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”.
Let us start with the Conservative Party. Probably the only credible party of government in England and Wales. Whilst the Scots Nats are in Government in Scotland they can hardly be described as credible given their obsession with independence and lack of any grown up economic literacy. An independent Scotland would be bankrupt within five years but Sturgeon and co will have done Ok out of it before the collapse.
The Conservative Party is the party of the Nation State but a Nation State that still reflects the interests of those large corporations that are doing very well living off the fat of the nation’s debt. They can see there are problems with the way the nation operates, but they have no credible solution to solve the problems other than more of what has been tried before. More privatisation, more tax and National Insurance, more attempts by the public sector to cut services as it models itself on the private sector by simply creating more tax payer funded millionaires. The Tories aren’t going to be revolutionary but at least for the time being the engine of the nation state still runs.
The Brexit issue is also a bit toxic as there will be consequences following withdrawal from the EU. We argue these consequences might look bad, falling house prices (won’t that upset the banks), reduction in value of the Pound, and issues around migration. However, these are the issues that drive the debt and house price based economy and as such any change is in the long term going to be positive. The conventional parties will not want to see the economy contract and as now will simply tax us more to make up for reductions in the Governments income. The Tories like the other parties don’t recognise that it is we the people who’s interests they should serve and it is the cost of government, not our services that should be cut. But who is going to do that?
We think the Tories will win the election but with a small majority as now and a mandate to fudge and deplete the terms upon which Britain leaves the EU. Probably a fudge on the Customs Union to keep world trade out of the EU via Britain’s back door. That should keep the EU staffers happy.
Labour are schizophrenic with a Blairite wing who still hanker after the “third way” mumbo jumbo and the “hard left” who hanker after a class war long after the “revolutionary” industrial and agricultural classes ceased to exist in any revolutionary form. They have morphed into the sad spectacle of what is described as the “underclass” the second and third generation unemployed industrial and agricultural workers. A horrible term for a group for whom the Blair “third way” offered the loss of work, family, status, and “self-reliance” and ushered in a life of ignorance and idleness on the dole. Labour have become out of step with all the main constituencies the Blairite middle class will vote Tory or Lib Dem or Green. The inner cities with their “culturally progressively” Labour Party branches will continue to return most Labour MP’s
The Lib Dems all but annihilated in 2015 will make a striking come back with an offer that every well-paid state “staffer”, banker and Remainer will support. The Lib Dems like the Green’s are terribly well intentioned but have no grasp on the realities of how their policies drive an economy to the brink of failure. They like the Green’s and Labour believe in the transformative power of the state, yet experience tells us that the state is incapable of transforming anything because it can’t cut costs and can’t transform itself.
Finally the Green’s and Ukip. The Greens will offer socialism with a solar panel or two. Completely missing the point that the aggregate demand they seek to stimulate through “anti-austerity” simply allows the west to illegitimately gobble up more of the planet than in reality we should be able to afford. They do nothing to challenge the debt based economics that funds our consumption and lifestyles. It is possible the Greens might get a seat or two.
Ukip were a one trick pony. Great trick…..we have seen it now it’s time to **** ***. We don’t anticipate any wins for Ukip, the Tories will keep most of their seats with a bit of shuffling around between the Tories, Labour and Lib Dems. Ukip will experience their first existential crisis.
Sir. The notion that the British left is in any way “progressive” needs to be challenged. They have highjacked the word for too long. Nicola Sturgeon and others are a little like Canut trying to hold back the tide of actual progressive change by defining progress as a retrenchment of costly state and municipal interference in ordinary people’s lives. A culture of dependency on state largess funded by taxpayers and government debt is what is really meant by Sturgeon, Labour the Lib Dems and the Greens as “progressive”. In a world where people increasingly demand freedom and democracy backed by a safe, efficient, cooperative and importantly affordable state, the left is like the bloated capitalists of yesteryear.
Letter to The Spectator Week commencing 10 April 2017
Sir. Ian Acheson’s piece was illuminating, highlighting as it did systemic and managerial failings in the running of British Jails. What baffles us, however, is the notion that there is no effective counter narrative with which to address Islamist ideology. Clearly advocating “British Values” has had limited effect in our culturally neurotic age. However, all democracies that are capitalist in origin, and some that are not, rely to some extent on the principles of contract, choice and consent to underpin their rights and freedoms. Is this not the “ideology” with which to beat the brutal, ignorant and unforgiving Islamist death cult, and re-educate their lost and misguided disciples who are in our prison system. No one should feel any shame promoting consent and choice irrespective of the colour of the person’s skin.
on behalf of ABlueRevolution.com