or received unless it is contracted for, freely chosen and consented to. Even welfare!
Next – The Economy
We started off this manifesto by referring to the world of the tribe and the feudal overlord. Let us look at these phases from an economic perspective.
Karl Marx described mankind and all creatures as having a “species essence”. A cat in the wild needs meat and so the species essence of a cat is to catch prey and feed its young. For human beings, the process is easier as we are armed with skills a cat doesn’t have and in addition we have the capacity of language to communicate, share knowledge and co-operate.
Our species essence is therefore based on these differences between us and lower mammals. From tribal times, we have had a problem with two things; gender and racial difference, deploying differential treatment for those who were visibly different from the group with power. Gender recognition (about 100,000 years ago,) gave rise to gender inequality – in effect stating “you are a woman that is what you do” (bearing children and looking after and raising young or caring for old), “you are a man that is what you do” (going out and bringing home the economic value hunting, or working).
Racial difference after conquest and cultural convergence was always achieved by the fact that man of whatever culture or tribe always had dominion over women and in most cultures still does.
The second aspect of the tribe and species essence was that life uncertain so mankind had to adapt or starve and consumed what food value he had quickly and evenly. Nothing could be wasted so everything was eaten.
Tribalism therefore shaped “species essence” in any one of several ways. But two themes come over; one is that men and women had distinct roles, and the second was that overall whatever was sourced was consumed. There could be no “storage of value”.
Once storage of value happened in pre-Biblical times a feudal system emerged and someone basically stole the surplus value defining the role of others to create value, which they then acquired. And so on and so forth. This went on right the way through Capitalism with bosses “stealing” value off workers, right up to the hitherto ignored, final collapse of capitalism in the west sometime around the mid-1980s when the west began to export its capitalism to China and importing its proletariat from Mexico or Eastern Europe.
In the 1930’s the collapse of the capitalist system gave rise to fascism and a world war. When capitalist systems collapse, they revert to their pre-capitalist identity namely their feudal form. Fascism was little more than a reaction to capitalism’s collapse in Europe in the form of a technological form of feudalism. Horrific, as it could do what feudal systems can do; treat people like objects with no value but do it on an industrial scale. Joseph Stalin in Russia was a feudal monster too.
In the 1980’s capitalism went into a crisis again. It was unwieldy and unaffordable in its “mixed economic” form. In the UK, welfare and state industries were toppling the economic system as was a totally naive belief that the Trades Unions were acting in the best interests of the “workers” by destroying industries. This was as much nonsense then as now. Just consider the Unions and Southern Trains in 2017. The Trades Unions, antagonistic bosses, the welfare system, National Health Service and nationalised industries made the mixed free market “capitalist orientated” system inefficient and therefore unaffordable and so a change had to take place.
On each side of the Atlantic two charismatic but largely economically illiterate leaders emerged with a view that the state must be brought to heel (in Britain it meant shedding nationalised industries) and that printing money was a cardinal economic sin. Whilst both facts are true, what went on to happen was unexpected. The two leading western economies the EU and US were watching the right things happen (economic growth) but not understanding why this growth was taking place. The economies of the west began to flourish. In the UK, the heirs to Thatcher (Major and Blair) spawned the heirs to Blair (Cameron and Osborne). Each man believing in turn that this story of wealth, and jobs in retail or services, was an economic success. All this of course led eventually to the famous banking crisis.
Governments liked the apparent success of this post 1980’s model before the banking crisis as the success generated tax revenue which could be spent on welfare, pensions and the state and unemployment was kept low.
Of course, as we said above we have economic value but we also need to create social value; welfare is essentially delivering social value by government. Ideally it should be a by-product of economic activity delivered within a social as opposed to state funded model. In our simple tribal society, the “social value” was always woman’s work which may explain it’s low value even in the west. This work still must be done in 2017 but it is not people who do it out of a sense of love or community, it is the state. A state that has taken on delivering social value because it over promoted the economy as a place of work particularly for women. The state we pay for as taxpayers simply can’t go on paying for an “elite” as well as pay our social care.
The whole post 1980’s socio economic process was given a name by the time Blair came to power. It was called “post neo classical endogenous growth theory”.
However, as politicians only knew what global markets did, and did not know how they did it, what no one was watching was how this economic success story was being paid for. It was being paid for by cheap foreign outsourced labour making the things the “consumers” of the west wanted whilst many blue-collar workers in the west were put out of old rust belt and manufacturing occupations.
When a car plant closed in the UK in the early noughties the New Labour government advised the unemployed to get work in supermarkets. Nothing wrong with supermarket work but not everyone can do it. This explains why the second and third generation ex industrial “out of workers” are voting Brexit in the UK and for Trump in the US. It is because of the effects of the liberal elite’s economic policy that has created an army of under or unemployed people who want to create value and do something and find they can’t.
The reason that this model has endured for nearly thirty years is that the cheaper foreign produced products carried the old price tag giving a great mark up. This made some people in retail very rich. In addition, the economic “miracle”, assisted by migration and family breakdown was increasing demand for housing making house prices go up allowing “capital” to be tapped off and spent on consumption. If you have borrowed against your house to pay off debt or buy a car, you have contributed to the nation’s short term success but long term misery … but don’t worry we have all done it!!
So where are we now? Well the debt based model continues. If Britain is worth (it is claimed) sixty five trillion pounds and as people have not yet borrowed sixty five trillion pounds there is still “growth” in the economy. This madness we call debtamorphosis and it leads us to our third simple manifesto pledge. Borrowing can never be a social or economic good. It must be resisted. It can only be justified if it is to be used as a driver for productive economic activity and or hard work like investing in machines or plant resources.
The student loan fiasco and the trend towards more borrowing must stop and the people must willingly come to the rescue of an economy we have all but ruined with our debt. For too long we have been egged on by governments who need our debt to boost the economy and then tax it to justify their elevated positions.
Blue Revolution pledge number three: Get debt under control and have a contract with the people to put social value back into society without the state paying for all of it. The economy should not be “taxed” to pay for people’s laziness or stupidity. Unlike in tribal society delivering social value should not be done in a sexist way and it should be encouraged at a neighbourhood level. As far as practical we must get the government out of social and economic activities adopting for government a simple regulatory function of markets which undermine the consumer.
Next – Law and Order
Law and Order
This is the area of Blue Revolution politics within which the eighteenth-century instincts of the current elite coincide with the eighteenth-century instincts of the public. No one likes “offenders” and the public appetite for revenge and retribution is as stark as the lawyer’s enthusiasm for making money out of them. The system however is well beyond its sell by date and in fact creates problems by providing prison as a kind of sanctuary for offenders, mainly male, who are in every sense dislocated from society. Prison and the criminal justice system neither instils fear of repeat offending nor delivers reform; and forget rehabilitation. For a growing army of offenders, it is a much-needed respite from a lonely world of drink, drugs, mental illness, domestic violence and like so many other ills all created then ignored by a liberal elite who can’t understand the nature of the problem let alone how to deal with it.
No amount of caring social workers, drugs workers or therapists can solve this problem. The problem is societal and the solution is not going to be a solely legislative one. The legislation that has permitted social breakdown is responsible and the solution is to introduce A Blue Revolutionary agenda and to reform the criminal justice system so we only provide places behind high walls to those who threaten us as ordinary people and we use twenty first century technology rather than 18th century penology to punish the rest.
The system processes too many of the people – the sons and daughters of the poor and those without access to wealth – and makes others rich on the back of them. A Blue Revolution will use technological incarceration for offenders who can be “geo fenced” into their own homes; thus, transferring the cost of incarceration to them rather than the state (us as taxpayers). We will use other powers to track and tag offenders and to remove “state” privileges such as the right to foreign travel and to drive depending upon the nature of the offence and the necessity and proportionality associated with keeping an eye on one of our own.
If the Blue Revolution can persuade the public that keeping an offender like say Rolf Harris in his own home tagged, tracked and excluded from any travel as well as fined for his crime, is a legitimate remedy for his offending, we will have made the criminal justice system work for the benefit of the community – for whom protection from harm should be the aim that we are prepared to pay for rather than using retribution as a means of making lawyers and judges very rich and entitled. The law is the last vestige of an essentially feudal power. The justice system which centuries ago used to dispense the justice of the monarch now has more power and status than the monarch herself. How crazy is that?
The final manifesto pledge is to make “justice” cheap but effective using technology.
With other changes the criminal justice system should see shrinkage and the prison populations should consist of a small group of incorrigible and dangerous people for whom access to the community should be managed by the provision of a large wall.
Next – Education
Education is critical to Britain’s wellbeing. We have a colossal debt burden which the next generation must pay for. Plenty of people are getting rich with the current debt based model. There will be places they can escape to when the British and western economy is finally exhausted and we are as ordinary people flung back to the kind of pre-capitalist system which is abusive of our rights. We have got to where we are now via tribalism and feudalism, why would we let the elite send us back there in fifty or one hundred years, or sooner?
So, education is essential to preserving Britain’s future and bringing our economy back into affordability. The system which educates our children needs to reflect the realities of mankind’s species essence. We need to have parents who can “train” children from one year old to age three or four. Then a properly trained child can be “taught” in school and can be prepared for a lifetime of “learning”. High stress levels at the coal face of the public sector is largely due to workers having to deal with a dysfunctional public and their kids. This is particularly true in education and health.
The state has allowed itself to drift into areas of “education” which do not really relate to education. Sex education and citizenship being two obvious examples. In A Blue Revolutionary informed education system, education would start at age four with teaching the basics of Maths and English, elementary science, local history and geography.
We believe in selection if the selection process is not “gamed” to benefit those who can pay to coach children. Even with coaching for the elites, in the 1950’s the working classes managed to deliver hundreds of children in to the establishment of the 1960’s via State Grammar schools.
It was in the 1960’s that the old establishment decided that this “entryism” by the working classes into the establishment was a danger to their position, and with war time obligations to the working classes by then a distant memory they set about dismantling the education system which had allowed the children of the working classes into the establishment. They scrapped the grammar schools. The establishment justified this decision on the basis that those who failed the 11+ were damaged for life which of course was, and is, rubbish.
In respect of education the Blue Revolution is clear. We need to have selection at age 11 to 13 and that the basis for this selection should be maths and English with candidates demonstrating an academic aptitude two or three or even four years above their chronological age. Children achieving this standard will benefit themselves and society and those who fail will have benefitted from the attempt to be selected. The children of ordinary working people must be involved in the management and running of the state so they can advise politicians in the legislature and elsewhere thus ensuring that the interests of the people are fully reflected in the decisions made by politicians. The world of special interests will finally end.
The fourth manifesto pledge is to structure education from birth to about 13 with parents having a vital role (social value role) in preparing a child for school through training. Parents who can’t do this will need assistance as schools will once again become ordered places of learning. There will be a “real skills” assessment of ability at age 11 to 13 and entry to grammars. Education is life-long learning and must be recognised as both social and economic in character.
Next – And finally, our blue planet
And finally, our blue planet
Debt and the demands of consumer based growth are destroying our planet. With A Blue Revolution commitment to regaining control of social value delivering non-gender based provision for children and the elderly but with some state support we should see the drive to consume and general indebtedness decline. With fewer people overpaid by the state there should also be a reduction in aggregate demand and this too takes the pressure of the planet.
Add to this the savings from scaling back the state and the British will signal that the age of the super-rich living off the debt of others whilst the planet overheats has come to an end and that rather than talking a lot of hot air at every global conference Britain is doing something about its moral, economic, sociological and environmental problems and guess what? All these factors work to improve the each other and thereby help to save the planet.