Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Boris Johnson and Rees Mogg, Stalin and Grenfell Tower, UK National Populists Borrow from US Trump Right.

with 22 comments

Image may contain: Andrew Coates

British National Populists Borrowing US Hard Right Propaganda Tactics.

Even the centre left find this pile of gobshite too much.

Meanwhile the Rees Mogg saga continues.

He’s found an ardent defender in the Red-Brown ex-Revolutionary Communist Party.

Image

 

Jacob Rees-Mogg is right about Grenfell

It’s the ghoulish, Grenfell-exploiting offence-takers who are behaving immorally.

Once again the leftish middle classes are exploiting the dead of Grenfell to score political points, and I say that is far more repulsive than what Rees-Mogg said on the radio this morning.

Some people might say that Johnson’s exploitation of Stalin’s victims to make a cheap political point about Jeremy Corbyn is ghoulish and immoral.

Both the red-brown national populists of Spiked and the Tories seem to have borrowed from the US hard right.

As in this (Kentucky election poster).

 

Image may contain: one or more people and text

How it worked!

 

 

 

22 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. Actually, a few weeks ago, when me and my family were discussing it, we all agreed that if we were in a building that was on fire, then, whatever the Fire Service said, we would get out as soon as possible. In fact, it used to be the Fire Service advice that if you had a house fire, you should get out and call them, rather than trying to fight it yourself.

    So, I suppose I couldn’t criticise Mogg on this occasion for coming to the same conclusion that me and my family had ourselves arrived at in considering the situation.

    Boffy

    November 6, 2019 at 2:09 pm

  2. The problem is that a high rise building is not a two-up-two-down structure. It is rather more complicated and if you are on the 23rd floor, it’s a bloody long way to the ground and you do not know what conditions you will encounter on the way down. The other problem was ( as I understand it) that the external combustible cladding went up extremely unexpectedly and quickly. Unforeseen by the Fire Service, rightly or wrongly. It was a bloody heartless and snobbish thing for Rees-mogg to say.

    Sue r

    November 7, 2019 at 12:10 am

  3. Would you believe it?

    “Ex-Labour MP Ian Austin: ‘Vote for Boris Johnson’

    Former Labour MP Ian Austin has said Jeremy Corbyn is “completely unfit to lead our country”.

    Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, he said Labour voters “should be voting for Boris Johnson in this election”.

    Mr Austin quit Labour and became an independent MP in February. He has said he won’t stand at the upcoming election.”

    https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/uk-politics-50329427/ex-labour-mp-ian-austin-vote-for-boris-johnson

    Emma

    November 7, 2019 at 8:53 am

  4. As Sue points out, High Rises have stairs and from the top floors to the ground floor is a long way.

    Not everybody would be in a condition, physically or otherwise to run down the stairs and leave.

    AS any reasonable person can imagine.

    I’ve been in High Rises where you feel the only people who’ve ever been on the stairs up and down to the top are maintenance workers.

    Andrew Coates

    November 7, 2019 at 11:05 am

  5. Tory MP Andrew Bridgen appeared to suggest Jacob Rees-Mogg was cleverer than those who died in the Grenfell Tower fire during an exchange with BBC Radio 4’s PM presenter, Evan Davis.

    Asked whether the cabinet minister meant to say he would have left the flats against official advice, Bridgen said: ‘Yes, that’s what he meant to say.’

    Davis responded: ‘But in a way that is exactly what people object to, because he is, in effect, saying: I wouldn’t have died because I would have been cleverer than the people who took the fire brigade’s advice.’ Bridgen said: ‘But we want very clever people running the country, don’t we Evan? … That’s a byproduct of what Jacob is that’s why he is in a position of authority.’

    Source: BBC Radio 4 PM Show

    https://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2019/nov/05/jacob-rees-mogg-is-cleverer-than-grenfell-tower-residents-tory-mp-suggests-video?CMP=share_btn_fb&fbclid=IwAR00Y-Y7jrhwbmRyuBFhVcyWUCD6HwQsnn2evIXTyhXIDRiKzKNGKt1qWis

    Andrew Coates

    November 7, 2019 at 11:25 am

  6. In cinema fires you find that more people are killed by the stampede on the way out than by the fire. There may be an element of that to it. But would you really sit high up in a burning building knowing that you could well end up trapped with no escape from the burning flames expect from jumping to a certain death? Would you not at least check out the situation and investigate if there was a viable escape route to safety? Would you really listen to ‘authority’ i.e. the fire brigade, police, army? Do you really trust ‘authority’? Surely you and your family’s safety would be paramount? I am finding it hard to criticise Jacob Rees-Mogg on this one. It is more like criticism for criticism’s sake. At least his remarks have caused us to consider what we would do in similar circumstances.

    Ms Brown

    November 7, 2019 at 11:27 am

  7. Wouldn’t it have been commonsense not to use a highly inflammable material as cladding?

    Sue r

    November 7, 2019 at 5:17 pm

  8. My further comment on this seems to have disappeared, but while I’m at it, the last couple of days seem to have thrown up another point. Having criticised Rees-Mogg, we now find a whole host of candidates being faced with calls for them to stand down for comments they have made at some point. Why on Earth does anyone use Twitter?

    At this rate, by the end of five weeks there will be no candidates from any party left, because there will always be some comment that someone from another party can dig out that can be interpreted as being offensive to someone. Someone suggested that all candidates should just apologise now, and stand down so as to save time waiting for that to happen! The English language is being dumbed down and neutered in the same way that centrism did to politics itself over the last twenty years.

    On a further point on fires and high rises and so on, its not a matter of saying you are smarter than anyone else. When me and my wife stayed in a high rise hotel, the first thing we did was to consider exit options in the event of such emergencies. But that kind of considering consequences seems to be something that people have been encouraged to ignore. It is the consequence of liberal welfarism that says don’t bother considering the consequences of your actions, because someone else (usually the state) will bail you out if you do something stupid, or feckless.

    Its the opposite of the kind of self-reliance, self-activity, and self-government that Marx and other earlier socialists sought to build in the working-class so as to prepare them for becoming the ruling class. Today, I’ve seen the regular occurrence of people facing their new homes being flooded in South Yorkshire. Of course, no one bothered to consider whether it was a good idea to buy a new house in a flood plain, right by a river that flooded as recently as 2007!

    Boffy

    November 8, 2019 at 1:25 pm

  9. To answer your question, Boffy, it is mad, deranged people who use Twitter. The tragedy is that these crazies influence and indeed set government policy; free speech is stiffed; people lose their jobs/careers over some ‘Twitterstorm’ And at at the end of the day Twitter is only a frigging website. A website!

    It is beyond human wit to say something that when it enters the public domain someone, somewhere cannot misconstrue, misinterpret, or be offended by. Nobody has such an exact, measured way of speaking – not even Jabob Rees- Mogg.

    Bunty

    November 8, 2019 at 1:57 pm

  10. Boffy should rename himself ‘blimpy’. I thought he was an economist, then he should have an appreciation of the causes of people’s economic choices. There’s a part in Upton Sinclair’s ‘The Jungle’ where he describes a street built on a site of toxic land (I forget the reason why) and one family after another succumbs to fatal infections and, yet, the local landlords have a steady stream of people prepared to take the risk of living there. Free and rational choices depend on people being equal in bargaining power. By all means suggest self help, but such things don’t arise from nowhere.

    Sue r

    November 8, 2019 at 9:01 pm

  11. People who are desperate for a roof over their head, and who have to accept a bed and breakfast, or inadequate private tenancies, is not at all the same as people buying brand new, and expensive housing next to a river, because they like the outlook on a bright and sunny Summer’s day, and don’t bother to consider what happens when the river floods!

    There was an example a couple of years ago, where a new hospital was built with the Operating Theatre built actually on top of a stream! What is your excuse for that one?

    Or take some of the examples recently of single parents who have chosen to have additional children, and expect the rest of us to pay for them.

    In The Critique of The Gotha Programme, this is what Marx says about that, even in relation to the first stage of Communism. He points out that each worker would be paid according to the amount of labour they contribute to society, and that this would necessarily result in inequality, precisely because not all workers are the same, some can work for longer, are stronger and so on, but that also some have greater needs, such as having children,

    “but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby..”

    Marx did not see any reason, even under communism, why one worker should have to compensate another for the decisions they made, such as how many children they chose to have. Even less would he have seen why I should compensate someone who chooses to buy a brand new house in a flood plain, rather than rent or buy one not in a flood plain, when that house gets flooded. If Marx didn’t think workers could be expected to do that under Communism, why on Earth do you think they should do it under the “economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned” by capitalism?

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 12:02 pm

  12. People who are desperate for a roof over their head, and who have to accept a bed and breakfast, or inadequate private tenancies, is not at all the same as people buying brand new, and expensive housing next to a river, because they like the outlook on a bright and sunny Summer’s day, and don’t bother to consider what happens when the river floods!

    There was an example a couple of years ago, where a new hospital was built with the Operating Theatre built actually on top of a stream! What is your excuse for that one?

    Or take some of the examples recently of single parents who have chosen to have additional children, and expect the rest of us to pay for them.

    In The Critique of The Gotha Programme, this is what Marx says about that, even in relation to the first stage of Communism. He points out that each worker would be paid according to the amount of labour they contribute to society, and that this would necessarily result in inequality, precisely because not all workers are the same, some can work for longer, are stronger and so on, but that also some have greater needs, such as having children,

    “but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby..”

    Marx did not see any reason, even under communism, why one worker should have to compensate another for the decisions they made, such as how many children they chose to have. Even less would he have seen why I should compensate someone who chooses to buy a brand new house in a flood plain, rather than rent or buy one not in a flood plain, when that house gets flooded. If Marx didn’t think workers could be expected to do that under Communism, why on Earth do you think they should do it under the “economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned” by capitalism?

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 12:03 pm

  13. Sue,

    I have replied to you, but again my comment has not appeared. I may post it on my blog if it does not materialise.

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 12:06 pm

  14. Odd now that my comment pointing out that my actual reply didn’t appear, whilst the actual reply still has not appeared, as well as the comment I submitted a couple of days ago. Perhaps this is a bit like what happened with Keir Starmer’s GMTV reply to Peirs Morgan, as edited by the Tories!

    I would ask, whether you think that given we can never know what factors influence people’s choices, whether then you think it is perfectly fine for shareholders in the banks to have been compensated for their choices, when the banks went bust?

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 12:39 pm

  15. If not, why not. If I gamble, £300,000 on buying a new house in a flood plain, how is this different from gambling say £20,000 on buying RBS shares in 2007, in the hope of providing for your retirement?

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 12:41 pm

  16. Back in the days of the property boom shady companies such as ‘Inside Track’ were mushrooming. These facilitated ‘investors’ to ‘flip’ (quickly by and sell) ‘off-plan’ (not yet built) properties in the UK and abroad in the hope of a quick buck. Eventually it all went tits up and these dodgy business all ‘dissolved’. It was then that these greedy speculators had the gall to demand a government ‘bail-out’.

    You gamble, you win, you laugh because you ‘took the risk’. And if you lose, well, there is always a government ‘bail-out’. Is this really what it has come to?

    Angela

    November 9, 2019 at 1:01 pm

  17. As a few comments have now appeared, let’s ry again with my last unpublished comment.

    People who are desperate for a roof over their head, and who have to accept a bed and breakfast, or inadequate private tenancies, is not at all the same as people buying brand new, and expensive housing next to a river, because they like the outlook on a bright and sunny Summer’s day, and don’t bother to consider what happens when the river floods!

    There was an example a couple of years ago, where a new hospital was built with the Operating Theatre built actually on top of a stream! What is your excuse for that one?

    Or take some of the examples recently of single parents who have chosen to have additional children, and expect the rest of us to pay for them.

    In The Critique of The Gotha Programme, this is what Marx says about that, even in relation to the first stage of Communism. He points out that each worker would be paid according to the amount of labour they contribute to society, and that this would necessarily result in inequality, precisely because not all workers are the same, some can work for longer, are stronger and so on, but that also some have greater needs, such as having children,

    “but unequal individuals (and they would not be different individuals if they were not unequal) are measurable only by an equal standard insofar as they are brought under an equal point of view, are taken from one definite side only – for instance, in the present case, are regarded only as workers and nothing more is seen in them, everything else being ignored. Further, one worker is married, another is not; one has more children than another, and so on and so forth. Thus, with an equal performance of labor, and hence an equal in the social consumption fund, one will in fact receive more than another, one will be richer than another, and so on. To avoid all these defects, right, instead of being equal, would have to be unequal.

    But these defects are inevitable in the first phase of communist society as it is when it has just emerged after prolonged birth pangs from capitalist society. Right can never be higher than the economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned thereby..”

    Marx did not see any reason, even under communism, why one worker should have to compensate another for the decisions they made, such as how many children they chose to have. Even less would he have seen why I should compensate someone who chooses to buy a brand new house in a flood plain, rather than rent or buy one not in a flood plain, when that house gets flooded. If Marx didn’t think workers could be expected to do that under Communism, why on Earth do you think they should do it under the “economic structure of society and its cultural development conditioned” by capitalism?

    Boffy

    November 9, 2019 at 1:48 pm

  18. Firstly, let me say, silly Northerns living in places like Sheffield which are known to be prone to flooding. Surely it ‘s a case of ‘Let them eat cake’ if they dare to complain. They chose to live in uninsurable properties so they can hardly complain when the inevitable happens. Unlike the nice, wise shareholders who were tricked into handing their hard wonky cash over to shyster banks, all run by Zionists no doubt. To be serious for a moment, one ought (moral term there) to distinguish between different types of goods. Assuming those people living in tower blocks are proletarian (no doubt some are better off than others but we an assume that none of those living inGrenfell Tower ever featured on the rich list) then housing is a social necesscity which they have no choice about spending their money on; the investor who loses money in a bank crash or a company going into administration has a choice over taking a risk.

    Sue r

    November 9, 2019 at 4:50 pm

  19. Boffy: Hark to yersen. As a matter of fact, I agree totally about some people taking more out of the pot than others for very little social contribution, but that is drifting a long way from the question of whether the inhabitants of Grenfall tower (some of whom may have endured horrific journeys to reach this country) lacked naunce. I remember that first accounts of the fire reported that the tenants had been phoned by the Fire Brigade, and told to stay put. The man, whose fridge started it all, meanwhile had skedaddled. As for people buying houses on flood plains in order to flip them, I’m not a financial expert but common sense tells me that one would need to sell it on quickly to realise a profit, so that it would not experience a flood event, and that the buck would eventually stop with someone who wants a home.

    Near where I live is a housing development that was built on the site of an old ordinance factory (Enfield Lock) as the soil is contaminated with heavy metals, an impermabe layer and a foot of topsoil was laid down. People who buy houses there must agree not to dig more than a foot down. A couple of years ago there was a spate of illnesses associated with these chemicals. Whose fault was it. The people who breached the conditions of their contract of sale or the property company for not clearing the land properly.

    Are you suggesting that Max was against improvements in factory conditions?

    Incidentally, my husband and daughter actually went to the recording of ‘Have I Got News For You’ that showed that clip. Sheer coincidence. They said the programme also played a clip of Susannah Reid asking Keira Starmer the same question and that was even more telling. As you yourself have pointed out, it is a nonsensical policy. The idea they will devote time and effort to drafting a deal, but then not recommend people to vote for it, instead take a ‘neutral’ stance.

    Sue r

    November 10, 2019 at 12:18 pm

  20. Sue,

    I have too many things to do to continue this discussion, but let me make the following points.

    Your argument rests on equating the choice of people to buy a £200-300,000 brand new house in a flood plain, with the choice of someone who is desperate for somewhere to live, having to accept terrible living conditions! Surely, you can see that these two things are not at all equivalent, any more than is the choice of someone desperate to provide for their pension, when savings rate are negative in real terms, who decides to speculate on buying a buy to let property, or who speculated in buying RBS shares.

    And, in fact, all of these things are connected. Who do you think is really being bailed out when the owners of those new homes on flood plains get bailed out by the state? It is the builders who built those houses in the first place, who can feel free to go and build further houses in flood plains, sure in the knowledge that people will buy them at the inflated prices, because they, in turn, can rely on the state bailing them out for having made that reckless decision! This is what always happens with bubbles? prices get inflated to ridiculously high levels, and in order to take part in the speculation, people buy all sorts of crap at inflated prices. Do, you think that if house prices crash by 60%, for example, that everyone should be compensated by the state, so that all those people living in Grenfell, or on Council estates, or in private rented property, pay to compensate the owners of expensive, astronomically inflated houses, via their taxes?

    And, if so, where does that end? If I am absolutely desperate, and so resort to other forms of gambling such as buying scratch cards, which I pay for by getting instant online cash from pay day lenders, should the taxpayer also compensate me for the inevitable losses I suffer, when I don’t win on that gamble? If so, shouldn’t the state have the right to take all of my winnings, in the most unlikely event that I hit the jackpot?

    What kind of irrational behaviour doe this encourage, do you think, and what does it have to do with socialism, let alone Marxism.

    Moreover, you don’t seem to understand that the main reason that a large number of people are forced into private renting, and of those a significant proportion are forced into substandard accommodation is directly linked to bailing out those that have gambled on making big bucks by buying houses in flood plains and elsewhere. In the 1980’s, Thatcher deregulated financial markets, including the provision of credit for everything including mortgages. It facilitated an already inflated asset price bubble, as rising rates of profit caused global interest rates to fall. When in 1987, this bubble burst, governments bailed out the speculators by slashing official interest rates, and printing money. They have done the same thing ever since, including after 2008.

    It is that inflation of asset prices that on the one hand pushed the price of houses to levels that an increasing number of people cannot afford to pay, sending them into privately renting, including in places like Grenfell. At the same time, it meant that those with available cash could speculate in buying up an increasing number of houses for buy to let. I have just bought a 14 yer old house, on a small estate where the houses are priced at about double the average for North Staffordshire. Yet, on my estimation, about 25% of the houses on the estate are buy to let properties. The reason for high house prices is NOT shortage of supply. There are 50% more homes today per capital, than there was in the 1970’s, and new home building has exceeded new household formation in every year since that time. The cause of high house prices is inflated demand due to speculation, and those inflated prices have caused land prices to be astronomically inflated too, to around 70% the cost of building a new house, which makes it very hard to produce new houses on a mass scale at prices that would be both affordable for buyers, and profitable for builders.

    The speculation that drives those house prices higher, is the same speculation that drives the prices of shares and bonds higher, and it is driven by the fact that the speculators know that when bubbles burst, when the consequences of reckless choices are made, the state will be their to socialise the losses, whilst not socialising the gains. The resident of Grenfell does not get any gain from the pleasant surroundings that the speculator in a riverside, luxury development enjoys on a Summer Day, nor from the capital gain tht the owner of such a property obtains from ever inflating property prices. But, they do have to pay the cost of bailing out the latter, from their taxes, to compensate them for flood damage, or in the austerity measures introduced to cove the cost of bailing out the speculators, and to keep interest rates low, so as to again inflate those asset prices. They do have to bear the cost of artificially low interest rates on their savings, and of being squeezed out of the property market, by the inflated house prices that leads to.

    If you have compassion for the people of Grenfell, and their plight due to their situation, you should stop supporting the bailing out of people who make reckless choices that amount to speculation for their own personal gain, and which by encouraging such behaviour, necessarily damage those who do not make such reckless choices either because they are unable to engage in such speculation, or because they have more sense than to do so.

    Incidentally, the same argument can be made about pension. The reason we have pension black holes is not thaat people are living longer, and other such nonsense, but that the massive inflation of asset prices in the 1980’s, 90’s and 2000’s, have meant that the monthly contributions of workers and employers buy only a small fraction of the shares and bonds they did in the 1970’s, so that the capital base of the fund does not grow adequately to cover future liabilities.

    Boffy

    November 10, 2019 at 2:37 pm

  21. Very true, high house prices/homelessness have nothing to do with a SHORTAGE of housing. And neither do foodbanks have anything to do with a SHORTAGE of food.

    Felicity

    November 10, 2019 at 3:00 pm

  22. I think you are hard of reading, ‘Boffy’ ( Samuel Smiles) you do nothing but mischaracterise my argument. Ni am not discussing whether it is right that speculators should draw on the state’s coffers to bail them out, I am/was merely responding to whether it was fair to say that the inhabitants of Frenfell were too stupid to save themselves. I just don’t believe for all York bluster you have ever spent time in a high rise or mixed with people who live in them. I repeat the inhabitants were told NOT to evacuate, that the cladding burned so unexpectedly ferociously and the Tories are contemptuous of working people. Personally, I would have thought these were all fairly no contentious opinions. But, if you know better.

    Sue r

    November 10, 2019 at 3:51 pm


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: