A significant proportion of Labour MPs are actively seeking to cause their own party to do badly in forthcoming local elections, with the aim of damaging the leader of that party. To that end they have attacked Jeremy Corbyn relentlessly in a six week crescendo, in parliament and in the entirely neo-liberal owned corporate media, over the Skripal case, over Syria, and over crazy allegations of anti-semitism, again and again and again.
I recall reporting on an Uzbek Presidential election where the “opposition” candidate advised voters to vote for President Karimov. When you have senior Labour MPs including John Woodcock, Jess Phillips, John Mann, Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and Ruth Smeeth carrying on a barrage of attacks on their own leader during a campaign, and openly supporting Government positions, British democracy has become completely dysfunctional. No amount of posing with leaflets in their constituencies will disguise what they are doing, and every Labour activist and trade unionist knows it.
British democracy cannot become functional again until Labour voters have a chance to vote for candidates of their party who are not supporters of the neo-liberal establishment. This can only happen by the removal as Labour candidates of a very large number of Labour MPs.
That it is “undemocratic” for party members to select their candidates freely at each election, and it is “democratic” for MP’s to have the guaranteed candidacy for forty years irrespective of their behaviour, is a nonsensical argument, but one to which the neo-liberal media fiercely clings as axiomatic. Meanwhile in the SNP, all MPs have to put themselves forward to party members equally with other candidates for selection at every election. This seems perfectly normal. Indeed every serious democratic system elects people for a fixed term. Labour members do not elect their constituency chairman for life, so why should they elect their parliamentary candidate for life? Why do we keep having general elections rather than voters elect the MP for life?
Election of parliamentary candidates for life is in fact a perfectly ludicrous proposition, but as it is currently vital to attempts to retain undisputed neo-liberal hegemony, anybody who dissents from the idea that candidacy is for life is reviled in the corporate and state media as anti-democratic, whereas the truth is of course the precise opposite.
The election of Jeremy Corbyn to the Labour leadership was a fundamental change in the UK. Previously the choice offered to electors in England and Wales was between two parties with barely distinguishable neo-liberal domestic policies, and barely distinguishable neo-conservative foreign policies. Jeremy Corbyn then erupted onto centre stage from the deepest backbenches, and suddenly democracy appeared to offer people an actual choice. Except that at the centre of power Jeremy did not in fact command his own party, as its MPs were largely from the carefully vetted Progress camp and deeply wedded to neo-conservative foreign policy, including a deep-seated devotion to the interests of the state of Israel as defined by the Israeli settlers and nationalist wing, and almost as strongly wedded to the economic shibboleths of neo-liberalism.
These Labour MPs were, in general, prepared grudgingly to go along with a slightly more social democratic economic policy, but drew the line absolutely at abandoning the neo-conservative foreign policy of their hero Tony Blair. So pro-USA policy, support for bombings and missiles as “liberal intervention” in a Middle Eastern policy firmly aligned to the interests of Israel and against the Palestinians, and support for nuclear weapons and the promotion of arms industry interests through a new cold war against Russia, are the grounds on which they stand the most firmly against their own party leadership – and members. Over these issues, these Labour MPs will support, including with voting in parliament, the Tories any day.
I have never voted Labour. I come from a philosophical viewpoint of the liberal individualist rather than of working class solidarity. Labour support for nuclear weapons and other WMD, in the blinkered interest of the members of the General Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union, is one reason that I could not vote Labour. The other is of course that in many cases, if you vote Labour you are very likely to be sending to parliament an individual who will vote with the Tories to escalate the arms race and conduct dangerous and destructive proxy wars in the Middle East.
There is an excellent article on Another Angry Voice which lists the only 18 MPs who were brave enough to vote against Theresa May’s 2014 Immigration Act, which enshrined dogwhistle racism and the hostile environment policy.
Diane Abbott (Labour)
Jeremy Corbyn (Labour)
Jonathan Edwards (Plaid Cymru)
Mark Lazarowicz (Labour)
John Leech (Liberal Democrat)
Elfyn Llwyd (Plaid Cymru)
Caroline Lucas (Green)
Angus MacNeil (SNP)
Fiona Mactaggart (Labour)
John McDonnell (Labour)
Angus Robertson (SNP)
Dennis Skinner (Labour)
Sarah Teather (Liberal Democrat)
David Ward (Liberal Democrat)
Mike Weir (SNP)
Eilidh Whiteford (SNP)
Hywel Williams (Plaid Cymru)
Pete Wishart (SNP)
5 of the 6 SNP MPs stood against this racism (the sixth was absent) and the current leadership of the Labour Party stood alone against the Blairites and Tories in doing so. The Windrush shame should inspire Labour members to deselect every single one of the Red Tories who failed to vote against that Immigration Act. It is also a measure of the appalling shame of the Liberal Democrats, of whom only three of their sixty odd MPs opposed it, and who consigned themselves to the dustbin of history through Nick Clegg’s gross careerism and right wing principles.
There is more to say though. This vote is testament to the great deal in common which the SNP have with the current Labour leadership (who also personally consistently opposed Trident), as opposed to with the bulk of Labour MPs. Put another way, Corbyn, Abbot and McDonnell have more in common with the SNP than the Blairites. It is also a roll-call of those MPs who have most consistently stood against the appalling slow genocide of the Palestinians. It is astonishing how often that issue is a reliable touchstone of where people stand in modern British politics.
Corbyn’s supporters have slowly gained control of major institutions within the Labour Party. The essential next move is for compulsory re-selection of parliamentary candidates at every election and an organised purge of the Blairites. If the Labour Party does not take that step, I could not in conscience urge anyone to vote for it, even in England, but rather to look very carefully at the actual individual candidates standing and decide who deserves your support.
Is it not strange how the Labour Parliamentary Party is full of right-wingers, who have nothing but contempt for the working class and hate socialism?
If you haven’t noticed the Labour Party is now dominated by the chattering classes of North London rather than the working class and is gaining seats like Kensington and Chelsea while losing Mansfield.
But the candidate in Mansfield, if I recall correctly, was one of the worst of the Labour right. I suspect that contributed more to his loss than Corbyn did.
I agrree with you.British Democracy is dysfunctional. I believe that Jeremy Corbyn’s Real Labour Socialist Party is for true democracy. Based on caring for the many, not the few multi millionaires and Billionaires!.
It’s Hatuey. Unlike your name, mine has deep meaning.
I see the Castro’s era as leaders is coming to an end.
Hurrah the monarchy is dead, long live the one party state. Give me dysfunctional democracy any day.
Is “dysfunctional democracy”! a euphemism for a fascist one-partei state? It should be.
British society is democratic but the state is a fascist excrescence and always has been. No British government has been democratically elected.
This is obvious to me and Momentum just have to pull the pin. There is just no other way to stop this gravy train.
I am so bored with the endless, unproductive, internecine wars inside Labour, and their poor quality as an opposition – which is not just down to those splits, but also the quality of leadership, however decent JC as a man might be. However, we are stuck with this ridiculous two party system, because the system itself has created it. We live in a dysfunctional, unrepresentative democracy, antique, public school style, where parties are given untrammelled power on the back of a minority vote. When you have a compliant, manipulative and oligarch-owned media it just cements the lack of real democracy, and makes it very difficult for any national conversation to exist. Until that changes, it is rather pointless writing long diatribes about Labour or the utterly callous and brutal Tories. It would surely be more productive to focus on that, rather than the inevitable flaws inside parties which are by their nature coalitions. The same arguments will be played out thirty years from now if nothing changes, just a new set of actors.
Do you think America is better for AIPAC?
Thankyou for that complete non-sequitur.
Shall I rephrase – Do you think the average American has benefited from AIPAC? Or is that too complicated as well?
I’m not sure that he was struggling with the complexity…
The voting system is not going to change. But the political choice between the Tories and Corbyn’s Labour is starker than in any European country with a PR system, where coalitions of neoliberal technocrats invariably reign . and where MSM is just as controlled by big money interests. Ireland being the closest example.
Because the tories only need 30 something percent of the overall vote, and the SNP have extinguished Labour in Scotland (and their losses to the tories kept May in office), the electoral arithmetic of this dysfunctional, unrepresentative system makes it near impossible for Labour. Corbyn may have already peaked.
Do you think the average American has benefited from AIPAC? Or is that too complicated as well?
that’s got nothing to do with the labour party in the uk.
“that’s got nothing to do with the labour party in the uk”
If you don’t want AIPAC’s clones to be able to traduce the UK’s major opposition party, with whose policies it seems a majority of UK citizens agree, on the dubious basis of “anti-semitism’ which is in reality simply “anti zionism”, then it is very much the business of the Labour Party and you should make it plain which side of this argument you’re on.
Zionism is a nasty racist right-wing apartheid political philosophy. Some Jewish people espouse this murderous philosophy but if they do, they are no longer able to claim “victimhood” status – they have allied themselves with the murderers.
The reason for the Zionist attacks on the Labour party (with massive assistance from the right-wing media) is to put a stop to a political party which (quite rightly) questions the legitimacy of the Israeli occupation.
Where do you stand?
Come on – someone must have done the sums – can CFI + LFI + ?FI command a parliamentary majority? I’d be interested to know and it’s a SERIOUS question.
Yes Dianne Abbott did them but there seemed to be far too many zeros on the result.
What the hell is CFI?
What the hell is LFI?
What the hell is FI?
In the hope that you’re genuinely unaware –
CFI are the Conservative Friends of Israel
LFI are the Labour Friends of Israel
You missed the question mark –
?FI are any other political party, or country, who may be in the pay of (or may not!) or have otherwise have been suborned by Israel.
«suborned by Israel.»
Not Israel — Likud, a far right extremit party. Israel is a country with christians, muslims, etc, too, and with citizens of a wide spectrum of political opinions. Identiying Likud with Israel is exactly what Likud loves.
British Democracy? Isn’t that a bit like Western Civilisation?
Conservative Friends of Israel claim 80% of Conservative MPs are FOI
330 x 80% = 264
I make that 325-264 = 61 to go. Am I completely on my own here?
I believe LFI have around 60 members, and judging by the Al Jazeeta 3 parter last year, they are actively recruiting young labour activists.
It does make one wonder how much dirt they Israeli’s gave on all their “supporters” in parliament.
If that figure is correct, then we (the British public) have been unwittingly manoevered into a position where a foreign power has waay too much influence in our Parliament.
Hence my previous comment on AIPAC – do we (the punters) really want to go down that road?
ie allegiance to a foreign power that has no borders and knows no law.
We can only wish these Friends of Israel are as effective as The Friends of Afghanistan ,of Syria and Yemen Groups have proved to be.
I wasn’t aware that there were such enteties as the Conservative Friends of Afghanistan/ Syria/Yemen.
Please provide addresses and bank accounts.
Just Brilliant writing Craig.
These Are Very dangerous times..
What you write here is amazing stuff
The War Crimes.. First Good reason for UDI
“… look very carefully at the actual individual candidates standing and decide who deserves your support.”
I agree. I couldn’t with all conscience have voted for a rabid pro-Israeli Zionist at the last election. My vote at that tome was for Corbyn’s policies NOT the neoliberal Zionist candidate:
https://cultureandpolitics.org/2017/05/06/the-reasons-why-i-wont-be-voting-for-labour-candidate-jeremy-newmark-on-june-8/
«I couldn’t with all conscience have voted for a rabid pro-Israeli Zionist at the last election. My vote at that tome was for Corbyn’s policies »
But J Corbyn has been a determined (perhaps not rabid) “pro-Israeli Zionist” for *decades*. He is a strong supporter of Israel, of the right of jews to have a homeland, of jewish culture, of the right of jews everywhere to be treated as normal people and of their right not to be “assimilated”. He even joined 100 practising religious jews for their pass-over meal recently. J Corbyn believes in both parts of the Balfour declation, that is both the first part that says “the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people” and the second part that says “it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country”), which far-right politicians seem to ignore.
You are confusing I suspect “pro-Israeli Zionist” and “likudnik”. Likud is a far-right neocon political party that is widely detested by many israeli citizens and many jews worldwide, and by its attitude that it represents all “good” jews, claims that opposition to its far-right extremist politics is opposition to the rights and survival of Israel and jews, which is tragically a catastrophic and ancient anti-semitic trope or two.
Really, the Neoliberal establishment simply must not allow a Crobin government. This is no surprise to anyone, it is the same old song of antisemitism and soft on the commies…ur I mean the Russians. No doubt it was one of the considerations of the false flags in the UK and Syria that it could be used to make Corbin look weak and a Putin apologist.
The bad news is, of course, that the Empire only needs about a 30-35% approval rate to survive and they easily have that today.
They use these tactics because they are tried ad true.
The Skripal , Syria and antisemitism row is a triple plot to change labours improving fortune under Corbyn . It is not s coincidence and meant to show Corbyn as a weak leader and May as a strong international figure. I hope voters will see through this empty rhetoric.
“strong international figure”
or crazy zionist bitch?
“Scottish Conservative party leader Ruth Davidson has been named by Time magazine on its annual list of the world’s most influential people.”
Jeez oh, Colonel Rape Clause Ruth influential, and I thought Time magazine had a half decent reputation.
Mind you Niall Ferguson gives her a glowing report, says it all really.
One die-hard unionist back slapping another.
http://archive.is/FZfMv
Time Magazine? My, Ruth’s ambitions impress me… not content to merely move to the regional headquarters in Westminster, perhaps she wants to work in the Head Office in Washington? She could run the cake bake sales to raise money for more tomahawks.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHHitXxH-us
Priceless.
I have always advocated a rainbow broad left alliance of radical Labour and Lib Dems, Greens, SNP and Plaid Cymru.
Their programs have much in common and if implemented would result in a complete thrashing for the toxic tories and hopefully a program of deep constitutional and social reform in Great Britain.
There is no plausible alternative!
>
The Lib Dems showed their true colours enforcing austerity.
They are nothing but Torylite.
Lol. Is this a joke? Labour abstained on austerity and cuts, under Corbyn, and in doing so ensured the legislation would be implemented. Where the hell have you people been for the last 3 years?
They abstained in July 2015, shortly before the leadership election when Corbyn became leader, when Harriet Harman was acting as interim leader – though jeremy Corbyn himself voted against the austerity cuts. probably one of the reasons he won the election, when none of the other candidates (who all abstained) seemed to be offering anything different from the Tories. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/these-are-the-184-labour-mps-who-didn-t-vote-against-the-tories-welfare-bill-10404831.html
That’s right, I stand corrected. Although to be honest I stopped paying attention to the charade long ago.
Does anyone know what the Labour position on trident renewal is?
Hatuey
21:52
Lol! Is this a joke? . . . Where the hell have you people been for the last 3 years?”
_ _ _
23:24
“to be honest I stopped paying attention to the charade long ago”
Surely some mistake?
Dear oh dear. Please stop yourself.
I think some of you guys sorely missed the point. I am not including mainstream Labour and Lib Dems. My ‘radical’ adjective qualified both of them!
>
It took me awhile but several years ago the scales fell off and I saw what the party I always voted for had become under Blair – Tories in Red.
As a friend pointed out to me, far from being infiltrated by the far left, NuLabour was taken over almost completely from the Right.
Crobyn is Labours (and the countries’) last hope of escaping the Neocons and the increasing and inevitable inequality it brings. He has my support.
Thanks for an excellent article Craig
Tomorrow is – world police twitterthon day – can’t wait!!
Nottingham East ought to deselect Chris Leslie. He uses a super-safe seat to snipe at the leader. Disgraceful.
Several other “centrist” party entrysts have been gifted by P Mandelson super-safe seats they have no connection to; for example famously Tristram Hunt, self-declared London-based champion of the “aspirational voters who shop at John Lewis and Waitrose, was gifted the “left behind” seat of Stoke Central, in an area without any John Lewis or Waitrose as it is not affluent enough. In some cases the mandelsonian entrysts deselected existing MPs to replace them with ““quasi-Conservative” ones.
PS credible reports however show that T Hunt worked hard for his constituents despite his elitism, and in speech leaving the Commons he acknowledged that places like Stoke and Cambridge can have very different issues.
I recognise what is wrong, what has been nagging me reading these comments.
Put down your toys folks and listen. You’re all deluding yourselves. Sorry to piss on your merry parade.
This state and this state of affairs and all its evils cannot be reformed, the rot is so endemic, there is no incremental change, no simply changing the personnel, no little tweak here little tweak there that will make the slightest difference. Rather like with the BBC for example, many would agree, there is nothing that can be done with it short of destroying, tearing asunder the whole thing and starting again, likewise with this United Kingdom, this global order, it is going to take a cataclysmic event, smoking ruins and body counts in billions, to effect anything like the change required, to start over with a clean sheet with not a vestige left of what had been before. And it wouldn’t be long before the iniquities began all over again, human-beings themselves you see are the problem.
As you were then, but it won’t do any good.
.
Tony M, I fear you are right, but we must have hope, albeit a tiny bit of, that we can change things. I strongly suspect we need 10m British nationals on the street for a small scale revolution. I’d joint i.
All three Plaid Cymru MPs voted against the bill, i.e. 100% of them at the time, compared with only 80% of the SNP MPs. Yet there is no mention of them in the narrative above. Does being a small nation make us invisible? (Is it also acceptable that the current English rugby coach racially abuses us, and gets away with it, while the people who “abused” him ended up in court?) Yet we are lumped together with England in you article.
Good on Plaid, but you can forgive Eddie he is from the plain and very non PC speaking continent of Oz and he has the difficult task, after his Japanese glory years, of managing a not very good team.
Totally agree.
Plaid Cymru deserve a much higher rating and greater coverage than they actually get.
LAUGH? – I nearly soiled myself! http://theduran.com/oops-two-unexploded-cruise-missiles-delivered-to-russia-from-syria/
Why can’t our Labour comrades in these constituents be informed who these rebel MPs are and then get the members to lobby their MPs. Supposedly that is undemocratic.
No – it’s perfectly democratic and very much needs to be done. Only problem is the constituents can’t easily and immediately get rid of said MPs. Someone who knows more than I will be along shortly to explain.
This may not be a great moral point, but my vanity and pride take umbrage at being mistaken for a pea brain vegetable and at all of us being mistaken for brain dead tax paying passive zombies.
Was there ever a time when British democracy was functional?
Probably more accurate to say that the semblance of democracy has completely eroded.
What I find most disgusting about British politics right now is the Tories’ gross abuse of history and all those who have suffered from the pain of antisemitism. I find it remarkable that the Tory party and its press can keep throwing these totally baseless accusations of antisemitism at Labour. It strikes me that they are so desperate at the moment to sling mud. The Tories seem to think it is okay to aid and abet mass murder and genocide but not okay to criticise a nation-state.
What is perhaps sadder, though, is that there are people actually believing the Tory propaganda.
If only someone would open their eyes. But I fear that, if you are black or brown, that is somehow less important. For some reason, the British are selective about whose feelings are important, and whose aren’t important. We are okay with all sorts of racism (and institutional racism runs right through British culture), but we need to call out antisemitism every time someone vents a criticism of the heinous practices of the Israeli state.
«senior Labour MPs including John Woodcock, Jess Phillips, John Mann, Luciana Berger, Mike Gapes, Wes Streeting and Ruth Smeeth carrying on a barrage of attacks on their own leader during a campaign, and openly supporting Government positions»
Now “Have I Got News For You!”, those regard themselves as members of the Conservative Progress or Democratic Liberal (or whatever other label of the day) party, and are just guests of Labour. This is strikingly obvious from the signatories of the Early Day Motion 1071 of March 13th:
https://www.parliament.uk/edm/2017-19/1071
“RUSSIA’S POISONING OF SERGEI AND YULIA SKRIPAL …
That this House unequivocally accepts the Russian state’s culpability for the poisoning of Yulia and Sergei Skripal in Salisbury using the illegal novichok nerve agent”
That motion was in practice a roll call of the future members of the new “centrist” (right-wing) party, as obvious from the name ans their current guest parties: 1 DUP, 1 Conservative, 3 SNP, 9 LibDems, 36 New Labour. In particular note there is only one Conservative MP, even if the motion is entirely pro-Conservative, and of the LibDems 3 are missing and one of them is the leader, Vince Cable, who is totally aligned with the Conservatives as to “the Russian state’s culpability”, but is also against the creation of a new “centrist” party because obviously it would replace the LibDems.
As to “centrist” really meaning “right-wing, here is a quote from the diary (1999-10-19) of Lance Price (Alasdair Campbell’s deputy spin doctor) as to what the principals themselves saw it:
And here is a chart of how a bunch of academics who track the political positioning of UK parties see the evolution of that positioning, including that of the “quasi-Conservatives”, across the past few decades:
https://www.politicalcompass.org/uk2017#ukhistorical
https://youtu.be/Jxs53OqAkN8
Former UK Ambassador to Syria: Douma Chemical Attack is staged
Wow, thanks JJ.
Peter Ford joins Craig, Lord West and Major General Shaw as having that rare combination of guts and brains.
Incidentally, when we talk of someone having backbone it means they have a quality that joins their guts and brains, literally and metaphorically.
«I come from a philosophical viewpoint of the liberal individualist rather than of working class solidarity.»
Perhaps reconsider: Labour has always been a coalition of whigs like you and socialdemocrats, and its policies can be described in a “liberal individualist” way rather than one of “working class solidarity”: that is, its socialdemocratic and liberal policies are about insurance rather than solidarity, that is the state is a voluntary (you can emigrate) group-purchase set of insurance pools, one of which is insurance against being born or becoming poor.
Consider the NHS, created by a Liberal: it insures members not just against the costs of treating illness, but also against the risk of being too poor to pay the insurance premium for that. It does this by charging not a premium to members, but one proportional to income — note “income”, not identity or status. This means that someone on £10,000 a year pays around £800 a year for the same illness cost insurance (which has an average cost of around £3,500 per year) that someone on $100,000 a year pays £8,000 for, but that is not “working class solidarity”, it includes insurance against the £100,000 a year member becoming at some point a member earning £10,000 a year.
That socialdemocratic policies include that extremely valuable insurance is a big enabler for a “liberal individualist” preference, because it makes “liberal individualism” far less risky and is far more affordable than self-insurance and it is indeed voluntary (emigration is possible). The idea is “liberal individualism” is not just for “gentlefolk of independent means”, who can afford to self-insure, but also for average workers.
«Labour support for nuclear weapons and other WMD, in the blinkered interest of the members of the General Municipal and Boilermakers’ Union, is one reason that I could not vote Labour»
If that is an ethical position fine, but as a political position it is not: Labour’s current position is more motivated by geopolitical considerations than protecting GMBU members, which could be given other options for well paid and secure jobs. Consider J Corbyn’s way to square the circle: he is for keeping the WMD but also never using them.
Curiously Tony Blair of all people had pretty much the same opinion:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/Jeremy_Corbyn/12127403/If-Jeremy-Corbyn-were-a-proper-politician-heres-what-hed-be-saying-about-Trident.html
«”The expense is huge, and the utility in a post-Cold War world is less in terms of deterrence, and non-existent in terms of military use. Spend the money on more helicopters, airlift and anti-terror equipment? Not a daft notion. In the situations British forces would likely be called upon to fight, it was pretty clear what mattered most.
It is true that it is frankly inconceivable we would use our nuclear deterrent alone, without the US”»
«by charging not a premium to members, but one proportional to income»
I meant “not a [fixed] premium”.
« (which has an average cost of around £3,500 per year) that someone on $100,000 a year pays £8,000 for, but that is not “working class solidarity»
That is the extra £4,500 that the £100,000 earner pays in excess of the average cost is not “working class solidarity”, but a premium against becoming a £10,000 earner and then being unable to pay that £3,500 average cost.
It would be redistribution, that is “working class solidarity” if someone had to pay £8,000 a year regardless of income (for example for being “posh” in an “ethnic” sense) and someone else £800 a year again regardless of income (for example for being “working class” in an “ethnic” sense). But that’s not how liberal socialdemocracy works.
Blissex, it’s not often that I read a comment on here more than once. I’m flabbergasted. I think what you say is actually more relevant to students of psychology rather than students of politics.
And in amongst all your careful consideration you say this: “the state is a voluntary (you can emigrate)…”
It reminds me of something Sartre said about how we choose everything, even the way we look, right down to the shape of our very noses — if we don’t like the way we look we can always rope ourselves…
Hmmmmmmm.
The stuff you say about Trident is interesting because unlike everything else you say it reeks of outright deception rather than self-deception. The English are keen on Trident because it makes them feel important in a world that knows they are unimportant. And there’s probably a juicy contract there for one of the many high street vendors who supply nukes too.
The stuff you say about liberal individualism and socialism makes me cringe. It’s really silly. If you were a real intellectual you’d know that there were more pressing issues.
«And in amongst all your careful consideration you say this: “the state is a voluntary (you can emigrate)»
That’s entirely relevant to “liberal individualism” as opposed to “working class solidarity”: it is about “taking personal responsibility”. Not for nothing “liberal individualism” is globalist and cosmopolitan: if you don’t like a community, choosing another is a fundamental right of “liberal individualists”.
«there were more pressing issues.»
Take that up with our blogger: it was him that was objecting to Labour because of “liberal individualism”. I was just trying to show that Labour is *compatible* with a certain understanding of liberal individualism. I am sorry that is not your priority, but then this is not your blog either.
It’s clear that you speak of Labour from a sympathetic viewpoint and I’d say that you think their brand of socialism is compatible not only with socialist ideals but classical liberal ideals too. The truth is that Labour offers nothing to either of those groups except as a sort of accident.
The primary characteristic of the UK system is basically a sort of corrupt cronyism. It always was and it certainly didn’t change in the heyday of public ownership when Labour played a more central part in things. That won’t change under Corbyn.
England will have a chance at reform when Scotland goes. It won’t happen over night but people in England will look North some day at a vibrant and rejuvenated social democratic system and demand the same.
Then, without the cloak of Britannia, they will see exactly who stands between them and a prosperous and peaceful life which is really what all people want.
No good rearranging the deck chairs at this stage. We already live in Mussolini’s corporate state !
https://www.buzzfeed.com/heidiblake/uk-refused-to-raid-lycamobile-citing-its-tory-donations?utm_term=.dvdOz2LREN#.igK35EgyML
My socialist support for the working man is horribly tempered by the “never had it so good” of the GMBU. I’m fascinated by the idea that the possibility of nuclear warfare and the demise of our lovely little blue-green planet can be justified by an above-average wage packet and the abandonment of other workers below yourself in the pay scale. These bastards are exactly the same animal as the politicians who used free education to help them on their way up and then, kicked the ladder out from behind them.
I can relate to kicking that ladder though. There’s a good case for keeping as many people as dumb as possible. I think the more educated people get, the more selfish and greedy they get. I’ve also noticed that a lot of the people who claim to be environmentalists are educated and they have huge carbon footprints.
All dysfunctional democracies are dysfunctional in their own way, while every functional democracy is functional in the same way.
Coming from an American fan of Tolstoy.
In the hope that you’re genuinely unaware –
CFI are the Conservative Friends of Israel
LFI are the Labour Friends of Israel
You missed the question mark –
?FI are any other political party, or country, who may be in the pay of (or may not!) or have otherwise have been suborned by Israel.