A political blog.
A first attempt.
Plan to upload some articles, mostly rants, ideas and thoughts.
Hope you enjoy it.
“We’re all in this together.”
George Osborne (Numerous Occasions)
This is one of the Tory chancellor’s favourite comments on the difficult economic situation at the current time. Another is the idea that we must proceed to cut the deficit as swiftly as possible in order to emerge from recession.
Why then, I wonder is he cutting high-rate tax from 50 to 45 pence in the pound at this budget? Presumably this will not help us to bring our nation’s income above its expenditure.
The only answer I can find is that he misspoke, meaning in fact “We’re all in this together, but some are more in it than others.”
If we cannot afford to keep tuition fees at some £3,000 pa, or to protect the NHS, or to afford people with disabilities their living allowance, how can we afford to allow already rich people to hold onto at least £7,500 extra a year?
The tax bracket in question is £150,000 plus and includes bankers who caused this situation and members of the aristocracy, such as Osborne himself. He has stated that this tax bracket also includes professionals and will encourage trained people to stay in Britain. Presumably professionals do not include dentists, GP’s, teachers or architects.
This first release from the budget is incredibly galling to many affected by the cuts, but as long as a large number of people believe that this Government is simply punishing laziness and rewarding entrepreneurial spirit, I can’t see any changes being made.
You know the ones. They always hit you with “Yeah, I guess that is morally superior to my idea, but it would never work in reality.” Okay, well maybe they don’t admit my ethical superiority, but that’s what they mean, honest. This argument is continually leveled at any Leftist (or presumed Leftist, let’s say libertarian, before some Anarchists berate me) political ideologies.
Incapable, perhaps, of refuting (openly at least) a claim that “We are all equal” or “We all deserve to be free”, they attempt to highlight the sheer impossibility of what we propose. Name a successful Left Wing country, I often hear.
Spain had a functioning Anarcho-Syndicalist system in the 1930s until British, French and American Non-Intervention introduced Fascism to their lives.
Cuba has higher adult literacy than many US states, to me that implies success more than an average GDP figure contorted by the Banker’s salaries.
Venezuela has a democratically-elected government that is redistributing OPEC wealth into State Healthcare and Education effectively.
Finally they say, “The USSR…”. Yes, it was a reprehensible regime, it was an example of why any fundamentalist belief is wrong and it was an unsuccessful foray into Socialism, but can you claim that the State itself was based on a Marxist political ideology beyond 1930? The argument has become so stale, so predictable and so clichéd, that I wonder why anyone poses it at all. Why not just say “insert argument 101 here”?
I should explain that I have not been a Marxist since I was 14, but I would describe myself as broadly in favour of Democratic Socialism, and the laziness of this argument irritates me.
Originally published at Anarkos on 7th March 2011
The fable of the Liberal Democrats fall from grace, from the dizzy heights of ‘Cleggmania’ to the current abysmal bi-election results, is not the usual tale of a Party failing to live up to manifesto pledges, it is an active breaking of a signed promise.
To make myself clear, I hate the Liberal Democrat Party. Many members, many individual ‘Lib Dems’, are kind, hard-working and even progressive people. But the leadership of the Party- Nick Clegg, David Laws, Danny Alexander are, to my mind, the worst kind of politicians. The reason for my belief is, as you may have guessed, the current policies of the Con-Dem Government and the seemingly gleeful way in which the Liberal Democrat Ministers support them. But the reason for the vehemence of my anger at this betrayal is because there are only two possible reasons.
One, Power. If this is the reason they abandoned their beliefs, for some second rate cabinet positions then my disgust is unlimited.
But the fact is its worse. The true story behind the Liberal Democrats policy changes is a profound, pre-meditated ideological betrayal. The Orange Book was written in 2004 as a prospective manifesto, by David Laws, with contributions from Nick Clegg, Vince Cable, Ed Davey and Chris Huhne. It outlined a move from modern Social Liberalism, with its focus on Social Justice to a Classical Liberalism most recognisable from the economic policies of Thatcher’s New Right. Ideas included support for Tory plans for ‘Free Schools’, further privatisation, even for the NHS, and unfortunately for thousands of young people and the nations intellectual health, tuition fees rises, not cuts as promised. However, the simple fact is that this was rejected by the Party at Conference, it was shown to be unpopular and unworkable.
So, just like New Labour and the Tories, but hidden behind a veneer of honesty with a ‘new politics’ finish, the Liberal Democrat leadership ignored the Party, campaigned for progressive votes and then embarked on a ‘five year plan’ of cuts, privatisation and fees hikes. And that is why I hate the Liberal Democrats.
This blog was started with reference to actually using a number of political ‘essays’ I wrote last year and also to getting started writing again. I will post one of the old essays here, and while it may factually be a little out of date now, I hope its sentiment is one which you can appreciate.
Uploading up-to-date material soon,
Cal
button
