The logical outcome of the UK’s current political situation is for a large section of Conservative Party MP’s to defect to Keir Starmer’s well right of centre, pro-Brexit, New Labour Party.
Every now and then a number of Westminster MPs change party, to long term political effect. In 1886 The Liberal Unionists, opposed to Gladstone’s policy of Irish Home Rule, crossed the floor en masse and allied with the Conservatives. This led to Tory rule for 17 of the next 20 years, and after a while the alliance became one as the Conservative and Unionist Party.
In 1981 just four MPs, but very senior, left the Labour Party, principally in opposition to nuclear disarmament, to form the Social Democratic Party and ally with the Liberal Party. This resulted in 16 years of consecutive Tory government. Eventual merger formed the Liberal Democrats.
Tory MPs are currently in an incredible funk as they face almost certain loss of their jobs at the next general election. Keeping their job, perks and salary is the overwhelming preoccupation of almost all current MPs. Tory MPs are actively considering ditching the chaotic Truss experiment after a few weeks, and feverishly telling any passing journalist about it.
But there is a much simpler way they can keep their jobs. Cross the floor and join the Labour Party, after negotiating with Starmer that they will be accepted as the Labour candidate in their constituency at the next election.
There is no ideological obstacle. The Labour Party’s current slogan is “Make Brexit Work”. If you stood on “Get Brexit Done”, it is not a big switch.
Sam Tarry MP has just been deselected as a Labour candidate for being a little bit left wing and for disobeying Starmer’s order not to appear on an official RMT picket line.
Red Wall Brexiteer Tory MPs need not worry about losing the racist vote. Starmer’s party are more than happy to pander to anti-immigrant racism.
Here is the Labour Party’s impeccably right wing Shadow Chancellor, Rachel Reeves, calling for more deportation:
(I can’t embed that video, here is the link)
I am not aware that it is possible to be too right wing for Keir Starmer’s New Labour. I know personally a number of people who have been kicked out for being too left wing. Has anybody been kicked out for being too right wing? Serious question.
The Forde Report said there was a “Hierarchy of racism” in the Labour Party, and that while anti-semitism led to immediate expulsion, Islamophobia and prejudice against BAME people were not taken seriously enough. I can therefore see no reason why Tory MPs would feel in the least uncomfortable.
Or take the case of John McTernan. This is from the famous Leaked Report on the Labour Party:
“John McTernan, meanwhile, formerly involved in New Labour and a delegate to 2016 party conference, was repeatedly reported from 25 July onwards for abusive language on Twitter and elsewhere, including describing Labour MPs who nominated Corbyn as “morons”; tweeting twice that Corbyn was a “traitor”; describing “Corbynistas” as racist; telling an SNP MP that he should “Come down to Peckham and try saying that, mate”; calling Corbyn a “Putin-hugging, terrorist-loving, Trident-hater”; and writing in the Daily Telegraph that all of Corbyn’s supporters were “online trolls”.”
“No action was taken, and McTernan received the staff decision “No action – removed at referral”. On 18 August, however, Dan Hogan did report a member of McTernan’s CLP, Omar Baggili, who – in response to an article by McTernan in “The Telegraph” urging the Conservative government to “crush the rail unions once and for all” – tweeted at him “seriously John why haven’t you got yourself a Tory membership card. They’re anti unions & pro privatisation like you.” Baggili was suspended for “abuse”.””
In addition to writing in his Telegraph column that the Tory government should “crush the rail unions once and for all”, McTernan produced gems like this one:
Despite formal complaints, Labour HQ staff refused to take any action against McTernan’s membership for being too right wing: and that was while Corbyn was leader.
So in crossing the floor, Tory MPs safeguarding their jobs could respectably console themselves that they are not joining any kind of left wing project.
For Starmer, there would be a big attraction in accepting the Tory MPs. There is a danger that Labour candidates in some Tory seats may be residual left wingers. As Starmer’s main focus is to protect his leadership against the pro-union, pro-immigration and pro-EU elements in his party (aka the membership), a good accession of fellow right wingers from the Tory Party would be welcome to him.
It would of course be terrific publicity for the Knight of the Realm, and may hasten the general election. If he sends out signals the doors are open, he might even get enough Tory MPs coming over to destroy the Tory majority in the Commons.
Perhaps none of this will happen. Logic and politics are uncomfortable bedfellows. But I expect the term “crossing the floor” will be bandied about a fair bit by political journalists over the next six months.
————————————————-
Forgive me for pointing out that my ability to provide this coverage is entirely dependent on your kind voluntary subscriptions which keep this blog going. This post is free for anybody to reproduce or republish, including in translation. You are still very welcome to read without subscribing.
Unlike our adversaries including the Integrity Initiative, the 77th Brigade, Bellingcat, the Atlantic Council and hundreds of other warmongering propaganda operations, this blog has no source of state, corporate or institutional finance whatsoever. It runs entirely on voluntary subscriptions from its readers – many of whom do not necessarily agree with the every article, but welcome the alternative voice, insider information and debate.
Subscriptions to keep this blog going are gratefully received.
Choose subscription amount from dropdown box:
Paypal address for one-off donations: [email protected]
Alternatively by bank transfer or standing order:
Account name
MURRAY CJ
Account number 3 2 1 5 0 9 6 2
Sort code 6 0 – 4 0 – 0 5
IBAN GB98NWBK60400532150962
BIC NWBKGB2L
Bank address Natwest, PO Box 414, 38 Strand, London, WC2H 5JB
Bitcoin: bc1q3sdm60rshynxtvfnkhhqjn83vk3e3nyw78cjx9
Ethereum/ERC-20: 0x764a6054783e86C321Cb8208442477d24834861a
Subscriptions are still preferred to donations as I can’t run the blog without some certainty of future income, but I understand why some people prefer not to commit to that.
We’re going to be hearing nonstop about Rachel Reeves in coming years, so it’s worth recalling something the BBC will never mention about her (or her patron Sir Keir). Namely that Starmer, the world’s greatest and most genuine fighter against antisemitism, appointed Reeves as his shadow chancellor knowing she had just written a hagiography of virulent antisemite and Hitler worshipper Nancy Astor.
https://skwawkbox.org/2020/07/02/excl-double-standards-starmer-refuses-to-discuss-reeves-celebration-of-hitler-fan-astor-because-she-wasnt-there-after-lengthy-discussion-of-long-bailey-in-her-absence/
The media then approvingly quoted Reeves saying the departure of huge numbers of Labour members was a “good thing” because it removed the “stain” of antisemitism.
That’s the UK media, Rachel and Sir Keir.
Sam Tarry at the time of writing, continues to receive the Labour whip. Curious?
Conservative MP, Christian Wakeford (Bury South) crossed the chamber in January. I believe he’s been assured the position of Labour candidate at the next GE. No avalanche of Tories following suit though.
When I checked earlier this week there were 13 MPs sitting as independents. It’s 14 now as Christina Rees (Neath) had the Labour whip removed yesterday for alleged bullying.
Fourteen independent MPs, as many as the LibDems, what’s going on?
For many decades of my life there were zero independent MPs. The first I think was white suit wearing, former BBC foreign correspondent Martin Bell.
The “offences” that led to the whip being withdrawn are many and varied. Some preposterous (Jeremy Corbyn; Socialist) some are legitimate (Jonathan Edwards; domestic assault). Nonetheless, either our elected representatives are an increasingly scurrilous bunch or the goalposts for infractions have been moved. A bit of both I suspect.
I’m not sure Starmer’s position over Brexit can be taken as evidence of Labour being right-wing. There is no choice about living with Brexit. The EU will not have us back, so Brexit has to be lived with. Is that not all that Starmer is saying?
Have you seen any evidence at all Labour might be right wing?
He’s certainly right wing on civil liberties and foreign policy. Ask Julian Assange and the Palestinians.
I think you’re being unfair to the right wing in British politics. The British right wing, as I understand it, differed from the left by wanting less government interference in the economy: no nationalised industries, no subsidies to industries, low income taxes. The right wing is consistent with libertarianism, respect for civil liberties, and respect for the rule of law in the international, as well as the national, sphere. A few Tory MPs have spoken out for Julian Assange (David Davis has, for example).
Starmer doesn’t want to nationalise any industries and he’s for low income taxes. If the Clement Attlee government is taken as typical of the Left and Margaret Thatcher or John Major as typical of the Right, it’s obvious that Starmer is very much closer to Thatcher or Major than to Attlee.
That’s true. Except for the government sponsored banks, restaurants, furlough schemes, subsidised food (but only in parliament), first time buyer assistance schemes (for the spouses of Tory MPs), the fact that half of them claim the mortgage payments from the taxpayer. Disregarding all of the things they actually do and going by rhetoric alone, they are small government libertarians ?
“The right wing is consistent with . . . . respect for the rule of law in the international, as well as the national, sphere”
No it isn’t.
The nickname “Perfidious Albion” wasn’t gained and didn’t last for centuries for no reason!
In today’s world – the Northern Ireland Protocol Bill is currently making its way through the House of Lords.
It is designed to up-end the Brexit Withdrawal Agreement which was negotiated by PM Johnson and ratified by a Conservative majority in the House of Commons
David Davis helped murder the disabled – I checked his voting record – and he never spoke out!
blacktrianglecampaign.org/2014/10/21/uk-welfare-reform-deaths-updated-list-october-21st-2014/
Keir Starmer and his New Labour government brought in ATOS, the Work Capability Assessment, quotas to kick a set number of disabled off disability benefit regardless of the merits of their cases, then abstained on the “Welfare Reform Bill”, leading to the “bedroom tax” and more suicides, and topped off this right-wing tabloid fueled evil under Ed Miliband with “we’ll be tougher on the unemployed than the Tories”. Fecking scroungers!
Starmer protected the policeman who assaulted Ian Tomlinson and was up at 3am in the morning encouraging judges to put “good kids behind bars” for a very long time, as instructed by David Cameron after the 2011 riots. I could go on, but anyone who has any respect for politicians deserves no respect from anyone.
Have you sen any evidence that Labour might be still in any way left-wing?
Starmer’s approach to press freedom is quite left wing in a manner of speaking. More specifically, Stalin’s manner of speaking
The usual argument presented is that Labour was never socialist. Not a view I share.
Answer to fonso’s question: no. Starmer is very similar to previous Labour governments. Only he’s been captured by the MOSSAD, who have an agent in his private office. I don’t like that.
I agree he’s similar to Blair and Brown in being an authoritarian, doctrinaire neoliberal and aggressive chickenhawk. However he seems much more comfortable than them in opposing the Tories from the right and of course he’s starting out as a much more proven liar.
But what I asked was whether you have seen any evidence that he and Labour are right wing.
Yeah I think that’s how the intelligence operative of far right persuasion that Starmer hired (that Laguerre just mentioned) came into play.
Also the left wing purge, and his support for things like deporting immigrants has right wing populist written all over it. That’s evidence. It’s in the article you just read… Right?
Of course. I am asking this Blairite if he sees anything right wing in Starmer and Mandelson’s Labour.
Let’s see.
Supporting the Israeli government is pretty right-wing. But you’re correct: evidence is scant, partly because Starmer’s opposition has published few policies with numbers on them.
Yes. Rachel Reeves’s Thatcherite ‘sound money’ economic policy.
Plus this constant “ordinary working people” schtick. Reeves has already declared that the party is not interested in representing the interests of non-working people. It’s a derivation of the ‘deserving’ vs. the ‘undeserving’ poor narrative, and favours the strong, or at least the capable, over the weak.
So where does that leave the young, the old, the disabled, the sick?
Or those of us who are simply “extraordinary”?
IMO it is pity that you comment many days later.
Most people move I assume?
Economics interests me so much so I check older posts and ?
Return to EU is very possible if the conditions are met and agreements made.U turns are always possible in politics
So basically 1931 in reverse, minus the PM (then Ramsay MacDonald) keeping their job?
There is definitely a whiff of “regime change” in the air today.
What repercussions will this have for Sturgeon’s referendum and/or plebiscite election?
None , Starmer is as right wing as the Conservative party he has the same policy on Scotland as the Conservative party , Scottish people on the whole know this they know that across Scotland Labour have teamed up with the Conservative party to prevent FPTP SNP controlling councils , ex Labour voters see this as treacherous traitor behaviour by Labour it caused a huge shift of Labour voters to SNP , Starmer copying Conservative policies keeps him firmly in treacherous traitor land as far as Scotland is concerned.
Labour is now massively ahead in the opinion polls, but what’s odd is that the Conservative melt-down hasn’t benefited the Liberals at all – voters seem to be ignoring them. This is new, and I wonder if it will survive to an actual election. Can conservative voters bring themselves to put the cross against Labour, even now they’ve been taken over by the right wing? For now, the Labour strategy seems to have worked – if working means simply getting elected.
If you look at the very recent polling graphs, the sudden surge for Starmer’s Labour Party is matched precisely by the decline in Truss’s Tory support.
Apart from being a stark indicator of how far Starmer has moved to make his party acceptable to Tory voters, this surge is however very vulnerable to a change in Tory leadership.
A move to what would appear to be a more ‘sensible’ Tory leadership team (eg PM Mordaunt, CoE Sunak?), would likely see that support for Labour drop. Add a leftist desertion at a GE and it could be GE 1992 all over again for Labour.
As an aside, if I were Truss, I’d call a GE today.
She has nothing left to lose, and although politically suicidal for her, it would be sweet revenge on all her backstabbing colleagues, most of whom would lose their seats under her continued leadership during the campaign.
The Tories have slumped to just 19% in the latest poll, Labour’s on 53%, which, if you extrapolate that out (always risky), under the unrepresentative FPTP, it would give the current administration a grand total of 4 seats in the HoC! As the polling report makes clear though, “the spectacular swing in Labour’s favour is driven more by distaste for the Truss administration than enthusiasm for Starmer.
Just one-third of those questioned (33 per cent) said they had a favourable view of the Labour leader, against 41 per cent whose opinion was unfavourable.”
To date, Starmer’s party has shown no sign of being able to turn these flattering, albeit self-selecting telephone poll participants’ derived big polling leads into actual votes in real ballot boxes. Their by-election performances reveal an astonishing lack of enthusiasm for the reheated Blairite leftovers Starmer’s New-New Labour offer. You could say, Labour’s current support is currently a mile-wide and an inch deep. They’d certainly be very vulnerable to a new truly socialist party, they know this too, hence why they oppose proportional representation for Westminster, this despite Labour’s conference voting for it. Lib Dems should be questioning why Sir Ed Davey isn’t taking a bigger chunk of that waning Tory support when a more leftist leadfership would surely have seen them soar given the tepid enthusiasm for Starmer.
The Tories have found the limits of the UK public toleration for conservatism under the hapless Truss. It was obvious from her ministerial posts, that Truss is woefully short of political insight and skills, an almost autistic lack of political antennae / political awareness. She’s blindly followed the Telegraph ,Times and Mail’s political columnists’ urgings; those who have long urged the very kind of policies Truss and Kwarteng have pursued in this abortive mini-budget. All these are now backtracking in their columns, while Truss is left to make humiliating U-turns.
This mini-buget turned mini-crisis, also revealed to the masses that the real political masters are the international Bond and currency markets, or more accurately, market sentiment. How can we claim to have post-Brexit sovereignty when the UK govt is terrified of the Gilt Yields rising and/or a run on the GBP£? This may currently affect the despised Tories, but the same forces would have quickly destroyed a left-wing govt, even one with modest public investment plans.
“The same forces would have quickly destroyed a left-wing govt, even one with modest public investment plans.”
That’s a sobering thought.
I always imagined a Corbyn government wouldn’t last long mainly because the Americans would never permit it. It would soon have fallen because of dirty tricks from the security services, the media, and not least the Labour Party itself. Even if all that failed, there would have been terrorism, assassinations, or a right-wing military coup.
But you seem to be saying, plausibly, that none of that would have been needed. If I haven’t misunderstood you, and if you aren’t mistaken, then what, if anything, can be done about the power of the money markets?
(Presumably there are books that answer this question. I’m afraid I’m very behind in my reading.)
Twirlip
Not much, as the people regulating it are often put in place to maintain it, and without international consensus, well, good luck achieving that. The Bilderberg attending European leadership(EU) has been sewn up by the same forces. Where do you think President of the ECB Christine Largarde stands on tackling this in plain sight subversion of democracy by these godlike international markets?
This is why some on the left look in desperation to the likes of China, and to a lesser extent Russia. Their repressive rulers aren’t an admirable bunch, but they’re the only viable challengers to this broken western system built on casino capitalism.
Corbyn couldn’t even change the Labour Party – and you think he could have changed the country? Weak and spineless aren’t good traits in a political leader.
The point wasn’t about Jeremy Corbyn’s personality.
(For what it’s worth, I agree that he wasn’t a good leader. For one thing, he should have been tougher with the gang of liars and hypocrites who were out to get him, and he shouldn’t have sold out people who had supported him.)
The point was about the prospects – or rather lack of prospects – for a left-wing government. I understood what Goose meant (I think), and Goose understood what I meant, but you seem to be heading off on a tangent, for no reason that I can see.
The conventional explanation for Bill Clinton’s swift abandonment of his initial tax plans was that the bond markets compelled otherwise.
“This mini-buget turned mini-crisis, also revealed to the masses that the real political masters are the international Bond and currency markets, or more accurately, market sentiment. How can we claim to have post-Brexit sovereignty when the UK govt is terrified of the Gilt Yields rising and/or a run on the GBP£? This may currently affect the despised Tories, but the same forces would have quickly destroyed a left-wing govt, even one with modest public investment plans.”
So simple but profound and depressing for a lefty.
My interpretation of the market sentiment is that Markets like Austerity for the people and subsidies for Financial sector Oil sector and other big players. They did not react so emotionally to 145 Billion “unfunded ” so called help to people for energy crises going to Energy companies as kind of compensation for loss of obscene profits.
“but the same forces would have quickly destroyed a left-wing govt, even one with modest public investment plans.”
I am sure that would be against International law and financial based order.
@Goose, the U.K. govt can always outrun the markets if it so chooses.
If they ever want to, but don’t know how, just ask the Japanese.
The trade in shorting JGBs isn’t known as the Widowmaker for nothing!
#LearnMMT
In fact, rather than just the Gang of Four, no fewer than 25 [TWENTY-FIVE as the vidiprinter would put it] Labour MPs defected to the SDP in 1981 – 12 of them on the date it was founded (2nd March) – plus one Tory, Christopher Brocklebank-Fowler, just in case you ever need it for the big cash prize in Thursday’s canteen quiz.
In modern times, it’s remarkable how few MPs have crossed the floor from an ailing government to an ascendant opposition. Prior to Christian Wakeford earlier in the year, the last one was Alan Howarth in 1995 – who still sits on the Labour benches in the Lords – and before that Reg Prentice back in 1977.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_elected_British_politicians_who_have_changed_party_affiliation
Exactly – it wasn’t the Falklands fandango that returned Thatcher to her second term and the death of the post war consensus – it was the red Tories that were infused into the Labour Party through the 50s and 60s and their progeny.
Thanks for your reply DG. I think it was a bit of both. After the Argies invaded, Thatcher’s Tories rose from third to first in the polls before the Task Force had even set sail. If we hadn’t managed to defeat them – and it was a much closer run thing than most people think, not helped by our paucity of light artillery – it’s likely the 1983 election would have resulted in a hung parliament, with a Labour/Liberal/SDP coalition going on to form a government. Enjoy the weekend.
The economic problems that always destabilise capitalism at points in time, are best compared to how a military force patches up its machinery and fights on. Success or failure in those operations depends on many factors.
It really is stupid to think it is anything other than the economy.
What we have at the moment is the working through of many world changing events, the current ‘troubles’ have been on a roll since the Warsaw Pact collapsed. Who could have envisaged in the 1990’s that India and China would be the powers they are today, alongside the old powers.
The new kids on the block are here to stay and the old prefects don’t seem up to the job anymore.
Craig’s arguments about opportunists decamping is not far fetched, but it is also just as likely that political parties themselves may atomise in a similar fashion. Best stock up on the popcorn…_
The mystery is why “Sir” Keir and so many other élitist prole-hating right-wingers ever chose to join Labour, which (risibly) declares on every membership card that it is a “democratic socialist party”.
Starmer worked closely with MI5, MI6 as DPP – Matt kennard has revealed his siocial meetings with DG Jonathan Evans. These agencies hated Labour’s then leader Ed Miliband, over his overnight U-turn on Syria intervention in 2013. The House of Commons subsequently voted against intervention, to Labour frontbench cheers. Intel officials and top brass military were furious at the time with Miliband, google : “copper- bottomed shit'” – that’s how they were referring to Miliband. Miliband attended a confidential MoD briefing and apparently agreed to support the planned intervention the day before the vote.
Pure conjecture, but it seems likely Starmer(definitely not of the political left) was probably asked to join & stand for Labour in 2015, to try to take the party off the left, by any means necessary(in the national interest, of course). Look how he sat like some sleeper agent in Corbyn’s shadow cabinet and the way he lied to the members to become leader. Any better plausible explanation welcome.
Starker as PM will maintain the Union, update Trident, introduce a misinformation law and set entry for Ukraine to join an expanded NATO. That was my interpretation.
Agree with Goose.
Starmer was installed by Campbell/Blair 5eyes as a back stop against any legal charges arising out of the illegal Wars that Blair and Straw and co rubberstamped. He did that very well, as no such charges were ever prosecuted by the CPS.
He did also deliver one great prize for his Foreign Masters – the illegal imprisonment of Julian Assange as the greatest political prisoner of the C21st in the heart of the ancient imperial City!
They – the CPS staff – get regular invitations to the US embassy to keep them all on track and keep the lies of Assange’s incarceration without trial alive. Starmer is owed big.
It was sickening to watch a grim-faced Nick Clegg sat alongside Cameron in that 2013 HoC debate on Syrian intervention. The Tory – Lib Dem coalition, Lib Dems poised to troop through the lobbies in support. This was more infuriating than their tuition fees increase U-turn, or supporting Lansley’s hated NHS reforms. Unbearable stuff for 2010 GE Lib Dem supporters, of what had been, along with the SNP, the most dovish party in the UK under previous leader Charles Kennedy.
It’s been reported in the last few days that Nick Clegg, now Meta’s president of global affairs, has been named in leaked court documents as the ‘John Doe’ – alleged to have taken bribes. It’d previously been claimed, only that people “with high positions at Meta” took bribes from OnlyFans in an ongoing lawsuit that contends Meta and OnlyFans conspired to de-platform competing creators.
Could explain why he looked grim-faced sat alongside Cameron. Hope he enjoyed his thirty pieces of silver?
Grhm. It’s simply a job for the scumbags, it’s not a calling, it’s a seat on the gravy train. They don’t care what carriage they are in as long as they are on the gravy train.
It’s a bit like the judiciary – one day they defend an abused child, the next they defend a pedophile. It’s just a job, honour doesn’t come into it, just money.
Re Grhm “The mystery …”
No mystery; very simple. Blair showed that the way to power was to label himself “Labour” – thereby picking up the lifelong Labour voters who never vote any other way – while picking up the yuppies by not taxing their bloated incomes as they should be taxed, and doing nothing to annoy the upper-middle-class homeowners, so they won’t bother to vote at all at election time.
The people who want some kind of democratic socialism have nowhere else to go. We don’t have a democracy, we have a two-party system; people whose politics are on the Left daren’t vote SDP because that might let the Tories in. The only way to keep the Tories out of government is to vote Labour. That will result in Tory policies, but at least people like Truss and what’s-his-name – begins with a C – no, that’s wrong, Hunt – won’t be running the country. Some kind of NHS might survive.
The article complements Alexander Mercouris’s take on yesterdays “The Duran” podcast in which he suggested that Starmer was the deep state’s choice for regime change with the Tory Party imploding, because he had put all the nuts and bolts in place to exercise control over the status quo.
However I am not convinced that this will come about by Tories changing sides. This is not in their nature, more likely an enforced general election or even Truss hanging on till the next with the current debacle put down to teething problems.
Oddly I was just thinking this morning while walking the dog what would be the most satisfying way of spoiling my ballot paper at the next GE since I wont be able to vote for any of them. Possibly, just one big cross or brief comment against each candidate as to why I could n’t vote for them? With Labour it would be something like “can’t support fascism”.
The establishment are more concerned about foreign policy and London being in lockstep with Washington,; maintaining the ‘special relationship,’ FVEYs, NATO etc above all else.
This is where the most marked shift has come under Starmer. On Foreign policy/National security matters the party is now indistinguishable from the Tories. If anything it may be a little more hawkish. David Miliband authorised the massive expansion in surveillance revealed by Snowden, in secret, and now heads a ‘charity’ that’s been linked to the CIA. And this New New Labour crew are just the natural successors to that Labour govt. The Security State is so powerful and all encompassing now, and so impossible to rein in, the UK may never have a truly ‘free & fair’ general election again imho. This is the real reason we’ll never be allowed proportional representation for Westminster, you can stitch up two leaderships, but not multiple leaderships involved in post-election horse-trading.
Alexander Mecouris is utterly corrupt! He spouted endless falsehoods leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and got visibly excited when Putin initially invaded. When things got worse, however, he said he has trouble handling violence and had “a moment” earlier that day, but can now smile about things – in other words, he prepared himself for supporting the bloody atrocities Russia is now committing. He was a barrister who got struck off for bringing his profession into disrepute and costing a woman £250K. He then went to work for RT channel and now cheerleads for Vladimir Putin.
People who wished Putin a happy birthday got a thumbs up from the duran.
“I am not aware that it is possible to be too right wing for Keir Starmer’s New Labour.”
– so – there are now two Tory parties in Britain.
“so – there are now two Tory parties in Britain.”
Four, actually, Blue, Red, Yellow and Tartan.
Poor you. Everybody’s a Tory now, aren’t they?
Yes, there are a lot of Tory politicians around. Tory is as Tory does. I’m not sure why this is a matter for commiseration with me specifically, the whole country suffers.
You are describing what some folk already know that there isn’t much of a difference between the Tories and Labour now.
Woeful performance from Truss at her press conference.
Basically I was right but I’ll throw you Kwarteng anyway.
Surely she’s toast!
At least she doesn’t talk long ?. Repeats couple of slogans for 2 minutes and again in Q&A.
Done in 10 min.
My impression of the Truss statement was of a suicide note. Shame, because she is such a nice fascist.
None of the above is news anymore. Starmer now sees Labour as his party and all those socialists as enemies worse than the tories. If anyone has any doubt, everything that Craig Murray says here is proven in the series of documentaries by AlJazeera, the Labour Files, based on leaks. I urge everyone to see these to recognise as to the level the Labour party has sunk.
https://www.ajiunit.com/investigation/the-labour-files/
Wow. That investigation, those documentaries, are tremendous. Obviously the MSM will try to bury them by ignoring them. We need to post that link everywhere.
Yes Roger. But I amazed how little exposure this has had and littler reaction from commenters here.
SA, to the commenters here this wasn’t news!
It looks like both, Labour and Tory, do not want another GE, Starmer can offer seats, held by sociallist MPs who dont quiet square with their leader, to Tories crossing the floor and desperate to keep selfserving.
Mary-quite-contrary will have to go as well. As she was speaking this afternoon, the pound dropped instead of receiving a healthy bounce. She used the word growth 11 times during her short address at 2.32pm, appointing Mr. Hunt, not having much experience of finance, to carry on fulfilling her ‘vision’.
The pressure for her to leave will increase, as will the speculative debate on how to govern the UK.
Rachel Reeves and McTernan’s ensuring that those changing one right-wing rabble for another, are feeling secure in their betrayal of voters.
Crossing the floor, hah ! Tories and Labour – Two cheeks of the same @rse.
Destruction of the UK, arguably, began with Thatcher. Blair picked up that ball and ran with it, now his legacy infests Labour. Corbyn the last honest man, destroyed by the Tories, Labour, Israel and the USA. Socialism has left the building …
These corrupt and incompetent MPs can cross the floor as many times as they like. For them it’s all a bloody big game whose objective is to still have a seat on the gravy train at the end of the day. Meanwhile, the country and it’s peoples have been totally destroyed by the actions of these people – traitors every single one of them.
Well said!
“Tory MPs are currently in an incredible funk as they face almost certain loss of their jobs at the next general election. Keeping their job, perks and salary is the overwhelming preoccupation of almost all current MPs.”
We’ve been here before, haven’t we with the Rump Parliament, which also was more interested in serving themselves than the will of the people. Cromwell’s dismissal of them is also apposite:
“It is high time for me to put an end to your sitting in this place, which you have dishonoured by your contempt of all virtue, and defiled by your practice of every vice. Ye are a factious crew, and enemies to all good government. Is there a single virtue now remaining amongst you? Is there one vice you do not possess?”
Does the term ‘Labour MP’ have any more positive connotation these days than ‘Tory MP’? Virtually all the current PLP were sourced, vetted and approved by Peter Mandelson and you can bet his next batch will be even more extreme. Similarly the words ‘General Election’. Denuded of meaning let alone hope in an age when both parties serve the 1%.
I don’t like Liz Truss, but Starmer, really? He was DPP when the decision was taken to not prosecute Saville. Now, it is a personal decision whether you believe he was involved or not. But for me, I can never forgive.
Also, Starmer was the DPP when the Assange persecution kicked off. Scumbag !
There is quite a deep level of misunderstanding here if you take anything in the article as approval of Starmer.
It’s a bit of a mineshaft – the depth is frightening.
Please help, am I understanding correctly that what Liz Truss has done wrong is to not do what the Bankers want? And for this she must go?
They thought she was a safe pair of hands until they could install Starmer.
Unfortunately her incompetence was just too Galactic – even for them – so she has to go.
Sunak will be a safer safe pair of hands.
I never saw it said that Truss was a safe pair of hands. She was elected for other reasons (e.g. colour of skin).
As Mr. Leninology said about this video by George Mandelbrott
https://twitter.com/DoubleDownNews/status/1577574544478507009
Richard Seymour @leninology
5 Oct
I don’t know. It’s a good video but generally, when you’ve got a government working for the oligarchs, the pound doesn’t tank and the markets don’t panic, and ratings agencies and the IMF don’t scold or warn, because the circulation of power and capital is not disrupted.”
She’s a fall guy and Sturmer is the real endgame.
TBH, I believe she was blamed for what the BoE had to do.
Today everyone from the opposition party blames her, for example, for the increase in mortgage rates. The BoE has been increasing rates since January to combat Inflation.
Most mortgages are linked directly or indirectly to BoE rates and were increasing, and most likely will/should increase due to inflation (about 10%). FED rates are 3.25% and BoE = 2.25%.
Fcking Bond Market I don’t understand but I ask where does the BoE get the money to buy 65 Billions of Bonds? Is it funded or unfunded, or it is a different “tab” (we sort it out later, mate)?
What I believe is that owning something giving you 1% in interest while inflation is 10% and while government/BoE interest rates are 2.25%, and rising, is a big problem! Having those Bonds is a shit and a problem. Let’s bail them out and blame the ‘special needs’ PM.
the Bank has a license to print money. It doesn’t have to get it from anywhere.
So you agree with me that there is “Magic Money Tree” and yet we heard so many times that there is NO Magic money tree.
My point is there is magic money tree for some and not for others. Gatekeepers to Magic money tree are the only game in town. When magic tree is used the purpose of its use is never questioned.
Use of Magic MT is justified without mentioning word Magic Money tree.
I am aware of limitations/constrains and misuse of Magic tree and consequences !
Of course there is a magic money tree
It’s the Bank of England
Which isn’t a real bank like those in the high street
It’s the governments bank
The government bank can print money whenever it wants to it can never run out of money and nobody can stop Westminster telling the BOE to print money
Where it’s most noticeable is at times of crisis
Such as war or covid , huge sums are magically created with zero input from taxation
@Terry Callachan,
We MMTers (Modern Monetary Theory that is, not magic money tree!) prefer to use the term ‘creating currency’ rather than ‘printing money’ – partly because nowadays there’s no printing involved, and also became the latter term has connotations of Weimar wheelbarrows and Zimbabwe, both of whose hyper-inflationary problems were caused by a catastrophic loss of their productive capacity (loss of the Ruhr to France; handing farms to cronies) rather than any money printing itself, and so opens the whole money creation process open to unwarranted and inaccurate criticism, when in fact it’s how the govt spends every day.
The problem with Liz Truss is that after the fall of Bojo the conservatives whittled down potential leaders to the worst 2 for the final round (perhaps not exactly the worst). Rishi never stood a chance based on his race. The whole thing went down like a game of Survivor. Liz hasn’t done anything wrong – she is just an idiot who rarely thinks with her head before opening her mouth (even compared with Boris she is loose lipped) – the party and the people deserve better.
“The problem with Liz Truss is that after the fall of Bojo the conservatives whittled down potential leaders to the worst 2 “
The worse of which was Liz, by a long way, so unsurprisingly she won. It really does look like a deliberate choice. Was it that the Party wanted Thick Lizzie, even though she was the worst, or was it that they wanted someone as as bad as her and she fitted the bill most closely? More to the point, why?
I’m no economist, but even average punters like me can see they’ve made a mighty mess through pursuing ideological policies, based on right-wing dogma & hubris.
She’s incompetent. For starters, Kwasi Kwarteng refused to let the government watchdog – the Office for Budgetary Responsibility (OBR) – assess the economic impact of his planned tax cuts. Borrowing to give away in tax cuts to the UK’s wealthiest i.e. those on £150k pa + and to corporations, chasing illusive ‘growth’ via trickle-down theory, theory that has been thoroughly debunked over the decades is as mad and infuriatingly tone deaf, in a cost-of-living crisis, as it seems.
Not only was this mini-budget unpopular among the general public, the markets rightfully viewed this gamble on automagically generating growth, as reckless and irresponsible given current borrowing levels, and responded. The pound dropped as investors took flight, the Bank of England responded with bond buy-backs in an attempt to stabilise the markets (buy-backs that today ended), the yield rate also went up on govt issued gilts (longer term govt bonds) suggesting the crisis isn’t over. The BoE was already struggling with controlling inflation (due to rising energy/food costs), by raising interest rates (hurting mortgage rates – politically toxic in the Tory-voting South East/West where homes are obv. more expensive. Ideally, govt fiscal policy (tax & spend) shouldn’t undermine monetary policy (BoE) and vice versa. It’s a chaotic mess in part cooked up in No.10 and No.11 Downing Street.
“I’m no economist, but even average punters like me can see they’ve made a mighty mess through pursuing ideological policies, based on right-wing dogma & hubris.”
Which have the effect of making rich people richer, so job done. I think we can ditch giving them the benefit of the doubt over ‘good intent’.
Given all the great, important and challenging events unfolding in the world – it would have been remiss of me if I had not done the very best I could have for P.M. Liz Truss when so requested to do:-
Re: There’s a hole in the budget dear Liz – a* hole.
So, out of the blue I get a call from the British Prime Minister. She confesses that she has some serious economic and financial challenges on her hands and goes into some considerable detail. Some of the facts I knew already but some were totally new revelations. The exchange went like this.
Liz ( L): Courtenay – you were highly recommended and I most definitely need your assistance.
Courtenay (C ): What’s the problem?
L: There’s a hole in the budget dear Courtenay – a hole.
C: Well plug it dear Liz – just plug it.
L: With what shall I plug it dear Courtenay – with what?
C: With money dear Liz dear Liz – with money.
L: But the money is too short dear Courtenay – the money is too short – dear Courtenay – the money is too short.
C: Then tax them dear Liz – tax them dear Liz – just tax them.
L: But I can’t dear Courtenay – I can’t.
C: Why dear Liz – so why can’t you just tax them?
L: Cause I promised dear Courtenay – because I promised – I promised.
C: Then U-turn dear Liz – then U-turn – just U-turn dear Liz.
L: But that will look too bad dear Courtenay – it will look too bad dear Courtenay – it will look too bad.
C: So blame it dear Liz – just blame it dear Liz.
L: On whom shall I blame it dear Courtenay – on whom shall I blame it – on whom?
C: On Kwasi dear Liz – on Kwasi – on Kwasi dear Liz.
L. O.K. dear Courtenay – O.K. dear Courtenay – I did.
C. Now fire him dear Liz – just fire him.
L: I did dear Courtenay – I just did.
C. Now appoint a new Chancellor dear Liz – appoint a new Chancellor dear Liz.
L: I did dear Courtenay – I did.
C: Fine so what’s your problem dear Liz – what’s your problem dear Liz?
L: Not enough money dear Courtenay – not enough money dear Courtenay.
C. Well increase taxes dear Liz – increase taxes dear Liz – increase taxes dear Liz.
L: But I can’t dear Courtenay – I can’t.
C: So, cut benefits dear Liz – cut benefits – just cut benefits dear Liz – cut benefits.
L: But I can’t dear Courtenay – I can’t.
C. Well just plug it dear Liz – just plug it.
L: With what shall I plug it dear Courtenay ?
C: With money dear Liz – with money dear Liz – with money.
L: But there is a hole in the budget dear Courtenay – a hole in the budget dear Courtenay – a hole.
Yeah – thanks – seems presentable to both the PM and the public.
Cheers.
I disagree with couple of comments but it is either TAX or MONEY Creation /debt.
UK was in deficit for decades but this was the last drop ?.
Debt in 1997, according to Statista, was about 350 Billion and now about 2300 Billion and we still talk about fiscal responsibility and market reactions to Liz’s statement.
In 1997 GDP was about 1.5 Trillion and now is 2.7 Trillion. So we borrowed 2 trillion to increase GDP by 1.2 Trillion.
Pigeon English,
So you make my point even stronger with a lot of statistical support.
Much obliged.
Courtenay
yes and you are welcome
> In 1997 GDP was about 1.5 Trillion and now is 2.7 Trillion. So we borrowed 2 trillion to increase GDP by 1.2 Trillion.
“We borrowed 2 trillion” is a single event.
“increase GDP by 1.2 Trillion” – GDP is annual output; that means it’s 1.2 trillion *per year*.
That is the way you see it and interpret it.
I see it that more and more debt is created for slower growth.
2 trillion I will argue is not “single” event. It was a accumulated year after year and GDP grew over years.
Just for argument sake Debt to GDP is increasing. (TBH I don’t have a clue why is that so important and talked about. Was our economy much better when debt/gdp was 60% than 90%)
Too much contradiction and BS.
When the government spends money it does not have it’s called borrowing which turns into debt but all it does is tell the BOE to print money and spends it a certain way , the debt is then added to debt for previous years but the governments debt is to itself .It’s just a way of avoiding making everyone so rich that nobody wants to work , they tell us about the debt and then tax us more if there is too much spending by people.
Sometimes if they have to print a heck of a lot of extra money for example in an emergency they do what they politely call QE , quantative easing which is basically a write off they print the extra money to pay for something but don’t add it to the debt they just write it off.
Let’s be honest, Mary is and always was a self serving, moron. However, is there a single politician in the country who is not an incompetent, corrupt, self serving numpty ?
Surely if there was they would shine out like a pearl in a cess pit !
QED. We are f*k*d. We need to throw the lot out and start again, otherwise nothing will change.
“… is there a single politician …?”
Of course there are, in both parties. Jeremy Corbyn, possibily John McDonnell. David Davis among the Tories. All three have spoken out in Parliament for Julian Assange.
Such people do shine out, as you put it, like pearls in a cesspit. But like pearls in a cesspit, they don’t float to the top, they sink.. They’re outnumbered by the unscrupulous many who are only in politics for what they can get out of it.
To continue the metaphor, what rises to the top is the scum and the shit.
CM –
“Or take the case of John McTernan”
We shouldn’t be too hard on John. He was Jim Murphy’s media guru during the 2015 GE – the one where Labour lost 40 of its 41 seats in Scotland. I believe Blair was touting McTernan around his favourite dictators in the Ex Soviet republics, but none of them would wear it.
Starmer with his band of second raters in the shadow cabinet is the bland leading the bland. Labour were opposed to the corporation tax rises proposed by Sunak which Kazi cancelled and Truss has now reinstated.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2021/feb/25/keir-starmer-unites-labour-critics-no-tax-rises-stance
McTernan was also the strategist behind a disastrous defeat for Australian Labour a year later. None of it has stopped British media from giving him the stage at every opportunity, specifically to say leftwing economic policies are not popular with the public.
fonso –
“None of it has stopped British media from giving him the stage at every opportunity”
McTernan was also on a Novara Media discussion panel during the Labour party conference. Michael Walker looks increasingly as if he’s interviewing for a Guardian gig. Novara and McTernan do have in common that they both supported the anti-semitism smear campaign against Corbyn.
Novara Media: Labour Vs The Unions | NM at #TWT22, with Mick Lynch, John McTernan & Zara Sultana (24 Sep 2022) – YouTube, 55m 13s
Sadly that doesn’t surprise me. I remember Novara also used to promote Paul Mason as a political thought leader.
To prevent the great crossing Liz substitutes Kwarteng with Hunt. But will that work?
Oh, that’s who the new chancellor is, I thought it was Rimmer out of “Red Dwarf”.
If Mary really has the nation’s interest in her utmost regard, she would pack her coffers and leave before next week.
Nobody is prepared for a GE, so should they really borrow 300million to hold one?
Everyone is going on about interest rates, in isolation of inflation, the daily drain that we experience going to get essentials.
Inflation has the potential to stay with us for a long time; it is like a wild galloping mustang – hard to stop or keep in check.
I renew my call to those who want Independence, get together and hammer out a framework with people who understand the intricacies of setting up and working out policies that will change Scotland.
To be ready for whatever will come next.
I couldn’t care less about who wins the next GE.
It will make zero difference.
The Left Green Authoritarians are in power and opposition now everywhere.
The only good thing is that the next government will inevitably bankrupt the country, leading to a proper socially conservative and truly capitalist and democratic one, one also at least halving the civil service and pension payments to it by necessity again, although I’d actually prefer a parliament made up by sortition and the abolition of political parties then.
The only election that matters globally is for POTUS in 2 years time, but even that only if, as and when DeSantis runs and wins.
Ah yes, only the US matters.
Well they are the only foreign country with a large military presence in the UK.
What has just happened in the UK should not be a cause of celebration by anyone who cares for real democracy. Much as I hold the Truss regime with utter contempt, I agree with Alexander Mercouris https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KL7wSpKMNIw who analysis the situation in that this is regime change in UK and the instrument of Regime Change is the so called ‘markets’. What this translates to is that there is no such thing now as a ‘sovereign state’. Any government not approved by the oligarchs and big hedge funds will be destablised even if it is an extremely right-wing government, so what hope is there for socialism? Even if Corbyn was elected he would not have been able to carry out any of his policies. This should be a salutary call for those craving Scottish independence as a relatively small economy without friends in the city of London will be seriously destabilised from day one. This is why the battle has to be against the system and fragmentation is only going to weaken any resistence.
> What this translates to is that there is no such thing now as a ‘sovereign state’.
I don’t agree. I don’t share the view that “The Markets” are a political actor; they are just the manifestation of reality. If you reduce taxes without also cutting spending, money traders are forced to assume you intend to borrow a lot of money. So the cost of borrowing goes up. It’s a bit like legislating that pi is equal to 3.000: reality automatically defeats your new law. State sovereignty can’t trump reality.
‘Markets’ are just traders not out for society but for quick profits. All the assumptions and quick reactions to any government policy does not necessarily translate to long term good for the population at large. Reality in this case is imposed by a cartel of profiteers.
And Jimmeh just reflect on this. The government is willing ti transfer 150 billions of taxpayers’ money to energy companies in order to satisfy the market law of profiteering. This is apparently totally unfunded, but because it is in favour of the market ethos of extreme profiteering, the markets did not object. Come another 45 billion but the markets decided that this will not help immediate profiteering but something else does, and that is to destabilize the UK economy.
Jimmeneh believes that markets act according to law of physics and science. That is why he believes that ‘markets’ are natural phenomenon and not a traders. Markets reacts sound
more respectable and scientific than traders, bankers and speculators.
Yes it can.
The govt simply instructs the BoE to purchase any new Gilts directly in the Primary market (as the Treasury considered doing at the beginning of the Covid crisis), or it refuses to issue any more Gilts at all, and instead runs an overdraft at the BoE using the mothballed Ways and Means A/c, now possible, ex-EU.
The markets can then go stuff themselves!
Although, in reality they’ll be begging the govt to issue more gilts soon enough, because they’ll be no safe place to save Sterling, other than an increasingly costly secondary market for existing gilts.
If in doubt, the govt can just ask Japan how it’s done.
Alexander Mercouris said Russia was NOT going to invade Ukraine and, even if it did, the Ukrainians weren’t up for a fight. He later laughed hysterically at the UK government’s notion that Dear Old Vlad was going to install a puppet regime in Ukraine – Putin later started doing just that by installing “handpicked” mayors for various towns after the former ones mysteriously vanished.
If you take this line you will believe nobody. In this particular case, Alexander Mercouris is posing a question about who determines policy and it is a valid question. What you are indulging in is irrelevant to the discussion.
SA, wrong. Scotland fear not, become independent, have your own currency from day one then join the EU asap, no need to bother with London markets, Amsterdam and Stuttgart, Paris and Brussels, as good for a country of 5 million people.
And Europe doing well economically now? You will also be subject to NATO and end up sending troops to Ukraine.? . You will also be forced to divert your NS oil and gas to prop up the failing EU. Out of one frying pan into another.
The article above is deliciously mischievous. I’d love to know how many of the current crop of Labourites are reading the posts here.
Some brave attempts at analysis here but these are entirely futile. We are in a period of chaos with random unseen and covert influences and unknown or partially covert factors.
I have it on record in the form of my WhatsApp messages to my ‘political comment friend’ that Liz Truss would implode very quickly. I made the comment during the leadership contest and based it upon previous extreme utterances by the lady in question (I am predicting her imminent elevation to the Lords as soon as some face saving mechanism sees her removed from her current position).
She is/was an expensively educated dimwit and that was obvious from her previous public comments which revealed her political instincts/nous/savvy as negligible. Her political understanding was always ‘charmingly’ or laughably callow. This explains her appeal to the wider Tory selectorate. Her adolescent attachment to ideology reveals her lack of intellectual depth.
I shall also put it on record that the chaos we are witnessing in the rat’s nest of Westminster (and elsewhere) is related to larger devastating global processes. The breakdown of political differentiation and clarity are symptomatic of much bigger processes, probably related to the profound, prevailing global thermodynamic conditions and shifts generated by this latest iteration of human activity (proliferation of personal comment), the ever expanding use of IT and developments in AI, not forgetting climate change stresses.
‘I shall also put it on record that the chaos we are witnessing in the rat’s nest of Westminster (and elsewhere) is related to larger devastating global processes. The breakdown of political differentiation and clarity are symptomatic of much bigger processes, probably related to the profound, prevailing global thermodynamic conditions and shifts generated by this latest iteration of human activity (proliferation of personal comment), the ever expanding use of IT and developments in AI, not forgetting climate change stresses’
This could do with some intellectual depacking and explanation of its own! It seems a plethora of iterated concepts duly unconnected in clarity of form or context.
happy to oblige, Keith
I think it almost impossible to see through the huge range of comments on political matters. Everyone has a view and wants it heard. There are few (or no) reliable syntheses of the huge range of factors which influence many issues. I am suggesting that the widespread availability of so many sources of ‘information’ creates a lack of clarity. For example, the Ukraine/Russia war is interpreted from many perspectives. Such events are extremely complex and a detailed analysis is time consuming and intellectually demanding and even then is not conclusive. I think the basic issue is the development of IT and the ease of ‘free’ comment. AI is already here and while not yet very sophisticated, it’s only a matter of time before it supercedes human capacities.
The second issue I alluded to is the troubling doubt that there is a ‘sustainable’ energy option that does not violate the second law of thermodynamics…. Even if there is a viable use of resources that could satisfy the kinds of pressures humanity is creating and facing, my intuition is that the kinds of co-operative behaviour required to bring about a coherent set of principles and policies for continued mass survival and a viable environment to support it, is not possible.
I think there will be a period of rapid de-growth. In effect a collapse of the current period of destructive large-scale competitive consumerism. Technocracy is failing. Elon Musk is not the messiah. Mars is not the promised land. Hayek’s price mechanism is not the magic bullet that will unleash untold growth and wealth. I don’t doubt that Liz Truss presented her Oxford tutor with a passing analysis of ‘The Road to Serfdom’ but she has clearly failed to understand Hayek’s gibberish.
Thick Lizzy didn’t get that expensive an education DG2, as she’s an alumna of Roundhay School in dirty Leeds*, which at the time was a comprehensive school that she claims let down a lot of its pupils. Well I don’t think she can say it let her down, seeing as her teachers appear to have worked miracles on her behalf to get her into Oxford.
In her dreary conference speech, she also claimed to be the first British prime minister to have gone to a comprehensive. Factcheck: No, that would have been Theresa May, since Horton Park Girls’ Grammar in Oxfordshire became Wheatley Park Comp while the last-but-one PM was still in attendance. Another school-girl error.
* where I used to live for a bit till I managed to escape without even a single machete or buckshot wound. I don’t know how I did it – I suppose good manners cost nothing. You can’t afford to make too many school-boy/girl errors around them parts, people. Enjoy what’s left of the weekend.
deep green, I agree with you.
I reckon some banks will fail soon and Universal Benefit income will replace taxation on income.
Seems to me we have a truly one party system in the UK, which works in favour of its client mr Global, as Catherine Fitts calls it.
I remember its beginnings in the 70s as American capital bought out and asset-stripped UK companies, went past the point of no return under Thatcher/Reagan; then came Blair, who showed the fix was in.
In the current situation with supply side inflation which is surely impervious to a rise in interest rates, and UK’s need to import said supplies, it cannot make any difference to the man on the street who occupies Westminster.
IMHO the only European country that is in a relatively good position right now is Hungary, whose wise government has taken a neutral stance on the violent US/Russia imbroglio.
Financial deregulation in the eighties and nineties, and the speculative(casino) finance industry that subsequently grew out of that. The global bond market is valued at over $100 trillion, of which approximately $40 trillion is based in the United States (as of 2020).
Lots of mixxed metaphors, but that genie can’t be put back, countries and politicians are made or broken by ‘the markets’ and/or bought off whether willingly or not. The Davos govt is now firmly in power in the west.
There is nothing wrong with democracy or capitalism per se, but the cancerous growth due to that initial financial market deregulation, now works to destroy faith in the first and discredit the latter imho.
How do people not realise we live in a sham democracy where all meaningful choice has been removed?
Many obviously do realise, but simply hold the view things could be worse. They compare our country and the standard of living to other countries. I debated our voting system quite recently with someone supportive of FPTP. He’s long bought into the establishment and tabloid claim proportional representation inevitably leads to chaotic, unstable govt. Well, that old ‘stability’ argument is looking increasingly threadbare with the Tories unable to agree, acting more like three incompatible parties forced together under duress. And with the UK changing PMs, as if there’s a game of musical chairs underway in No.10. Britain is the new Italy in terms of political chaos, unrest, and all under FPTP.
The arguments against PR were always bogus anyway; with the tabloids cherry picking out the most chaotic examples, among an ocean of PR-based democracies. Hardly any democracies and certainly no new democracies, choose to use a FPTP voting system, because it’s plainly grossly unrepresentative, producing distorted results and leaves many feeling disenfranchised, powerless and unhappy with the ‘lesser evil’ type choice. It takes a peculiar, selfish, evil elite to think it’s a suitable system for any democracy worthy of the name in 2022. Proportional representation wouldn’t be any panacea mind, but it would limit the current elite’s abuse of power.
Two problems with PR that I see are, firstly that it takes the focus even further away from the candidate and puts it more on the party and secondly that with the increase in complication of the ballot, there will be a greater temptation to allow a move to electronic voting. Better to change nothing but move to multi-member constituencies, where there are, say three to five seats up for grabs and the top three to five in the ballot get elected. This system has the benefits of requiring little change, being simple and being already in use for local elections.
We’d hopefully avoid closed party lists. But debating the merits of various system implementations is secondary to the importance of ditching FPTP.
As Craig’s piece highlights, we’ve got the type of cross-party consensus between the big two again, of the kind that railroaded through the Iraq war on fabricated evidence, shouting down opponents as they did so. If both parties collude to lock out alternative points of view and protect each other, then we have a functioning democracy in name only.
Look at the inability of the HoC to even debate our govt’s approach to fueling the war in Ukraine, a war that could go nuclear if it plays out as the UK seemingly wants it to go, with Russia staring down defeat. Putin has too much domestic support to fade away quietly or be removed by some uprising. So who knows where it goes: the US starts attacking Russian military HW and troops, as David Petraeus has said they would? Would European US bases be attacked? NATO then attacks the Russian mainland , China comes in on Russia’s side = goodnight everybody in Europe, possibly the US too? Anyone raising questions as to the wisdom of deliberate escalation, is classed as either siding with Russia or sowing division. Increasingly ‘division’ is defined as when you don’t follow the MSM’s ban on thinking about events.
” then we have a functioning democracy in name only.”
The UK is not, and never has been a democracy, or at least, not one that the ancient Greeks, who invented the term, would recognise as one. It is a partially elective oligarchy and, before that, was simply an oligarchy. The demos have never ruled, all they have ever done is chose the people who choose the people who make up a small part of the executive arm of the government. This country has always been ruled by the rich and influential, all that’s changed over the years is what sort of people those oligarchs are.
“Anyone raising questions as to the wisdom of deliberate escalation, is classed as either siding with Russia or sowing division.”
That’s the dualism that infests our philosophical inheritance here in the West – if you are not with us you are against us. Neutrality is not an option.
> takes the focus even further away from the candidate and puts it more on the party
That depends on the type of PR. Perhaps you are referring to a party-list system, to which I would be strongly opposed. I don’t know whether it’s possible for an idependent to stand, in a party-list system.
I’m also opposed to multi-member constituencies. That would result either in multiplying the number of MPs, or dramatically increasing constituency sizes.
I’d be OK with a ranked-preference voting system; no party list, no multi-member, but every vote counts, and there’s less need for tactical voting.
“dramatically increasing constituency sizes.”
Why is that a problem, if the number of constituents per MP remains the same? Take five bordering constituencies under the current system, or indeed under PR, with, say, two Conservative MPs, two Labour MPs and one Lib Dem MP. In each constituency, the majority of voters will have an MP they didn’t vote for. Now roll those five constituencies into one and have it return five MPs. For starters, there are very unlikely to be two MPs returned from the same party as no party will want to split the vote, but even if they were, this would mean that all the major parties would have an MP elected, thus the majority of voters will have an MP who they voted for. How is that not an improvement?
Dear Goose, these days I live in Norway, which is governed under a proportional representation system.
The country is self sufficient in hydro power production, which is mostly owned by the national state, and district councils. Imagine that!
Plus the national oil company is 67% owned by the state, and is making money hand over fist in the current energy squeeze.
BUT electricity prices are going to the moon just like in the rest of Europe, because about 10 years ago the government was induced to sell and buy in the Euro spot market. The state is subsidising private energy bills here, financed by taxing the electricity producers, but my bills are about double what they were last year. The state is not providing any meaningful subsidy to manufacturing companies such as pharmaceuticals and pulp production. The undercapitaized are going bust, while those with a good capital base are shutting down and laying off the staff, to wait for better times. But they will of course lose their customers to Asian competitors. You really have to ask why the state government is allowing this catastrophe to happen.
My point is, unfortunately it makes no difference what form of state government you have, when they sell out their constituents to the Globalists.
Guess whose government did the leg work getting Norway into the spot market system – Jens Stoltenberg, who scored the top NATO job when he finished his term in 2014.
John,
“BUT electricity prices are going to the moon just like in the rest of Europe, because about 10 years ago the government was induced to sell and buy in the Euro spot market.”
I was inclined to say – explain more. Maybe you already have.
Seeking a better future for all of humankind.
“My point is, unfortunately it makes no difference what form of state government you have, when they sell out their constituents to the Globalists.”
It must be very tempting: sell your people into serfdom and you, too, can become a neo-feudal aristocrat.
john
He’s not alone. Josep Borrell, Vice-President of the European Commission, who was appointed at the discretion of the unelected Commission President, today claimed Russian forces will, quote, “be annihilated” by European (NATO) forces if Russia uses WMD in Ukraine. Borrell is also the EU’s pretentious sounding, High Representative for Common Foreign and Security Policy.
Don’t others feel that there’s something deeply disturbing and obnoxious about these unelected hawkish individuals, like Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and Borrell, issuing dangerous threats when Europeans haven’t voted for them? Russia’s nuclear arsenal is very well maintained, constantly refreshed (not Soviet era), modernised and fully functional; it could make a dreadful mess of the EU, and thus a sensible diplomat would weigh these risks in statements and try to cool the rhetoric. Borrell also said he’s got no time for diplomats, and presumably diplomacy? This hothead seems uniquely unsuited to the role he’s in at this time.
In general I am with EU idea but lately I am questioning it. Borrell and Ursula are putting me off.
I’m broadly pro-EU with caveats centring on the democratic deficit.
The sidelined elected parliament and all powerful Commission is an absurd arrangement. Commission President Ursula von der Leyen and her self-styled foreign Policy chief, Josep Borrell, and even the ECB’s Christine Lagarde, read like a shortlist the US State Dept would draw up for these positions. They seem to be doing Washington’s bidding.
A correction: Borrell said that 3 days ago. It was reported today without that additional information in the piece I read.
John
at least Norwegians have the choice to vote for Socialist Left or Progressive party (O shit it’s Progress party?)
Just because Norway’s labour is “New labour” doesn’t speak against a PR system.
Jens Stoltenberg, Labour (Arbeiderpartiet) leader and PM is a surprise to me WOW. To me he looks talks acts like some centre-right politician!