Exploiting The Gap?

The Liberal Democrat party has seen a surge in new members and I am one of them. Will it stick or is it a blip? I joined the party – my first ever – when May called the snap election last year. My first experience of the party was watching the internal amount of squabbles and disorganisation. When challenged there is always an excuse for everything.

The Conservatives seem to be intent on destroying themselves as a ruling party, along with the entire country, by their incredibly vain, naive and arrogant handling of the Brexit process. This means that there is a fair chance that Corbyn, his Marxist chums, with the heavies in the slavishly sycophantic Momentum crew, to ensure compliance (Animal Farm anyone?), could well take power in the foreseeable future.

Some believe that as a population we need to suffer the financial recklessness of the Marxist’s money-tree to jolt us back into common sense. Those with no real life commercial experience, nor memory of the Corbynomics approach to government cannot understand why so many of us are terrified at the thought.

This doesn’t mean I want the Tories. I want a proper Liberal Democrat government. Although, I am a realist, because at this stage in the life of the party, when it ought to be poised to exploit the gap that is opening it is still irrevocably divided.

The impression I have as a politically engaged individual is that the party contains two distinct, any many iterations thereof, ideological groupings of either economically driven so called orange Bookers or the socialist style Lib Dems s who don’t agree with Labour but strike me that they’d be much happier in that type of ideological environment. The party is riven by differing ideologies. We share common views regarding the outcome of many things but it all falls apart when we discuss how to achieve them.

It is an admirable intellectual concept that we can and should all co-exist in this big group that is neither one thing nor the other. For the party is the place for thinkers: those that ask why, are comfortable with a greater degree of cognitive dissonance than many. However, it is more like a political social club where the main topic is debating, much satisfaction is derived from differences and occasionally fiddling with the levers of power.

This is the rub. There is a difference between this approach – many iterations over many years but all ultimately seeing Liberalism consigned to the side-lines in Westminster – and building a party with The aim of being elected into national government and being able to make a meaningful contribution ought to be the over-riding obsession. I still believe that some people are incapable of making the compromises that getting into power entails. It is all well and good to stick rigidly to finely honed, incredibly well developed, after much democratic debate, etc.  ideas but they absolutely ensure a side-line position. Politics is the art of the compromise.

The party made it into a coalition recently and instead of uniting behind this and using the presence of Clegg and co. as the thin end of the wedge ,the party decided to turn in on itself and bemoan the compromises made and then vilify the then leaders. In many quarters of the party you’ll still go a long way tutting about the coalition.

Whether it is the faction driven by a more hard-nosed economic approach or the socialists in the party, someone (both) need to go their own way. If the socialists split away I’d wish them luck and if the ‘Orange Bookers’ did so then that would be a good thing too.

Nonetheless, until the party can face outwards and focus on winning elections  – something that is impossible in the current state – I see no point in being part of it when renewal rolls around. The party today simply doesn’t do simplicity.

Advertisements

Dear Labour, Here Comes UKIP.

In Great Britain the Labour Party (the party of the left, in all its guises) has pulled off the astonishing trick of disappearing so far up its own arse by squabbling amongst itself that everyone can see it for what it has become; Labour is a bunch of power-hungry people, so focused on their own gain, that they will commit collective suicide rather than back down to one another. This public, Faustian style death pact that all the warring elements have bought into is very worrying. These self-obsessed clowns are no longer representative of the voters and nor do they provide an effective opposition, so the Tories just march around doing what they please.

Labour used to be the antidote to the so-called ‘Nasty Party’ (the right-wing Tories) and provided an effective opposition, sometimes got into power and occasionally mitigated some of the more egregious things the hardline Tories do. However, these days there is a new force and it is going to subsume Labour.  I watched the address of the new leader of UKIP on a Channel 4 clip and it was terrifying. Terrifyingly good and terrifyingly dangerous if you are the Labour party. In fact, just scary for any person with even a semi-liberal outlook on life.

In this post-factual political world Paul Nuttal, the new leader of a very unpleasant right-wing party, has marched up to the centre ground and declared that UKIP is the voice of the working classes. His message and delivery are very convincing. An apt metaphor is the new dog in the neighbourhood seen peeing higher on all the lamp posts. These lamp posts are the parliamentary constituencies that the Labour infighting has let go unattended. Anyone who has had a dog knows that they regularly remark their territory, lest the other dogs forget. Labour has failed to do this and the new dog is here.

Nuttal is appealing to traditional Labour voters and I believe that – important caveat now – if he can galvanise UKIP he will decimate the Labour party. If they think he won’t because commonsense dictates that no sane decent person will vote for such a bunch of unpleasant people as UKIP then I have just the one word: Trump. People identify with his message and he is skilled in its delivery. Watch out.

Who Are “The Left”?

I went to a very interesting discussion the other night. It was held at Ruskin College, where I start a history degree in September and there were some very interesting people there as well as ordinary members of the public like me. The topic was, “What Happened To The Working Class?” Apparently they didn’t disappear upon purchase of their council houses under The Great Handbag.

What really struck me was the strongly held belief amongst some of the, admittedly self selecting, audience about some sort of non-specific and ill-defined conspiracy against the Working Class/Left. Apparently PR firms are all and only engaged in the suppression of the Working Class. All PR firms. This doesn’t really tie with my first hand experiences of PR firms, but the individual that held this belief was adamant. There is a Right Wing conspiracy and PR firms exists to help make the evil more palatable. Then again; his solution for most of the ills of society, which are visited upon society by the evil capitalist Right Wing establishment, can be fixed if we were to all man-up (should that be person-up in a modern enlightened institution?) and revolt. Revolution is the cure, end of discussion.

As there wasn’t even agreement in the room as to what constituted the working class it was a rather pointless circular discussion IMHO. When the Marxist philosopher explained a Marxist definition as “those that don’t control the means of production”  as the definition there was further debate as that didn’t really do when you try and equate a surgeon with a dustman. There was a quiet discomfort at the suggestion, which made me wonder if this wasn’t a social and wealth based distinction as much as a technical one about who controls the means of production.

The Right don’t need to conspire and hide behind PR firms, they just need to sit back and keep their powder dry. The Left seem perfectly able at suppressing themselves by engaging in endless internal bickering and that makes a revolution very hard to organise.

Perhaps the right are just as bad? In fact, I am sure there are constituents of the Right that bicker endlessly over the minutiae.

Chuck the promise of influencing personal wealth, the ability to choose how to spend ones own resources, responsibility for your own decisions, low taxes, a light touch state into the mix and that sure focuses people’s minds enough to organise themselves into action. I think it’s called Capitalism. After all, the Soviet Union worked out well for the working classes, didn’t it?