Tendance Coatesy

Left Socialist Blog

Posts Tagged ‘Conservative Party

Alt-Right Ipswich Tory MP Tom Hunt Warns Woke Culture out to “undermine social cohesion and local pride.”

with 5 comments

Baying Mob of Woke Statue Topplers (National Treasure Brendan O’Neill Cast into the Brink).

 

Alt Right Ipswich MP (KNOB, Knight Noble of Britishness) writes in Nigel Farage’s favourite paper, the Express,

History of our nation must not be rewritten by baying mob of woke statue-topplers

Tom Hunt. Express.

WOKE culture seems to have become an invitation for some of our institutions to undermine social cohesion and local pride. Historic England is the latest prominent example of a once trusted body waging war against our heritage, and in particular our villages.

Villages be Warned!

They have compiled a list of sites across the country which have links to people involved in the transatlantic slave trade. With this list, Historic England has named village halls, farms, schools and parish churches going out of their way to establish even tenuous links with the transatlantic slave trade. This has included chapels where historical figures worshipped and were buried. The sites can house the graves of those who profited directly from slavery, but also their relatives.

Sacred Places!

this view is used by those who seek to denigrate our cultural heritage and vandalise our shared sacred places.

He continues,

For many, it feels Maoist and dystopian. A quiet cultural revolution administered from the top rungs of the institutions which have been tasked with the great duty of preserving our culture and beautiful buildings for centuries to come.

Great Pyramids.

Obviously, the transatlantic slave trade was a moral blight.

But it was by no means exceptional.

For thousands of years prior, slaves and serfs had been used to build great works throughout the world, from the pyramids of Giza, to the Taj Mahal, to many of the ancient Cathedrals of England which were funded by repressive regimes of serfdom. Britain was the first nation in history to confront the horrors of the global slave trade in which some of her citizens were involved.

He concludes,

It is right to condemn slavery as a great sin, but it is the wrong approach to go about auditing our towns and villages to shame people into a sense of guilt about the places in which they grew up and the buildings which have brought their communities together.

 

Our gumshoes are now tracing out the links between Hunt and his fellow alt-Right anti-Wokeists.

Expect Revelations!

 

 

Written by Andrew Coates

February 14, 2021 at 3:36 pm

Morning Star: “What’s not to like?”in Boris Brexit Plans.

with 5 comments

 

Man waving Union Jack on 31 January 2020, the day the UK left the EU

Festival of Brexit Planned for 2022.

Will ‘Lexit’ Left join to “celebrate our nation’s diversity and talent, and mark this moment of national renewal with a once-in-a-generation celebration”? 

One of the first things you learn on the left, if you bother to listen, is the difference between the “responsible” left and, the left which refuses to take responsibility – for anything.

That is between those who think they will be in a position to carry out their ideas in existing government structures, national or local, and those for whom this is something secondary, if they consider the prospect at all.

Democratic socialists take seriously the conservative sociologist Max Weber’s criticism of those who subordinate politics to an “ethics of conviction”, ultimate goals such as socialism. It would not be an exaggeration to say that the principle that we should be brought to answer for the “(foreseeable) consequences of one’s actions” haunts anybody who sets out trying to transform society wholescale or introduce any reform. (Politik als Beruf. 1919) Amongst other aspects of this essay Weber talked of those who lived for politics, making this their life, and those who live off politics, as a source of income. Those engaged in paid full-time party apparatuses, it is not hard to see, are likely to have conflicts with those looking towards the distant political horizon.

The Brexit “revolution” is a shadow of the revolutionary upheavals that Weber faced in Europe after the Great War. He was willfully blind to those, like Rosa Luxemburg, engaged in insurrectionary challenges to the German state, kept in sight the immediate effects of revolutionary actions and defended democratic institutions, “freedom is always and exclusively freedom for the one who thinks differently” “Without general elections, without unrestricted freedom of press and assembly, without a free struggle of opinion, life dies out in every public institution, becomes a mere semblance of life, in which only the bureaucracy remains as the active element.” (cited Page 62.  Paul le Blanc. The Living Flame, Haymarket 2019). Everybody, she believed, the “whole mass of the people” should be engaged in politics, living it themselves. Luxemburg perhaps indicates that those who stake everything on an ultimate goal can also try to keep the results of their immediate actions at the forefront.

At present we are living through the Brexit process, a project successfully engineered by the hard right, the European Reform Group, backed by the outriders of UKIP and (subsequently) the Brexit Party, and being put into place  by a purged pro-Brexit Conservative Party. It would not be overstating things to see a drift towards a politics of ultimate ends at work. Law? “Yes, this does break international law, in a very specific and limited way”. National populism, and national neoliberalism, are more important that legal agreements.

Thanks to Lewis, however, we don’t have to do the delicate dance of balancing the government’s line against its dissenters. Whether this new bill tramples over huge sections of the Withdrawal Agreement or offers “minor clarifications” to areas that have not been finalised in the joint committee on the Northern Irish protocol, it breaks international law.

Of course it does: the government is seeking to overwrite an international agreement that was made as an insurance policy in the event of no further agreement. It has decided unilaterally to “clarify” matters that are the subject of a bilateral agreement and subject to further clarification only through a specifically-designed bilateral joint committee. But instead of days and weeks arguing about whether this is technically lawful,a cabinet minister has provided us with the gift of a frank answer, and one that will go down in history, to be repeated back at this government and at the UK by other countries for decades to come.

Image

 

Others have noticed a different side to the emerging new stand.

A few days ago this appeared in the Spectator,

Nick Tyrone Is Boris pushing for a socialist Brexit?

One of the main things that’s holding up an UK-EU trade deal is the demand that the UK sticks to current state aid rules. Boris and Frost are refusing to budge. They want the freedom to do whatever they wish with state aid in post-Brexit Britain

When you get rid of state aid rules, horrible things can happen, particularly from a centre-right perspective. Eliminating all laws surrounding the use of state aid is one of the first acts a new socialist regime would likely carry out as it would allow them to nationalise on the cheap, among other nefarious things. The government can buy one energy company, then lower prices astronomically in order to make the competition go bust. After that, they own the only energy company in the country; nationalisation the easy way.

He continues,

First and foremost, why does the government think a post-transition Brexit will be so dire that whole industries will have to be propped up – even if we get a trade deal with the EU?

Secondly, this seems to be a real unwinding of Margaret Thatcher’s legacy. She went to great effort to stop the UK government propping up failing industries with taxpayers’ money – and now Boris Johnson is doing something that only makes real sense if he wants to create a whole tranche of companies that can only survive through the charity of state largesse. I mean, if the Tories want to undo Thatcherism at its deepest roots, fine; all I ask is that conservatives who value Thatcher’s legacy think long and hard about the dismantling of a significant part of it by a Tory government.

Third and finally, wanting to move state aid rules significantly to the left represents a crossing of the Rubicon – in what way are the Conservatives the party of free markets if this is their priority? If the answer to that is ‘the red wall’, I will retort with the following, further queries: what was the point of defeating Corbyn only to ape Corbynism in such a vital way? Was getting Brexit done more important than the reason you wanted Brexit in the first place? If the free market isn’t the answer to making Brexit work, what does the Conservative party think the free market is the answer to any longer? Freed from the clutches of EU state aid policy, we might be about to find out the answers to these questions.

The pro-Brexit left are not just devoted to the (achieved) goal of leaving the European Union, by crook and hooked into backing the hard right project. They are formidable mythomanes. They ignore the existence of the radical left pro-European, Another Europe is Possible, the “innocents” which opposed Brexit. They ignore the views of the majority of Labour members who voted for a Second Referendum in party resolutions (only to have their ambitions thwarted in back-room manoeuvres).

With the help of those who live ‘off’ politics, key advisers inside Corbyn’s office in Labour Party, and trade union functionaires the Lexit left have promoted the idea that once free of European Union rule, and in command of a truly ‘sovereign’ nation-state they can do what they like in the face of capital, markets, international or domestic. Anything is possible,  the British road to socialism, worker controlled limits on immigration, recreating the labour movement of the 1970s, turning the ocean into lemonade (actually I stole that idea from Cde Charles Fourier). Every means can be justified to get this ultimate goal in place.

The ends are nigh, and the Morning Star today is amongst the first to observe the silver lining (forecast by Nick Throne) in the latest Brexit negotiations.

Our future is either a high wage, high value planned economy — or none at all

“GET Brexit done” was an election-winning slogan for Boris Johnson, and it sank Labour’s bid to make its progressive industrial and social agenda the centrepiece of the election.

One can skip the extended whine about anti-Brexit forces financed by international monopoly  capitalism and the rest and go to this

Where Labour might gain some traction, find a way of talking to its lost voters in the industrial heartland and open up an already existing fissure in the ruling class — and possibly find an echo among Tory MPs whose material interests are bound up in British manufacturing — lies in voicing a comprehensive industrial development policy.

Yesterday the Financial Times carried a piece in which the guy who, seven years ago, set up Britain’s state-owned development bank called on the government to provide more support for crucial industries and regional growth.

This is what is emerging.

Massive state aid to support industrial development where the government becomes a key investor in precisely those parts of the economy that require substantial capital investment, draw upon and enhance pools of highly skilled labour and result in a high-value technologically advanced economy. What’s not to like?

Like a pup rejoicing in the return of an absent master they jump up and down,

It evokes the rousing verse in Red Fly the Banners Oh, sung at many a union conference: “Five for the years of (Stalin’s) Five Year Plan, and four for the four years taken.”

A word of caution, while they digest this treat.

No-one thinks that a Tory government pledging state aid to buttress capitalist industry is building the foundation of a socialist economy. But even the most insipid of Labour’s present leadership surely can see the utility of a real-life effort to modernise Britain’s industry in the face of a marked reluctance by private capital to do so except whenever the returns rival City speculation and bond dealing.

Real-life could not get better!

The Boris Bolsheviks get back to business….

But Michel Barnier’s brief includes compelling acceptance by Britain’s negotiators of the single-market rules that circumscribe state aid to industry as part of a deal.

In other words, all is still to play,

Perhaps the Morning Star could help by giving the Tories some stiffness in their lip….

Others take a very different view:

Here is the statement,

WE WILL FIGHT FOR EVERY INCH

Boris Johnson has issued an ultimatum if no deal is reached by October 15th, he will walk away from Brexit talks and the UK will leave without a deal. It is simply impossible to know if the government intends to go through with No Deal, or if this a stunt which will allow them to claim some marginal concession before they sign an agreement

A No Deal Brexit would be a calamity for workers, migrants, the environment, human rights and food standards – but so would Boris Johnson’s deal. Now is not the time to remain silent. The future of the UK, Europe and the planet itself depends on the ability of the left to mobilise an internationalist response to Trumpism, Brexit and the new nationalist right.

Another Europe is Possible is proud to have campaigned against Brexit and the politics it represents since the referendum of 2016. Now, everything we said about Brexit is coming true: it is a project aimed at building borders, blaming the vulnerable and deregulating the economy.

The Tory Brexit agenda is intended, with or without a deal, to bring about:

  • The end of free movement and the biggest expansion of border controls in many decades
  • An unprecedented attack on the rights of workers
  • The downgrading of environmental standards
  • A trade deal with the US that could open up the NHS to irreversible privatisation and downgrade our food and consumer standards
  • The UK’s withdrawal from some European human rights conventions
  • A fundamental threat to the economic and political stability of the island of Ireland
  • The creation of deregulated geographical zones (or “free ports”)
  • A race to the bottom on tax and regulation to attract multinational corporations

No Deal will sharpen these threats. The Tories won’t abolish state aid rules to enact some progressive agenda. Their reasons are very different: to engage in crony capitalism and hand tax breaks to big companies.

We call on everyone on the left to mobilise against the government’s Brexit agenda – regardless of how you voted in 2016. Those who fought against the Brexit project in recent years must also now wake up and break their silence.

Another Europe, supported by allies across progressive political parties, trade unions and civil society, has put forward our demands on the Brexit process: The Alternative Mandate. We know that it is unlikely that we will be successful in winning many of these in the next few years, but it is vital that we make noise about what the government is doing, fight it for every inch of our rights, and keep alive a progressive alternative that can be realised in the future.

This autumn, we will be mobilising a new campaign, to bring the left and the remains of the anti-Brexit movement back to life – to fight against a US trade deal and for the rights of migrants and workers, where we could yet push the government back.

___

 

Well established rumour has it that the Communist Party of Britain and its independent organ, the Morning Star (wholly owned by the Co-Op) will take part in this event:

The organisers of a £120m national festival to be staged in 2022 have put out a call for creative minds to come up with “daring, new and popular” ideas to bring the UK together after Brexit.

 

 

 

Coming to terms with Keir Starmer: the future of the “post-Corbyn Left”.

with 4 comments

Keir Starmer: fighting “the Block of Reaction Behind Johnson and Cummings”.

 

The last weeks have seen an outpouring from what some call a “pool of toxic emotions” about the Labour leader. In a counter-reaction there are signs are that a section of the Corbyn left is beginning to rethink.  There are influential calls to end the  self-absorption and relentless attacks against what they perceive as Labour Leader Keir Starmer’s ‘failure’.

Books, such as Owen Jones’ This Land,  are scheduled for the autumn.

This is what Owen says,

The following has been widely circulated.

It lays out some important markers.

An argument for hope — an open letter to the post-Corbyn left

Christine Berry ( previously Director of Policy and Government for the New Economics Foundation)

 Over the last six months many Labour activists will also have experienced burn-out and grief following the 2019 election result; bitterness and resentment at the revelations in the ‘Labour Leaks’ report; disappointment and despair at the turn taken by the Starmer leadership.

The piece is important and should be read through. People can make up their own minds.

Here are few highlights,

….

……it’s worth remembering that Corbyn was given a free pass by activists on many of the things that Starmer is now berated for — simply because they trusted the former and do not trust the latter. Starmer’s interview on Black Lives Matter was awful, but Corbyn promised more police on the beat — using anti-austerity politics to appeal to socially conservative attitudes rather than challenging them. Starmer was roundly abused for not committing to the party’s 2030 decarbonisation target, but neither did Corbyn: the policy was pushed and passed by members and did not make it into the 2019 manifesto (reportedly because of union opposition). Yes, of course the left must hold Starmer to account. But we can only do this effectively if we’re honest about what really marks him out from Corbyn — not by holding him up against a mythical and increasingly idealised version of the latter.

It is possible to expand this list. One of my gripes is that the good work on developing policies on taxation and social ownership was not accompanied by anything more than (fairly muted)  rhetoric on replacing Universal Credit and offering a serious set of policies on what should replace it – an issue that affects millions of people.

….

There’s no doubt about it — despair is tempting. But it’s not helpful. Despair risks turning us all into angry armchair Twitter warriors. If there’s no longer anything at stake, why not vent your rage at Starmer and his shadow cabinet, denouncing them as a shower of ‘red Tories’? The problem is that this produces a vicious cycle: in the nature of social media, the main audience for this is actually other people on our own side, who in turn feel increasingly powerless and despairing. The left shrinks down to an embittered and isolated sect that nobody else listens to.

Berry could have added that the continued taint of anti-semitism is far from absent amongst these comments.

Next,

Some are inclined to characterise the Starmer leadership as a return to unreconstructed Blairism. I don’t think this is particularly helpful. It simply isn’t yet clear what Starmer stands for. Perhaps he doesn’t even know himself. To be sure, the Labour right are doing their level best to step into the vacuum — but their victory is not a foregone conclusion. The internal debate is still raging — there are those pushing from inside for the party to be bolder and to engage more seriously with the left. Even the Labour Together report concluded that the party must retain its economic radicalism in order to win. But this debate cannot be contested if its left pole becomes fragmented, bitter and demoralised — still less if merely engaging in that debate is enough to get you loudly denounced as a shill who’s probably angling for a job in HQ.

I am not clear exactly what a “shill” is, my North American is pretty rusty. But I assume it’s to say that anybody who comes out with anything good about the Labour leader is a toady.

It is hard for anybody (and there are those of us around) who first came across Keir Starmer in the Socialist Society and Socialist Alternatives in the 1980s and early 1990s – left activism that went on for nearly a decade – to think of the present leader as a Blairite. Let alone “unreconstructed”. He then spent another decade as a respected human rights lawyer, and some of us actually know people who worked with him to boot!

But the loud-voices of factionalists (many from very unreconstructed leftist splinters) and their gulls, are not going to be answered by saying that “perhaps” Starmer does not really know what he thinks, poor chap.

Many would suggest that Keir Starmer is a left of centre Labour leader and politician – not in the latter respect as would-be ‘populist’ of the left – committed to  socialist internationalist values and human rights. It is up to his team, and our efforts as Labour members and supporters, to help him develop policies that embody transformative politics. It is also, and it is hard not to underline this too much, a good place to start by helping and supporting our elected leadership.

Berry concludes,

It might be hard to see it right now, but the UK left is still stronger than it was five years ago — and will remain so if we can find it in ourselves to act out of hope rather than rage. In decades to come, perhaps Corbynism will look like a transitional phenomenon on the way to the era-defining change we need. We have to hope so, and act as though it is true. What else is there to do?

Despite the above critical remarks there are many acute observations in the article, but one is not there:  the fact that there were people on the left who called to vote for Keir Starmer. I am one of them

From those who did not there are plenty of “cries of rage and recrimination” , so many that apart from emotions (ones that seem to have clouded the what Starmer actually said on Black Lives Matter, the word “moment” far from a dismissal was, for a start, clearly a reference in terms of expressions like “an historical moment”: “an exact point in time, an “appropriate time for doing something, an opportunity, a “stage in the development of something or in a course of events” (Oxford Dictionary).

I would like to have explored a lot more what “the illusion that our job was simply to get Corbyn into Downing Street, and the rest would take care of itself.” was. Or exactly what this means, that the present leadership is  “trying to game the UK’s increasingly decaying political system, rather than finding ways to change it. They don’t believe it is possible to win by challenging powerful interests…”

There is nothing to back up this rhetoric. It would be clearer to say that Starmer is not trying win over establishment opinion but public opinion, full stop. Whether it will be “challenging powerful interests – is politics on the left  some kind of game in which you have to prove your fighting intentions? If there is a decaying political system what is it?

The continued hand-over of public services  to useless  private companies continues apace. That would be a good place to start a political and social fight-back…

Keir Starmer is not going away.

Back in the bunker all is not well.

 

Against socialist participation in Starmer’s shadow cabinet”.

 

Thank you for supporting the motion “Against socialist participation in Starmer’s shadow cabinet”. A PDF of the motion is attached.
Please see correspondence below from the LRC Conference Arrangements Committee,  disallowing our motion on the formal grounds of being proposed by only 9 confirmed paid-up members.
One new applicant is not found on the membership database, but 5 of the 15 proposers are deemed out of time in joining or renewing their LRC membership, as they are “still to complete payment” – which appears to reflect a difficulty which applicants may encounter in navigating the membermojo self-service membership system.
Consequently, our motion is not on display on the LRC Conference web page.
Of course, we shall ask conference to overturn this decision and allow the motion to be debated.
The motion they dare not debate!

Against socialist participation in Starmer’s shadow cabinet

 

LRC Conference, September 5th 2020

 

Motion proposed by Stan Keable and another 15 LRC members 

 

It was right to condemn the sacking of Rebecca Long-Bailey from Labour’s shadow cabinet, another example of the ongoing anti-Zionism equals anti-Semitism witch-hunt.
However, instead of calling for her reinstatement, the socialist left should use her sacking as an opportunity to discuss, debate and agree our attitude to participation in Keir Starmer’s shadow debate and agree our attitude to participation in Keir Starmer’s shadow cabinet. It is, after all, committed to running capitalism, not replacing it. In effect, the shadow cabinet is a capitalist government in waiting.
RLB calls herself a socialist – she is a member of the Socialist Campaign Group of Labour MPs. We oppose the participation of socialist MPs in capitalist governments. Likewise we should oppose socialist MPs being members of shadow cabinets which do not aspire to challenge the rule of capitalism.

As Keir Hardie famously said in 1910, we need Labour MPs, “not to keep governments in office or to turn them out, but to organise the working class into a great, independent political power to fight for the coming of socialism”.

 Take the Power Labour Party Marxist!

Written by Andrew Coates

August 20, 2020 at 12:04 pm