There is alleged bias and there is real bias. The room packed with a certain type of voter is an extreme version of alleged bias the subtly of the nuanced comment a milder and harder to support version of alleged bias. The policy of basing local constituency hustings on who is likely to form a government or the number of candidates a party is fielding nationally is real bias at a constituency level where the law rightly accepts all candidates are of equal merit. This is why the Post Office has to deliver one leaflet free of charge for all candidates and the democratic services team of the local council treats all candidates with equal respect…even independent ones. But this level of objectivity seems not to apply to the BBC where it is blatant and at constituency level, we think illegal bias. You simply can’t as a publicly funded body decide who to air and who not to! But the BBC does and when challenged at production team level the response can be patronising and disheartening.
Everyone accepts the political ‘system is rigged’ but until we stood in this election it was not clear how aspects of that ‘rigging’ worked. One way it happens is that broadcasters and the media try and shoehorn diverse opinions into a creaky binary 18th-century political system complete with big binary parties of left and right and an electoral system, the first past the post system, that benefits binary politics. The ‘mother of all parliaments’ has given birth to systems like this all over the western world. No wonder from Trump to Corbyn the claim is made that the system fails the people. In the Anglo-Saxon sphere the, parliamentary system is a major contributor to the people’s democratic deficit. Here in the Uk, the BBC contributes too, by gaming their coverage in favour of the main parties and locking out new entrants to politics at constituency level. Add to this the Lobbying by Unions, big business and a picture emerge of a system which was not designed to work in the public’s interest but in the interest of the state and its wealthy supporters. The problem is that unlike in the 18th century where the ordinary person was illiterate had no vote and did not pay taxes now the people have all three! The system needs to change. This election more than any other is likely to see two party politics reinstated and that is bad for democracy and public anger.
Reform of the system is needed but in the case of the BBC this is not just Bias it is in our view an illegal rigging of the system and is one reason why we need a Blue Revolution.
The ‘State’ should read our post on 24th May for a few ideas and hints about how it can sensitively ‘grow that pair’ and stand up for British values and human rights when it deals with the misogynistic, cruel and discriminating, flogging, stoning and head chopping Saidi Arabians
The world is a messy place these days, methods of ordering society which Karl Marx himself would have called primitive are promoted by the West namely, Saudi Arabia whilst the neurotic adherence to faith which in Marx’s view was put asunder in the 18th century by the growth of capitalism stalks the streets of London and Manchester inflicting death and mayhem on innocent people exercising their long fought for rights to relax and enjoy themselves as individuals free of control by others. This, of course, is precisely what the neurotic Islamists want to destroy. They want to control people by gender, virtue, sexuality, tribe, ethnicity, cast, religion and denomination. There really is no limit to the bubbling primitivism of these groups and their wish to control us and our way of life. It is as though they think the Reformation in the West and what sprang from it namely capitalism and industrialisation should not have happened. This, of course, is also the problem for the British left.
Capitalism did happen and whilst it exploited the worker financially, creating the proletarian, from the bonded serf, it also created economic freedoms which were necessary for capitalism to function. These legal freedoms eventually took on a social character and explain why we have a generally tolerant, democratic and freedom loving mentality. We sum these freedoms up as Contract, Choice and Consent. They have gone from being almost exclusively the rights for the bourgeoisie to trade to being legal rights that we can all enjoy. Now the British left seems to fail to grasp that there are two sides to the capitalist system, its freedoms and its exploitation.To be just you have to be able to work out how to protect freedom whilst tackling what is still seen by them as exploitation. The British left, however, seems oblivious to this binary capitalist character and thus seem willing to ally themselves with those who hate capitalism or the modern variant the ‘free market’ and hate the freedoms it has created too. In fact, sometimes the leaders of the left seem to be so unsure of their Marx that they think it is Ok to criticise what they call capitalist exploitation with violent language or violent struggle, whilst promising as part of their revolution a mean clunking form of parliamentary redistributive socialism. Corbyn seems like a nice guy but the British hard left rank and file now looks and sounds ugly and turns a blind eye to the kind of discrimination that has no place in a once capitalist now free post-industrial society, namely misogyny and antisemitism.
As Marxists, the British hard left are very poor disciples. They are basically Leninists, advocates of bureaucratic central control and state ownership with the freedoms created by capitalism put asunder in the name of a state managed utopian New Jerusalem. To socialists of this stripe, the state itself is everything and the people nothing. These ‘vulgar’ ideas belong somewhere between 1917 and 1973 but please not now we have too much to loose.
22 Tower Street Boston Lincolnshire PE218RX
02 June 2017
British Broadcasting Corporation
Dear Sir or Madam
General Election 2017
As a candidate standing in the Boston and Skegness constituency I was disappointed at the treatment I received by your BBC Radio Lincolnshire and Radio 5 Live teams. As a result, I wish to formally complain and challenge what seems to be BBC policy adversely affecting the contribution small parties make to Britain’s increasingly rich political tapestry.
Firstly, I was not accorded a place on the panel of the BBC Radio Lincolnshire husting programme. When I enquired I was told that this was because the party Blue Revolution did not have a national profile. I made the point that it was a local BBC radio station and that as the only ‘other’ candidate and a local person with political experience people might wish to hear my views. Of the six candidates at the election, I was the only one excluded. I was informed it was the executive decision of the Producer from which he was not prepared to depart. I am aware other ‘Independent’ candidates were also excluded from debates in other constituencies in Lincolnshire. I was however interviewed for a recorded piece which I am told will be broadcast during the debate. The programme was postponed to Tuesday 6th May due to the terrible events in Manchester. I was not informed it was going ahead I had been told it had been cancelled, not postponed.
My second complaint relates to the Radio 5Live Marginal Mystery Tour which was broadcast from Skegness on 31st May. I found out about this by chance and was disappointed that once again I had not been invited as a local politician with expertise on issues linked to migration and community engagement. It was interesting to note that the UKIP candidate sent a stand in and did not attend in person.
As I was canvassing in Skegness that day I attended the venue and spoke to a helpful young production assistant called Jim who made a few calls and eventually I spoke with a more senior member of BBC staff by phone. I was informed that BBC policy excluded me as it is again based on a national party profile. Having decided to resume canvassing I was then called again by Jim who said that they would broadcast a few of minutes of me at around about 12.35. I was in the end given about a minute or so prior to which I had to endure some comic turn by a BBC presenter who implied (please note implied) that I was some ‘numpty’ (his words) who wanted to talk about politics rather than eat ice cream on the beach. The brief interview went well, albeit Blue Revolution being identified with parties like the ‘Fancy Dress party’ I felt was a bit unnecessary. It also seemed to me that the interview was cut short for no obvious reason. The ‘comic turn’ was unnecessary if time was a factor.
The points I want the BBC to consider are these. Britain is in danger of having a political system which fails to reflect the diversity of the British population and in its attempt to shoehorn all opinion into ‘established party’ categories the BBC leaves the electorate feeling increasingly alienated and angry. This is precisely why we set up our party Blue Revolution. We believe that the parliamentary system institutionalises two-party politics to such an extent it effectively excludes others. In so doing it reflects the adversarial and increasingly undemocratic nature of politics.
In the 21st century, the parliamentary system is becoming incapable of reflecting diverse British views at a level close to the government. Big party and current parliamentary systems effectively lock out of politics different perspectives or new opinion among a wide range of voter. The BBC in the opinion of our Party colluded with this in your treatment of me. The experience of UKIP disappearing locally confirms that the two-party hegemony prevails in an age when it really should not. We are no longer a mono-cultural, monoracial and essentially a two-class based country.
Furthermore, a constituency election is a race, not a war and therefore there is no justification for publicly funded bodies like the BBC taking sides. Blue Revolution is a serious party with a serious purpose and it is for the electorate to decide on the merits of the message who should win that ‘local’ race, not the BBC. In addition to paying my broadcast licence fee we as a party paid my £500.00 deposit to confirm I am not a frivolous candidate, that is all the BBC needed to consider
Finally, it is hard enough for a small party to fund and pay for a full one leaflet campaign which comes in at about £1000.00. In addition, there are the costs associated with starting the party in the first place. The situation is more precarious for small parties when the £500 deposit will almost certainly be lost by not gaining the 5% of the vote necessary for its return. The BBC has a critical role here. No one expects a small party to win in what is clearly a rigged two-party system, however by denying local publicity, the BBC makes the loss of the deposit more likely and therefore the future of small parties very precarious. This is something which in our opinion is not good for democracy. The BBC should champion small parties not treat them like an embarrassment to be patronised.
Please, can you consider the points above and let me have a response to my complaints. Please, could you also confirm whether you intend to put the issues I have highlighted before the BBC Executive Team and what the outcome of their deliberation was? Do they feel a review of the policy is necessary?
Labour’s operating model is old-fashioned socialism. Old fashioned socialism is premised on the basis that those bad old capitalist need to have their exploitative businesses taken over by the benign state. This is pretty much what happened after WWII. However, the problem became clear by the mid-1970’s the state was bad at running industries and could not do it efficiently and so a programme of sell off’s was embarked on. On the other side of the state equation, the industrial model taken from nationalised industry was deployed to deliver large scale health and education and again it has proved problematic. Local authorities too developed this large scale delivery model with the 1974 reforms. These big delivery models become incapable of adapting and begin to consume resources to maintain themselves rather than deploying resources to the people that need them.
So if we end up with a Labour government or some kind of ‘progressive’ alliance will we see a return to the alienating industrial scale delivery of the 1970’s? the evidence seems to suggest that we will and it won’t take long before the whole lot ends up costing more than the country can afford. To understand what to do about this tragic situation we need to understand it’s nature and then develop a new delivery model for the services we need. To do this we need to, first of all, see the country and its people as different from the state, and see the state as a consumer on our behalf. We can then see whether the state as a consumer is costing the country too much and if so whether to use an old Marxist term the state should start to wither away as we develop new delivery models for essential services. We don’t think the Labour party has got that bit of Capital v0lumes 3 yet.
Theresa May seems to have lost her voice, at least the voice that the people used to listen to, whilst at the same time, Jeremy Corbyn seems to have found his, and impressive it has become too. The spectacle of the recent debate was unedifying a slanging match in which the so-called ‘progressives’ ganged up on the hated Tories. It was binary politics at its best. The sad truth is however that the only ‘progressive’ party who will do well on current numbers is Labour and this is because of the electoral system. Once elected though the whole sorry lot will be corralled into the binary politics of the Westminster chamber. This eighteenth-century model forces all shades of opinion into two halves of an argument managed by the party system. The result is that ordinary people feel like observers of an argument the outcome of which will directly affect them but with no ability to contribute to or nuance the outcome.
Political arguments are still being forged by this elderly political system, as they have done since the early 19th century. The difference now is that with diversity increasing, the need for the cooperation of the ordinary person is increasing also. Whilst Labour has made a monumental comeback, the long-term realities are that the binary division in Parliament will continue. Nothing is likely to change the nature of the binary bureaucratic British state and the same old approach will be maintained. With Labour in charge borrowing and spending to ‘invest’ in things for which there will be little obvious return is likely to go up and the challenge will merely be carping from the opposition benches. Corbyn sounds good, he sounds passionate and coherent, the problem is that debt, the weak economic fundamentals, and the cost of the state itself are unlikely to change very much on his watch, but then again he is turning into a man of surprises.
Three weeks is a long time in politics. We have seen the Brexit bonus squandered by a Tory party trying to fly some non-Brexit policy under the public’s radar, and not getting away with it. The adult social care fiasco was a typical example of the hubris of the political elite thinking that they ‘knew’ the public appetite for their policies. Mrs May and her team need to remember this is a Brexit election. Every other policy idea is generally irrelevant and the Tories should stick with the Cameron manifesto which still has three years to run. In trying to get one over the public they have given Corbyn’s ‘have what you want warriors’ an adult social care bounce. That said the left is ideologically muddled, whether that left is Labour, Lib Dem or Green. They have a tax and spend mentality to help them support their big state obsession in an age of quantitative easing and colossal personal and government debt. There is nothing progressive about any of them. The Tories may have squandered their Brexit bonus, we hope not as Brexit should be all this election is about, that is certainly what the public think.
As for the Greens and Ukip, they seem to have assumed a previous irrelevance. The sad state of Ukip highlights just how the Parliamentary system self-corrects around the two main parties which is why we believe there is a need for a Blue Revolution. The Parliamentary system is the problem with democracy in Britain, not as the parties would have us believe just the electoral system!
Finally the Lib Dems. The Tories have made a calculated error over their manifesto the Lib Dems have done the same thing on an almost catastrophic scale by saying they will subvert the will of the British people by using Parliament to frustrate Brexit. In doing this they are not only counter-revolutionary they are neither Liberal or Democratic. They have probably set back for a generation their cause, a cause that could have seen them over ten or fifteen years replace the hapless Labour party as it stumbles into a kind of post-industrial muddled Marxist senility.
Britain is ageing and we are now living longer so there is a problem looking after us and no account has been taken of this fact by politicians who reflecting the demands of various lobby groups keep us alive for longer but largely unhealthier. We are fatter and have chronic conditions such as diabetes. In the past, we would smoke and die prematurely, we would have heart attacks and die prematurely. We would die before we suffered from dementia. Today we are capable of being kept alive long beyond the point at which we are able to maintain ourselves, and we become a burden. We become a burden on someone the issue is on whom should we become that burden.
Mrs May was trying to ensure that on behalf of the taxpayer she got some of the costs of adult social care back by getting homeowners and those with an estate to contribute to their care post-mortem so to speak. The amount one could pass on to relatives was raised to £100,000 but there was no cap so a person in need of expensive care could see all but £100,000 of their estate being gobbled up in care costs. The furore seemed to take her and the Tories by surprise. However, it shouldn’t have done. Like student debt, the policy is intended to relieve the state of a financial burden but in passing the cost on to the person in need, it becomes a case of letting the state off the hook whilst over one generation removing an element of financial support for the next generation, which in turn burdens the taxpayer at a later date. A cap on the amount the state would expect the individual to pay quickly followed.
The reason we are concerned about this whole situation is that it reveals how the state is enthusiastic to withdraw funding and therefore responsibility for social support, (as it has done with higher education another related issue here too) a responsibility that it has taken on relentlessly since the end of the war. It has altered Britain, changed the nature of the family and now finds itself unable to discharge its responsibilities. As the state withdraws so it is the poorer end of society that suffers. Without the capping, and perhaps even with the cap, within one generation, there will be fewer elderly people wealthy enough to make a contribution as their inheritance would have been spent on their parent’s social care. We thus create a pauper class over time. This is intolerable but would be understandable if the state itself didn’t squander millions on maintaining its own antiquated structures.
Before the state pulls out of paying for essential services it should look at how it can reconfigure itself so it uses modern technology to eradicate ‘top salaries’ and develops alternative ways of delivering essential services at a reduced cost to the taxpayer. Our programme is the only programme, contained within our manifesto, that offers this approach as opposed to the approach of other parties which is simply to tax more or pass on costs to those in most need but who are least able to pay as the poorest get it free anyway.
A concert aimed at girls and their mums. A singer with an empowering feminist message. This is the reflection of a society that accepts independence and liberation for women as well as men. It is a society that has evolved from the reformation through Protestantism and having had its values seared into its western culture by capitalism and industrialisation now offers the world the free market. The free market is an asset to the world albeit one that is exhausting the planet due to its relentless ‘growth’. It is however at the same time as granting personal freedom the one thing that really seems to infuriate the Islamist to commit acts of unbelievable horror. But why is this?
The Islamist has a rigid view of the world, a neurosis almost which in pre-capitalist times would have been a common characteristic among many people of faith. It is prescriptive and determines who has power and authority. In this antiquated system, men have power and authority women less and what power they had, they would exercise through the authority of their husbands. There were set ways to do things and transgression was punished. This is 15th or 16th Century Britain but also Saudi Arabia today and this is the mindset of the modern Islamist terrorist. We have a problem.
The whole diversity agenda spoon fed to us by the Blair regime failed to recognise that different cultures and religions view basic differences between people in very different ways and this gives rise to discrimination. In simple Islamic societies rights are accorded on the basis of gender and status and some groups not only have no status but can be put to death for expressing themselves in ways that are prohibited. Freedom of expression, sexual liberation, choice and the right to consent to what happens to you are alien concepts in this kind of faith. They are alien because we enjoy them in the west as a result of our economic and social evolution. Contract, Choice and Consent come with capitalism. You can’t have one without the other. The free market is also based on these freedoms as it has evolved from capitalism in the late 1970’s.
So the narrative which we must adopt when dealing with Islamists or indeed anyone who professes a faith is this; “to what extent does your interpretation of your faith reflect the rights of the individual, of any individual (female, homosexual, person of whatever faith) to contract with others freely, to consent to behaviour or refuse to consent, and to choose their own lifestyle as long as it doesn’t affect others”. If you ask anyone of faith this question you would see immediately whether they accept the West’s heritage drawn from its capitalist history or whether they cannot reconcile our freedoms with the demands and rules of their faith. If Trump had asked the Saudis these questions we think he would have been shocked by how few if any “shared values” there are aside from selling arms and buying oil.
We don’t need to brag about our free market culture, there are many things that need improving but in giving the world Contract, Choice and Consent capitalism has liberated us all. Perhaps it is our freedom and its link to capitalism that makes the left so squeamish and prone to controlling policies and which finds Corbyn making common cause with those who hate the West. Corbyn needs to understand that capitalism wasn’t just an economic model that exploited workers, it also gave people freedom and a way of life that the Islamists are now trying to destroy.
Individual Muslims may have had their own personal reformation but the religion hasn’t and can’t. That bit of history has been and gone leaving its legacy only in the West for us to share with those who will listen.
This and other international posts can be found on www.ABlueRevolution.Com.
This as a brief post as we have been shocked by the riots in the U.S. and the demonstrations in Europe over Trump. The anxious foot-soldiers of the illiberal elite clearly believe that Trump represents a shamelessly divisive and discriminatory perspective and will roll back decades of progress in respect of social integration and sexual equality. This is of course, as far as we are concerned, rubbish. The reason is that the U.S. is a democracy with a constitution that makes it impossible for Trump to deliver an agenda based on hatred or discrimination. He may send some reproductive rights back to the individual States but that is pretty much as far as he could go.
What the foot soldiers of the illiberal elite are protesting about is that Clinton didn’t have an argument at the U.S. election and therefore lost. She and the elite demonstrated an absence of a so-called “liberal ideology” that takes America beyond the Clinton, Bush, Obama status quo. A status quo which has sucked up to amongst others the Saudi’s with their heroic record of women’s rights whilst turning on others no better but certainly no worse.
The foot soldiers of the elite don’t know who to blame for the mess America (and the EU)) is in. The wealth inequality, the celebrity culture, the banking crisis, social and moral decay etc. The foot soldiers can’t possibly blame themselves or the liberal elite who have helped them gain their individual personal identity and employed them in the government sector. All this whilst giving the blue collar workers the order of the boot as their jobs were exported abroad.
So they will blame Trump for…. well-being Trump, a seventy-year-old locker room jock with wandering hands, bad hair, cringeworthy chat up lines, and a self-important turn of phrase. In the overall scheme of things Trump probably comes in well ahead of Obama and Bush in the sexual preoccupation stakes……but well behind “old man” Clinton, the adulterers’ adulterer.
As we posted yesterday Trump will, of course, be his own undoing. Which is sad. But it is unlikely to be a sexual impropriety that does for him.