The vision of Blue Revolution is to extend democracy and make Britain safe in perpetuity. We need it as violence both domestic and street violence is going up and the binary political system can’t deliver an answer. The nature of politics, therefore, has to change and we need to extend the legislature down to almost parish level using elected representatives and technology in a wholly 21st century way. Our aim, therefore, is to deliver enhanced democracy into a parliament that has been designed (in the 18th century) to meet the needs of elites past and present. This is why Corbyn can argue that the ‘system’ works against the people, but he hasn’t done his analysis and therefore doesn’t know why. We do know why and will make every elected representative in the country a contributor to the legislature and to the national debate. Had this happened in the recent past we would not have got ourselves up to our neck in the EU, We would not have had the industrial unemployed silting up the departments of the state with crime and unemployment. We would have adjusted public spending to accommodate the effects of globalisation, rather than throwing these workers into the hands of global markets which promptly found no use for them and put them on the scrap heap, there maintained on a diet of welfare and health care.
So what of our pledges at this election in Boston and Skegness. Well out of the EU but with closer trade links with the real countries of Europe. This is fairly obvious but in reality may be difficult to deliver. However, it is the trade that has healed rifts within the continent of Europe, not the EU which is now threatening to destabilise the continent due to tensions around migration, youth unemployment, bailouts, the Euro and demands for an ever closer political union and economic convergence. A vision of a contented continent trading freely is a vision every country will identify with.
More workplace democracy for public sector and publicly funded workers. It is clear when you speak to public sector workers who operate in some of the most hostile environments that they feel bullied by a system that demands performance to a measured set of targets. We would recommend that targets are scrapped and the hierarchy in public services flattened. Rank structures that owe more to the 19th-century industry rather than the 21st century public services must go and staff at the actual delivery end of public services should design implementation models for the services they are the experts in and deliver to the people.
Cut State Bureaucracy but not the public services we the people pay for and need! Above the delivery end of services, there are ranks of highly paid people who don’t deliver services but manage the processes and targets set by the government. Essentially they add no actual value but they cost money to employ. We would simplify the structures within public services whether it is street lights or adult social care and cut at the top, not the bottom. Modern technology will be used to make this happen.
Deliver education suited to all abilities and scrap SATS and Student Debt. SATS are a cruel measure of schools and a child’s aptitude. Simple school-based tests which are based on Maths and Spelling should be used to inform children and parents about a child’s attainment level with advice on how to improve. The whole “it’s the schools’ fault” ideology which has undermined education and morale must go. We support selection but selection can be accommodated within schools by having certain students learning via IT at virtual grammars within their own school. Students’ in debt is an outrage, it deters progression up career ladders for the working class indebted student, as debt repayment kicks in. It thus reinforces the disadvantage it is supposed to prevent. The use of technology should allow students more flexibility with living costs and with cutbacks in the number of universities the debt should in our view be put back on the state’s books. This might be utopian but the option needs to be considered.
Stop people getting rich at the ordinary taxpayer’s expense. The upper echelons of the state machine and local government offer some horrendous examples of people getting hundreds of thousands of pounds in salary. Sunderland’s Chief Executive earns about £600,000 pounds in addition to a pension no doubt and the left wing councils are unsurprisingly the most generous. This outage will have to stop. No one paid directly or indirectly by the taxpayer should have a pensionable salary above £150,000 and no one should earn more than this at the public’s expense, indeed most should earn well below this.
Changing society and making social progress is a slow process, hence the reason the shortest timescale for a Blue Revolution’s radical agenda to transform and increase democracy and make Britain safe for all is thirty years. The reason progress is slow is that we like to adopt the mean, go for the middle, and so extreme views create shift incrementally and only over time does the mean change. It is as with Ukip often quite capable of shifting back too. Hence the current shift back to the 1970’s with both Labour and Conservatives. The 1970’s provides two well known although out of date operating model for both parties which somehow feels wrong to us in the 21st Century.
What is interesting about the Labour approach to economics is how it mirrors the authoritarianism of what one might call capitalism at its worst. With capitalism at its worst, we had the man with the stove pipe hat ordering exploited workers about and then taking the proceeds of their labour as his profit. The reason socialists deride ‘capital’ is that it is the store of value which rightly belongs to the workers but has been appropriated by the capitalist. The structures within which the appropriation takes place are hierarchical, authoritarian and deny the worker a sense of owning the processes of their labour. They are alienated from the production process and therefore alienated from the economy. They, the workers, exist in an economy over which they have no control.
What Corbyn and the Labour party want to do is replace what they believe to be a system which is like this system, with their socialist New Jerusalem. Jeremy Corbyn, Seamus Milne and John McDonnell at the head of a system that takes tax off people and which pays for services and industry. The means by which they will do this are unfortunately hierarchical, authoritarian and deny the worker a sense of owning the processes of their labour as even the poor have to pay tax for this expensive system and will operate in a hierarchy over which they have no control. The reason why the Socialist New Jerusalem is like this is that it takes its inspiration from the old capitalist system it is so quick to condemn. However where the capitalist system has risk and failure built in so that there is a churn in the market generating lower costs to consumers and improved services, in the left’s New Jerusalem the state halts all of this. It takes on ownership of the means of production and the delivery of services but with no functioning market, the whole system becomes atrophied. What also does not change is the hierarchy which has serried ranks of officials and politicians paying themselves tax payers money so they can enhance their personal wealth, payment to them for running the state and its industries. Unfortunately, this mirrors the exploitation of the worker under capitalism.
The bad news for Britain is that the progressive parties are far from progressive and the Conservatives whilst not wanting to re-implement this taxpayer exploiting model don’t do anything to reduce the people’s tax burden. No wonder we feel alienated, frustrated and ill. No one is arguing for us they are all in various ways looking out for themselves, most notably the progressives of the left.
“She’s so 20th century, she’s so 1970’s she knows the right things to say she knows the right clothes to wear coz she’s a modern girl oh yeah”. Bob Geldoff somehow caught the spirit of Mrs May back in 1978 and after the one nation One Show sofa saga it seems opportune to remind ourselves that modern politics is currently being cast in the past, the 1970’s for both Mr Corbyn and Mrs May. We would suggest a little earlier for Mr Corbyn, perhaps 1973 to Mrs Mays 1976. In any event, we are experiencing politics which is clearly forty years out of date. Brexit which should be understood by all as a liberation from the yoke of an oppressive and tax gobbling overlord is seen by many an opportunity to renegotiate on the basis of a 1970’s EEC-type iteration of the EU. Not wholly bad but again a bit 1970’s.
The problem with the EU and its component parts is that it is manifestly inefficient like a middle-aged man living comfortably off a credit card with a huge credit limit but who’s income always seems to fall a little short of expenditure each month “old boy!”. As a result of this predictable long-term terminal decline we have a duty to not just to try to negotiate a safe 1970’s EEC style deal, if indeed we get that, we still might get nothing, but we should also be a critical friend to the countries of the EU. Like the disassociation that exists between the parliamentary system in the UK and the people who pay for, it the EU is not hugely popular with many ordinary Europeans. Like the Brits with Brexit, most EU citizens understand the EU doesn’t pass the sniff test but they are powerless to deal with it as no mainstream party wants to come on board. Like Clegg and Cameron, the mainstream continental parties see the EU as an exciting place to waffle, shuffle paper, and make a lot of money from somewhere. Macron is like that too so all the best to France. So we should stop being so 1970’s in our dealings with the EU and help the EU reach a position of sane self-awareness.
The EU is a continental sized liability a few short watery miles away and we are not living in 1976. The threat of the EU is enormous not as a warrior but as an unstable and unsustainable economic behemoth. A rendering back of power to nations states with an EEC style deal for all of the countries of the EU would at least offer the prospect of a controlled implosion when it finally comes. As it is we are facing at some point the collapse of a bloated arrogant and self-deluded pseudo-nation state with all the horrendous economic and social consequences its collapse will inflict on both them and us.
It is not good being too 1970’s about this, Mrs May needs to understand that it’s not just what you wear and what you say…..it’s what you think that matters and in what decade you think it!!
Theresa May is clearly a good person with a conscience which sees merit in some of the compassionate social policies of the New Labour era. People have grown accustomed to having the state on their side not only establishing a framework in which they can exercise social and economic freedom but also standing up for them at times of fear and hardship. So far so good. The spiteful ‘Old’ Labour idea of squeezing the private sector wealthy as though they were some kind of hideous raptor screwing the country over, whilst allowing the well-heeled public sector elite to up their wages to compensate for higher taxes is outrageous. But politics today is a bit outrageous. So what of the May incursion into the Labour Party ideological heartlands?
Well, Mrs May’s new labour policies reflect the poor state of modern Britain. Elderly people being overlooked by offspring who have been conditioned to think of themselves as economic consumer units rather than social creatures with human obligations towards the young and elderly. Enabling some twisting within the economy to allow the economically active to step out of role seems fair but it will come at a cost. We calculate the cost will be considered justified on the basis that it is cheaper than adult social care. However, people being out of the workplace are a cost to companies and the state, particularly when you have to consider covering their absence with temporary staff and then taking them back later. There is also the problem of the stressed public sector which can’t recruit at the best of times and the sheer grind of coal face work in the public sector making the option of opting out very attractive. Unfortunately, Mrs May’s new labour policies are just more of the state putting a sticking plaster and another expensive one at that on the gaping wound of failed economic and social policies. It very much reflects but in a different way the problem of how to manage the millions of people who now form the second and third generation unemployed ex-industrial and agricultural workers who have been patronised and outrageously labelled the underclass by remote politicians who patch them up with welfare and healthcare, rather than work.
However, there may be a proper solution to these twin problems. How about turning the welfare benefits system into a public wage system and require everyone in the benefits system to work pro rata at the living wage for their welfare. The welfare system was set up when a man (we are talking about 7o years ago) could lose an industrial job and get another one relatively quickly. Now mortgages and debt trap people and the jobs are not going to come back anytime soon. So rather than politicians holding out the forlorn hope of the unemployed moving to another industrial job, why not empower and pay the unemployed to look after their own. Turning the second and third generation unemployed ex-industrial and agricultural workers into the first generation community social workers. We would say that was welfare well spent.
Anyone who has studied economics knows that ‘opportunity cost’ is what you don’t get when you do something. The alternative so to speak. The opportunity cost of a car might be the foreign holiday you can’t have because you have the car. In politics we have reached a point where the left and right unite to maintain the existing political system and the opportunity cost is a democracy and a political system that can encompass all shades of British public opinion and manage it with fairness and transparency.
The reason for this is for us quite simple. Both left and right either don’t recognise that our 19th-century political system was based on an evolving class system which has now ceased to exist in any meaningful sense or they want to protect their own party based model. The party model was always based on power groups who managed as an elite and promoted vested interests. This went on right up to the 1940’s when the Labour party created a post-war political settlement which delivered much-needed welfare to the working classes. This 19th-century model has and always will swap power between two opposing parties and even the hard left would rather see this system continue rather than demand its reform. The best anyone can come up with is reform of the electoral system which will leave the power structures intact and protect the rights of the elites of left and right to govern us as they see fit. Along with them, you have the media also deploying the lazy journalism of the ‘reductive polarity’ so as to reflect the interests of their polarised parliamentary collaborators.
It’s incredible but the left wing really doesn’t get that the way power is delivered and managed in this parliamentary structure and the vested interests whether it is media, money or the Trades Unions that underpin the way power is delivered are holding back the social progress that they claim to want so much. It is baffling too, that the right wing says they want small government and lower taxes whilst continuing to promote as a model for 21st-century democracy an increasingly remote, expensive and unrepresentative political system. Some people might conclude from this we are anti-monarchy, we are not! The Monarch is the only part of this creaking 19th-century system that works and is seen to work by the people. It’s the parliamentary bit that needs change before it goes pop, or the people do!
Why does the Labour party consider Jeremy Corbyn to be a Marxist whilst at the same time viewing Labour left wing manifesto as progressive? Marx was writing in the 19th century and his ideas were mauled by among others Lenin and Stalin before being discredited and flung into the dustbin of history. Had Marx undertaken a review of the Corbyn/Milne agenda he would have called it “vulgar socialism”, redistributive, based on the idea that society comprises those with money (from whom you extract it) and those in need to whom you give it. Marx didn’t say much about what came after this socialist phase, but he did not see it as the final showpiece for his Communist Manifesto. He saw Communism as the “negation of the negation”, something negating socialism, socialism which has itself negated capitalism. So from our perspective, we believe we have had since the end of World War II a credible form of socialism which has progressed fairness and opened up opportunities to working people, now, however, socialism is turning on the people, with taxation, debt and strained public services. Some public sector workers are treated worse than a 19th-century mill worker whoever is in power. All this is going on whilst the socio-industrial model so beloved of the left pays a fortune to the socio-industrial systems least productive tier the chief executives and senior managers.
Socialism whether the modern socio-industrial hybrid we see in the NHS and public sector today or the actual industrial model so beloved of Corbyn is actually counter-revolutionary as well as being counter productive.
Gosh it never ceases to amaze us just how 20th century our politicians are. ‘Cradle to grave wealth redistributive socialism and nationalisation from Labour as the Tories consolidate the middle ground and make it theirs with some post war one nation Conservatism. The dialogue between the two reflects a class war from Labour as the Tories critique tax and spend whilst speaking to the whole nation from the One Show sofa. What is wrong with all this is that it is all so 20th Century. But how so?
Well not only does Macron speak about the failed political system so does Corbyn. In Corbyn and Labours’ case, they are accused of being Marxist, presumably because questioning parliamentarialism’ is the same as revolutionary communism in the minds of some Conservatives. But does Corbyn know this, does he know what parliamentarialism is, does he mean that parliamentarialism is the problem in modern Britain. However whilst policy comes in spade loads, spluttered out all half baked and barely understood by those communicating it, there is no solution offered to the problem of parliamentarialism. And parliamentarialism is a problem. Corbyn’s solution, like Macron’s is simply to get into parliament and to introduce a policy on say tax or nationalisation …..not to change the system.
The British Parliamentary system is a 200-year-old system which was always intended to be a representative model that allowed an ‘elite’ to manage the British nation on behalf of ‘the people’. Of course ‘the people’ were not the rag tag of bonded workers (a legacy of the feudal system) or the emerging proletariat, they would scarcely count as people at all. The people was a combination of the landowners and the emerging capitalist classes who identified with parties who represented them. From the Whig’s and Tories emerged the Liberals and Tories and then Tories and Labour. Each party reflecting the interests of different social ‘classes’ as history marched forward. The problem which 20th century Corbyn doesn’t understand and the Tories ignore is that we are too diverse and the economy too, fragmented to render our existing parliamentary system a good model for running the country. People feel that the ‘state’ and the parliamentary system fails the sniff test because to work a parliamentary system, has to bracket people into groups similar to classes and with modern diversity, people don’t see the full range of their interests or concerns being reflected in policy from either of the main parties, apart from Brexit that is. It gets worse once the party is in parliament due to the party system and the whip taking away the independence politicians should be allowed to have. Their naive, well-intentioned former selves become machined in the party system as a ‘career in politics’ beckons.
The radical solution is the Blue Revolution’s Legislative College. Taking national politics as close to the people as it is democratically possible to do.
Like Trump in the US, Emmanuel Macron sees himself as a visionary, like us starting his own party within the last twelve months. Like Trump, he sees himself as a saviour of the people.
Trump boasted that he was going to give power back to the people. In the nation of ‘pork barrel’ politics, wealthy special interests, not to say the might of the industrial-military establishment and gun lobby amongst other lobbies, Trump’s ambition can only be a hollow promise at best. The problem is that people will remain locked out of the “system” being consumers of policy not producers and beneficiaries of it. The same applies to Macron.
In a statement, Macron claims to be able to “tackle the failed political system” and then comes up with Blairite ‘third way’ policies that will essentially liberalise the labour and financial markets that enable businesses and banks to sell debt and drive consumption to levels that will only be sustained and profitable in the medium term if work is off-shored or undertaken by migrant labour. It will be a consumption revolution but will not become a blue collar revolution, it will simply be another triumph of the state and the states mates, over the individual. The most vulnerable will suffer and then like Blair, Marcon will take to the international ‘hot air circuit’ and bullshit on behalf of the Bilderberg group. What Macron and Trump don’t get is that ‘revolution’ is not about policy but about how the state designs and delivers policy and for both men, the mechanics of the state remain unchanged. Therefore the people will continue to be ‘done to’ rather than being active participants in Blue Revolutionary change.
So what is going to happen in France and should the UK worry. Basically, in our view, there is no change across the channel. The French “Reds” will riot and start fires etc. The whole package of policies will disintegrate under the sheer weight of internal opposition and this will all be happening as Britain is telling the EU that unless we get a good deal from Brexit we will become an offshore tax haven to the collapsing French economy.
Marcon and Trump both elites and with an elite’s vested interests cannot deliver the new democracy and a new post-war, and in the case of Marcon post-EU settlement. They both need to look at the system, but they won’t because the system is why they are where they are!
Sir. Whilst remaining a home seems a sensible thing for 1 million ‘boomerang millennials to do’ given the peculiarities of the modern labour and housing markets we are surprised that there is not more concern about it from the financial services sector. The reason for the silence we believe is that financial services benefit from house price inflation driven by student ‘buy to let’ accommodation, family breakups and mass inward migration. However, unless we create a young well paid private, as opposed to public sector middle class, able afford to buy and rent good housing, who exactly will the financial sector be selling their non-loan and debt based products to in ten or twenty years.
On behalf of ABlueRevolution.Org
Where is the organised and militant if not to say revolutionary industrial working class when you need it? The Labour Party sure as hell would like to find it. However, they are largely responsible for turning the second and third generation of unemployed industrial and agricultural workers into the so-called underclass…a group who lack both a voice and a reputation for militant class rebellion.
This happened because hapless Blair, Brown and Balls “globalised” the British economy exporting jobs to China where there were no trade deals but cheap labour and importing workers from the EU where they would benefit from the Brown welfare reforms of tax credits and “in work benefits” due to EU regulations. The resulting effects were to stimulate the Brexit debate as it became clear that the ex-industrial workers were not finding jobs of equal quality but were being largely overlooked by an economy that could find no useful role for them. The minimum wage didn’t really help. This was intended to “protect” the British workers from the downward pressure on wages that would result from opening up the labour market. It quickly became a maximum wage and with other costs associated with being in work, it deterred British workers from coming off welfare and getting a job.
Any intelligent government would have realised that this worker dislocation should drive policy decisions to correct the effects of globalisation but for Blair, Brown and Co as long as the free market generated tax revenue and these ex-workers could be paid welfare the system was tolerable. The free market was, however, trading in toxicity as became apparent in 2007/08.
The situation has changed little. The ex-industrial and agricultural workers continue to clutter up various public sector waiting rooms and the NHS, producing children with multiple disadvantages, whilst the exporters of their jobs enjoy super-profits that if not tax avoided generates nothing like the tax they should. So who are the revolutionary class now? Well everyone who pays for a Parliamentary system that has failed to reflect the expectations of the people and now simply reflects it’s own need to govern.
The British state and it’s institutions (Parliament, the Law, the military and local government) is bureaucratic slow-witted and out of touch. We have an eighteenth century legal and military system, a nineteenth century parliamentary and penal system and a twentieth-century education and welfare system. In view of this, it is time ordinary taxpayers embarked on a revolution to change for good what the British state does and how it does it and to drive down how much it costs so we can drive down taxation. The industrial workers don’t exist because mass employment in “industry” no longer exists, we have to reflect this in our next revolution by appealing to the new “working class”.