Broad Left Blogging


Taking a broader perspective…

Tory lies: AV & The BNP

Councillor Rupert Read has been a Green Party City Councillor in Norwich since 2004, to find out more about Rupert visit his blog and twitter.

PM Cameron is apparently preparing to outright-lie in his increasing desperation over potential defeat in the May 5 referendum. For the truth is the very opposite of his big lie. As I’ve shown in detail (See here & here & here & here) AV is the worst of all possible systems for the BNP. Which is presumably why the BNP are vigorously and paranoidly opposing it…

William Hague has already pioneered the big lie that AV will help the BNP: See here. Hague’s position in British politics is increasingly vulnerable: one of the reasons why he may have to go as Foreign Secretary is because of his bizarre lie a fortnight ago that Gaddafi was flying to Venezuala, which was clearly calculated simply to smear Chavez. Does Cameron really want to start looking as bad and frequent a liar as Hague?
Cameron would be well-advised not to try to use the BNP card against AV. It will haunt him, if he does. For, once more: the truth is that AV, being a system in which voters can gang up on unpopular Parties, will help ensure that the BNP never gets elected to Westminster – and moreover, if introduced in local government elections, would lead to the defeat of virtually all their Councillors.

Filed under: Conservatives, Electoral Reform, , ,

Don’t let the real vandals get away with it….

Simon Childs is a member of the Green Party and as well as writing on his own blog regularly contributes to Newcastle University newspaper, The Courier. He also founded and edits the left-wing Newcastle newsletter; The Grey Matter.

Students on the NUS demo on the 10th September were supposed to march straight past 30 Millbank, the national offices of the Conservative Party. However, the occupation of the building by hundreds of students and the demonstrations in support in the courtyard outside were enough to divert the attention, and the footsteps of many marchers, much to the chagrin of the demo’s stewards, largely hopeless in the face of curiosity (what do we students have if not curious minds?).

What the curious were greeted with in the courtyard varied from a carnival atmosphere to scenes of violence, depending what the precise situation was at the time.

Perhaps a hundred students had originally stormed past the beleaguered police into the building. Slowly but surely, more protesters broke through the quickly strengthened police line, smashed the glass facade and entered the building. Meanwhile others noisily demonstrated in solidarity with the occupiers.

Unsurprisingly, the mainstream media has focused largely on the violence (9 UK newspapers the next day using the same photo on their front page of a demonstrator kicking a window through), in a way reminiscent of their coverage of the violence at the G20 protests.

I was present at the G20 demos and condemned the violence there, believing it to be the reckless actions of a minority and out of keeping with the spirit of the protest. I cannot denounce what happened in London last week in the same way.

While at the G20, the crowd looked on uneasy at the violent actions of the few, at Millbank people cheered as the windows were smashed and applauded the occupiers. Effigies of David Cameron and Nick Clegg were burned. Barely a second went by without an anti-Tory or anti-Lib Dem chant.

Also, it was not just attended by the ‘usual suspects – from what I could tell, most of the students there were simply angry students, not seasoned revolutionaries.

Whatever may be said of what happened, it was a real manifestation of the outrage felt by many at a government of millionaires callously wrecking ordinary young peoples’ future life chances.

Having said that, in a march of 50,000, the Millbank protesters clearly were in a minority, and many students will feel that their actions undermined the anti-cuts message of the day. I can understand their point of view.

Aaron Porter, president of NUS condemned the violence as “despicable”. Personally, I would reserve that word for the Tory/Lib Dem government who are happy to consign any semblance of state funded education we had left to the dustbin of history.

If only the NUS had been so uncompromising in its criticism of tuition fees when they were introduced by Labour in 1998, or when they were raised in 2006, as they have against the protesters, we would not be in the position we are in today.

Right or wrong, the insurrection at Millbank shows that you can only push people so far. If you disenfranchise people and vandalise their rights, they’ll vandalise your property. It might not be big, and it might not be clever, but criticism should be leveled first and foremost at the government, not at those standing up to them.

Filed under: Activism, Law and Order, , , ,

“There is no other way now. Direct action. Civil disobedience….do it”

Simon Childs is a member of the Green Party and as well as writing on his own blog regularly contributes to Newcastle University newspaper, The Courier and the Fresh Politics blog. He also founded and edits the left-wing Newcastle newsletter; The Grey Matter.

I would recommend that everybody read John Pilger’s inspiring article in the New Statesman. Railing against the “fossilised spivs”, David Cameron and George Osborne, he encourages us to get angry and get active, declaring; “only one political course is left to those who are disenfranchised and whose ruin is announced on a government spreadsheet…There is no other way now. Direct action. Civil disobedience… do it”.

Compare this to the utter bilge of Polly Tonybee in the Guardian. On the student demo against cuts to higher education on the 10th of November, she implores protesters to ask themselves, “exactly how angry should we be about graduates paying more? Where on the indignation-o-meter does this belong?” explaining that, “There is a limit to how many protests can be heard as jobs, valued services and the whole public realm comes under mortal assault, the effects felt worst by those who make least noise.”

Essentially she’s asking students to hold back in case we are successful in defending our education, which in her view would simply mean more cuts for other public services.

While Pilger links the public spending cuts together, understanding that none of them are ‘necessary’ as the government suggests and declaring them the manifestation of “a vicious, antique ideology, albeit served as economic snake oil”, Tonybee completely caves to this vicious, antique ideology, telling us we are in “a world of scrimp and pinch”.

As chief apologist for the Labour Party, no matter how low it sinks, she showcases Labour’s total lack of a genuine answer to the Tories’ economic medicine. By buying in to neo-liberal economic ideology, they have no solutions to when that ideology is biting their own supporters in the arse. Or rather, they have no solution when the Tories are doing it and they want to mount something that looks like an opposition.

Cutting public services and turning a blind eye to an historic transfer of wealth from poor to rich is not an alternative to cutting public services and encouraging an historic transfer of wealth from poor to rich.

This is what happens when you fail to make arguments on your own terms, invoking your own values. If you try to make left-wing arguments on right-wing terms you inevitably lose the argument and shift further and further rightwards because right-wing arguments do tend to be more logical if the starting point to the debate is an economic system that puts a price on everything and a value on nothing.

So rather than marching for free education as a right not a privilege, to defend universities’ ability to continue their work as unique civilising institutions that enrich our society and to make them places where people from all backgrounds can have the opportunity to learn and better themselves, Tonybee suggests that we students who will march in our thousands should “demand back the right for everyone to have a second chance with a free level 2 course, and give back the free Train to Gain opportunity for the low-skilled to climb the ladder out of the minimum wage”.

If she could just look, as Pilger does, across the channel, she would see what can be achieved when people act together in solidarity with each other, where students occupy buildings to defend pensioners’ rights. What’s happening in France doesn’t come about by the disenfranchised refusing to stand up for themselves in case they make it worse for other disenfranchised people. It happens when people come together to fight as one against big business, the government, and those who would rather the poor suffer than give away a fraction of their billions.

What Tonybee is suggesting is exactly what the Tories want- divide and rule. Benefit claimants demanding students take the brunt of the cuts and students demanding that benefit claimants take the rap.

Instead, we need to fight not just for our own rights as individuals, but for the rights of others too. As Pilger says, “there is no other way now”.

Filed under: Activism, Education, , , , , , , , , , ,

What the Tea Party and the Left could learn from Tony Blair…

Cory Hazlehurst blogs at Paperback Rioter.

I haven’t read A Journey yet – I will probably wait until it comes out in paperback. At the moment all I know of the book is derived from virtualstoa’s lengthly – and undoubtedly masochistic – tweet-by-tweet of it, as well as blogs on its clunkiness and bad sex. One passage that struck me from the New Yorker review of the book was this one that they quoted:

With each successive Tory leader, I would develop a line of attack, but I only did so after a lot of thought. So I defined Major as weak; Hague as better at jokes than judgment; Howard as an opportunist; Cameron as a flip-flop, not knowing where he wanted to go. . . . Expressed like that, these attacks seem flat, rather mundane almost, and not exactly inspiring—but that’s their appeal. Any one of those charges, if it comes to be believed, is actually fatal. Yes, it’s not like calling your opponent a liar, or a fraud, or a villain or a hypocrite, but the middle-ground floating voter kind of shrugs their shoulders at those claims. They don’t chime. They’re too over the top, too heavy, and they represent an insult, not an argument. Whereas the lesser charge, because it’s more accurate and precisely because it’s more low-key, can stick. And if it does, that’s that. Because in each case, it means they’re not a good leader. So game over.

Passages like that remind you of just how astute a politician Blair could be. He is absolutely right to say that milder rhetoric generally beats some more fierce invective.

A case in point is the Tea Party movement in the US. Obama and the Democrats are weak politically, but the main line of attack on Obama comprises of a series of insults: that he’s a Muslim, Communist, or that he’s not even American – that fall far short of the mark because they’re too angry and ignorant to have much of an impact.

Blair’s words should also be borne in mind by those wanting to build resistance to the impending spending cuts by the coalition. Merely winning the economic argument will not be enough. As well as challenging the economic consensus, the coalition of groups contesting the wisdom and severity of these cuts needs to also develop a political narrative.

How, then, should David Cameron, Nick Clegg and the coalition be portrayed? One that paints them as “evil” or “same old Tories” will not be sufficient to win over popular support. David Cameron does not come across as “evil” or as a divisive figure like, say, Thatcher. Following Blair’s maxim, we must find something more silent, yet more deadly in the long run.

In my view, this line of attack would be to portray David Cameron, George Osborne and the rest as “out of touch” and unaware of the catastrophic consequences these cuts would cause. The privileged background of the vast majority of Cameron’s cabinet is common knowledge. It’s very unlikely that Cameron would have used a Sure Start Centre, a neighbourhood Post Office, or the number 27 bus, and so would be completely ignorant of how people can come to rely on these sorts of services. The background of George Osborne: Eton, Oxford, Modern History Degree, Career Politician – is hardly filled with economics experience, and it would be a relatively straightforward task to paint him as inexperienced and out of touch with the needs of ordinary people.

Those challenging the cuts need to emphasise that they are unnecessary, often counter-productive, and not our only option. If we can couple it with an accompanying political narrative, we can seriously begin to challenge the coalition of cutters.

Filed under: The Left, , , , , , ,

Is ‘Big Society’ a fix for a false prognosis?

By Andrew Harding

Andrew is known under another pseudonym which he blogs under – 2me2you. Andrew has been a member of the Labour Party since shortly after May 6th 2010, after voting Lib Dem to keep the Tory out. He currently does analysis, research and support based work for Bournemouth University, whilst about to embark on an MSc in Citizenship & Democracy from the University of Southampton.

Firstly, we were told that Britain was ‘broken’, but that was dropped as it was largely false and actually quite offensive. Social cohesion has benefitted under Labour since 1997.

But is Britain or its society broken? I believe we are more tolerant than we were – the introduction of civil partnerships illustrates that. Labour introduced a minimum wage, the NHS in the mid 90s lagged behind the rest of the western world – we are now in a situation where we have a comparatively good quality health service at a relatively cheap cost. Pound for pound we get exceptional value from the NHS, do not let Andrew Lansley tell you otherwise. Education has made real strides since 1997. We are also told that crime is at historically low levels bearing in mind we have just come out of a recession. I’ll let you make your own mind up.

For one moment let us believe the Tories and assume Britain is ‘broken’. Why? Because you can see the (albeit skewed) logic behind the ‘Big Society’. Is the ‘Big Society’ supposed to be the cure to ‘Broken Britain’? It is hard to see otherwise, even when we are still not exactly sure what the ‘Big Society’ is. So will the prescription fit the ailment, will the bitter pill solve a problem that doesn’t exist, and finally can you really expect to get something for nothing?

The short answer to the last question at least is yes. Currently volunteers across the land put a shift in at the local hospice shop, run the after school club or are involved in countless activities usually in their own free time.

At the other end of the spectrum there is the relatively new phenomena called work experience, designed to empower people to gain a cutting edge in entering a career or profession. Excluding the work experience brigade, we already have a sizeable volunteer army.

Whilst it is not a new idea, it is quite naïve to suggest we can significantly add to their numbers. More often than not people will want to benefit for a particular action – work experience is the best example of that. Internships and work experience have become a necessity to progress in specific careers, they can be exploitative and act as a barrier to certain groups but with growing competition it is also very necessary.

‘Exploitative’ is a key word here, as is ‘empower’. Is ‘Big Society’ just a dressed down version of work experience, or rather a way of getting something done for nothing that previously you would have had to pay someone to do. I think so. ‘Empowering’ in both contexts is just ‘exploiting’ but in a different guise.

You undertake work experience to gain a valuable insight into a career and hopefully a cutting edge over other prospective candidates in the employment market. You could say it empowers you. Interestingly David Cameron chose the word ‘empowerment’ in his recent attempt to explain exactly what the ‘Big Society’ is. Valid comparisons can be made between the two.

Will people want to run our public services under the guise and rhetoric of being ‘empowered’?

The vast majority of volunteers tend to be people of retirement age, disposable time is a major factor. I suspect a large proportion of the retired population have had ample opportunities to volunteer, and why would the ones that do not already suddenly be empowered by empty rhetoric?

It is fair to suggest adults who have a family do not possess enough free time to volunteer either, and will teenagers drag themselves away from their Playstation to pick up litter for a day? Where will this nationalised parish council come from without taking away from the number of good causes they are already affiliated to?

Charities are set to take a hefty hit in George Osborne’s recent emergency budget. Cash flow among charities and not for profit groups may also be a stumbling block.

In 2005 the Conservatives correctly attacked the then Chancellor (Gordon Brown) for proposing to raid dormant bank accounts in order to set up a ‘Community bank’ to fund local projects. It is then ironic that David Cameron has proposed the very same method to channel funds to the ‘Big Society’. Is it moral, or even legal?

So what is the ‘Big Society’ apart from a simple cost cutting measure and a prescription for a sickness that was falsely diagnosed? It is a lot of hot air. It is very hard to distance the ‘Big Society’ from its cost cutting criticisms. The government has not turned into a pound shop just yet, but they are certainly parking the Jag at Lidl.

In trying to dissect the ‘Big Society’ I am aware that it has led to more questions being asked than answered, which is symptomatic of the ambiguity in this policy.

Taken in the right light it is an admirable concept, but appears to be one that has not been thought out properly. It is as much naive as it is ambiguous. The Prime Minister says it is designed to provide “communities with oomph” – the Prime Minister’s own words conclude the critique of a loose concept very well indeed.

Filed under: Conservatives, , , , , , , , , , ,

Political lies, media manipulation and the ‘shock doctrine’…

By Jay Baker

Jay is a British media activist who has almost ten years of experience as a professional documentarian, writer, youth worker, social justice campaigner, and social entrepreneur.

It’s true that lies are often perpetuated. In fact, if they’re repeated enough, these lies can be regarded as truths, and rarely even questioned at all.

An example of this is the great lie perpetuated on the people of Britain concerning the economy.

In the build-up to the general election this year, New Labour finally realized that their right-wing re-positioning and re-branding was – as expected by many – its greatest weakness. Without its heart, “the people’s party” created by the labour workforce to represent the working class mass majority now had no alternative argument to counter the Conservatives, due in part to its commitment to its doomed brand.

As a result, shocking Tory claims – on immigration, on taxes, and most of all, on the economy – went largely unchallenged. And by the time the Liberal Democrats had “sold out” (as many of its own supporters would say) in forming a coalition with the Tories, the only challenges of facts and logic in the public eye were from the likes of Caroline Lucas or Salma Yaqoob on forums such as BBC’s Question Time; lone voices in a fog of misconceptions.

So: what is the truth? First, we have to look at the lies, key lies that are perpetuated by the mainstream media:

  • Lie #1: The latest economic crisis was a freak act of nature we had to endure, a “Credit Crunch,” like a breakfast cereal we must swallow before going about our day, business as usual.
  • Lie #2: If the Credit Crunch was anyone’s fault, it was the fault of New Labour for failing to regulate the banks properly.
  • Lie #3: The only way to cope with the recession is to cut government spending and sell off public services to private interests, even if this means higher unemployment.

These are all essentially preconceived notions perpetuated by the press. Linguistics professor and political activist Noam Chomsky talks about this often: whether it be using slogans like “Support our troops” or asking the question “Can we win in Iraq?” those in positions of power and influence must use propaganda to create presuppositions and stifle or restrict and marginalize debate.

For example, Chomsky explains, a mantra such as “Support our troops” is vacuous, because it doesn’t mean anything more than asking if we, say, support the people of Iowa; there’s no counter to it – asking if we support the war policy would draw a plethora of offence, but to ask if we support the brave men and women of the armed forces offers no such room for argument. Likewise, Chomsky also suggests that asking “Can we win in Iraq?” completely ignores the greater question of whether we have any right to be there in the first place. And so, a “questioning” media indeed questions, but the questions it asks are chosen carefully to frame the debate inside a certain context, giving an illusion of media investigative journalism and “fair and balanced” coverage while propelling the debate in a particular direction.

Another example I’d offer is when firebrand politician George Galloway, love him or loathe him, showed intestinal fortitude by appearing on US airwaves via “fair and balanced” (yet pro-Republican) Fox News to talk about Afghanistan, and was repeatedly asked the question, “Is Afghanistan better without the Taliban in charge?” – meaning that Galloway the Great Orator, on a rare occasion, was defeated by having to reply conceding Afghanistan was indeed better without the Taliban, ending the interview again within that carefully conceived framework. No discussion was to be had on the fact that US taxpayers’ money went on creating the Taliban in the first place, or that the reasons for ousting them was for the next phase of what is often described as US imperialism. Fox News was faux news – merely maintaining the status quo.

This is exactly what the media has also done with the economy.

The fact of the matter – which is rarely, if ever, addressed by the press – is that the cleverly-spun “Credit Crunch” was, in fact, caused by a range of capitalism-induced conditions from removal of workers’ rights, shipping of jobs overseas, and increasing debt dependency, to US economic conditions, to, yes, Tory deregulation of the financial sector under Margaret Thatcher that started it all. Thatcherism was only saved by the success of North Sea oil, having ideologically attacked the unions by destroying key territories, from coalmining to steelworks; removing jobs, bringing unions to their knees, and decimating entire communities, sickeningly declaring “There’s no such thing as society.” It was every man (and woman) for themselves, she suggested: sink or swim.

This kind of Social Darwinism is what the Tories love: the dangerous act of applying Darwinist theories onto sociology and politics as a whole that historically gave rise to such other right-wing ideologies as Nazism. By no means an irresponsible, sweeping generalization of categorizing all right-wingers such as Thatcher as on the same page as Hitler, this is actually a very serious threat, when politicians start using Social Darwinism as a justification – that might makes right, and it’s survival of the fittest. Alarm bells must go off, because today’s Thatcher (a friend and admirer of Chilean dictator Pinochet) could be tomorrow’s Hitler.

The Tories were the ones who embraced Social Darwinism in the 80s, and financial deregulation – letting the bankers run amok, in accordance with Milton Friedman’s now-discredited economic theories – was part of it.

Yes, the Tories criticized New Labour for failure to regulate the banks, but New Labour had no response besides an immature one: “You started it.” Might doesn’t make right, and neither do two wrongs. New Labour were unable to attack the Tories because they’d come too close to attacking themselves.

But the Tories didn’t just get away with exploiting New Labour to cover up their contribution to the crisis; they were able to capitalize on it by shifting the debate – essentially aided and abetted by New Labour – towards the realms of necessary and unavoidable cuts. The fact that investment creates jobs and benefits the economy, while a deficit can be reduced through fairer taxation, was completely ignored. No, we weren’t supposed to have that discussion, and the corporate media did their job as enforcers.

While reeling from a recession, worried about their jobs, the Tories were able to apply what Naomi Klein calls the Shock Doctrine in her book of the same name: while a people are in shock, it’s possible for the Friedmanesque “Market Bolsheviks” to push through sweeping, radical reforms and policies that benefit elite interests. Eventually, the shock wears off, Klein suggests, but it’s often only after the damage has already been done.

This is what is happening to Britain today. The Tories – after criticizing New Labour for failing the NHS or universities, in addition to pointing the finger over financial deregulation – are now passing policies that reflect their ideology, and able to do it in the name of crisis (what Klein calls “disaster capitalism” exemplified by the profits made in post-Gorbachev Russia, in post-invasion Iraq, and even in New Orleans following Hurricane Katrina).

The Tories have come to power at the perfect moment for them: just as 9/11 was America’s shock, allowing Bush to get away with illegal invasions and surveillance of his own people before the shock wore off there, David Cameron, supported by Nick Clegg, can use the economic crisis as an excuse for almost anything: from discussions on “innovative” universities (read: privatization) to “modernizing” the NHS (read: privatization), to cutting public services (again, privatization), these are the same old public school elitists with nothing in common with the working class people who suffer the most from the recession yet have their jobs under threat, and welfare cheques, too. Those with plenty in common with the coalition, of course, are Big Business. Their recent budget was, top to bottom, an ideological one, straight and simple – applied to a people still in shock.

Perhaps the most unfortunate fact, though, was that New Labour had little in common with the people either. Its election-winning machine had no heart, and only through its electoral destruction can it be resurrected, the new becoming old. Their choice of leader of the Labour Party has never been so important in all its history. The best choice could mean a landslide victory in 2015 – when the shock has worn off and the people destroy a likely already-imploded coalition.

Filed under: Conservatives, Economy, Media, , , , , , , , , , ,

Planet Moron

By Jay Baker

Jay is a British media activist who has almost ten years of experience as a professional documentarian, writer, youth worker, social justice campaigner, and social entrepreneur.

It’s quite remarkable how many stupid people can rise to power.

George W. Bush Jr was barely literate when he became U.S. President, and seemingly figured that the fact both “Al Qaeda” and “Iraq” had the letter Q in their names was enough of a connection to warrant an invasion on Saddam Hussein’s state following the September 11th, 2001 terrorist attacks on the U.S. by predominantly Saudi Arabian plane hijackers.

We British – like much of Europe – enjoyed the opportunity to be haughty about the whole Bush Administration while big brains in sharp suits occupied our corridors of power. Yes, Bush was surrounded by names from his father’s Reaganomics era such as Dick Cheney and Donald Rumsfeld, men who adhered to Milton Friedman’s brutal Social Darwinist ideologies borne out of the Chicago School of Economics, but the very fact their hand-picked puppet, “King George II,” was so inept at public speaking was embarrassing.

However, just because London’s 10 Downing Street is now home to a highly educated, articulate young man by political standards is still no reason to be stuck-up about any cerebral superiority. Smartly dressed David Cameron, fan of Margaret Thatcher, can have more degrees than a thermometer and it still wouldn’t make him a smart man. After all, Thatcher bought into Friedman’s economic doctrine, deregulating the financial sector and creating the cracks in our whole economic foundations, profit being the supreme yardstick for their success regardless of the ground beneath them where lies people’s living conditions, and the earth as a whole. The result: the economic crisis – what happens when societies simply do not have the employment and living standards needed to cope with the rate of commercialization.

Today, David Cameron resides in 10 Downing Street and tells us that in order to deal with this consequential Credit Crunch™ – as the media have cleverly branded it as a force of nature – we have to expect cuts in services that predominantly provide for poorer people, meaning that the long-term risks on our society are even greater. But Cameron, or “Camoron,” doesn’t acknowledge that. Is he aware of it? Of course he is. But he doesn’t care.

This Conservative / Liberal Democrat coalition government are using this as an excuse to pander to their corporate pals – why do you think they’re talking about slashing spending for the arts and cutting the budgets of universities who must be “innovative” (which is code for mass privatization). Both art and education for the masses are dangerous for those elitists with vested interests; enlightened, empowered communities can rise up too easily. So the cuts are calculated on a class level. Oh yes, if you thought New Labour’s treasury was all about Brown-nosing the corporate sponsors and lying down for the lobbyists, you ain’t seen nothin’ yet.

The word “idiot” comes from the Greek idiotes meaning to put private interests above and beyond the public good. It’s fair to say that David deserves the nickname “Camoron,” because while Bush was an “American Idiot,” this Prime Minister is ours.

When the public sector came under fire from Cameron’s budget-slashing targets, their unions stood up to defend their jobs in areas that provide for the people. But Cameron, lover of private interests, condemned them, asking in his own inimitably smug and privileged manner, “What planet are they on?” Not his planet, thank goodness. Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg of the Liberal Democrats stands beside him and approves of it all. This is the planet of the Cleggons; blood-suckers who actually transfer the financial burden from the rich onto the poor, something vampire Michael Howard would surely be very proud of, having come up with the Poll Tax for Thatcher’s government, leading to riots in the streets of London. Who wants to be on a planet like this?

Their planet is one of absolute denial, where we spend well over £30 billion a year on defence, and at the same time cut taxes and the budgets that make the poor poorer while promoting lifestyles of long working hours, gridlocked cars, and fast food. David’s planet – Planet Moron – is not a sustainable eco-system (eco-system in this case standing for “economic system.”)

This ConDem coalition seems – just like Brand Obama™ – a marketing dream: come time to pry themselves away from each other in 2015 and become rivals desperate to differentiate themselves, they can blame all their unpopular policies on one another. But again, there’s no sustainability on Planet Moron: this dream is doomed; destined to become a nightmare for both parties. Given the public’s response to negativity in politics in the last general election, it would seem that this scenario would not only weaken both parties, but turn off people who might have voted for either. Meanwhile, the only alternative option amongst the Big Three then becomes Labour – not New Labour, just Labour, the party of the people, of the public, with union backing. That’s their winning brand, if they utilize it.

So, Planet Moron is indeed doomed. But it’s only after destruction that we can enjoy resurrection. So, brace yourselves.

“I did not mean to say that the Conservatives are generally stupid. I meant to say that stupid people are generally Conservative. I believe that is so obviously and universally admitted a principle that I hardly think any gentleman will deny it.” – John Stuart Mills, 1866.

Filed under: Media, , , , , , , , , ,


Error: Twitter did not respond. Please wait a few minutes and refresh this page.



Broad Left Blogging does not necessarily endorse the content of external links though it may sometimes. Also, views expressed are those of the individual authors; not any organisation they are a part of.