Ian Welsh

The horizon is not so far as we can see, but as far as we can imagine

Category: Britain Page 8 of 9

The UK Referendum on Leaving the European Union

By

On March 14, 2016

Comments

If Britain had adopted the Euro and the referendum was about leaving that, I’d be for it.

As it stands, I’m still for leaving, but only slightly.

The EU is brakes. It has significantly slowed down and limited the abominable policies of the Conservative party. As such, it has been good for the British.

But it is also brakes on a lot of what a real left-winger would want to do–especially in the arenas of trade, state ownership, and so on.

Corbyn wants to stay and argue for a more socially progressive Europe. But if he actually becomes Prime Minister, he will find Europe will act as a shackle on any power he has to implement his plans.

I’m generally in favor of sovereignty for nations under the current world regime.

However, and in short, the EU makes Conservatives better than they would be otherwise, and will make a real left-wing government worse than it would be otherwise.

Of course, what Corbyn or any other real left-winger will be really crippled by are all the so-called trade deals.

In general, institutions which were created or have evolved to serve neo-liberalism, even neo-liberalism with a social democratic face, like the EU, are not suited to actual left-wingism, even of the updated 60s variety favored by Corbyn.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Important Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Does: Corbyn Trident Missile Edition

By

On January 29, 2016

Comments

So, off in Britain, Jeremy Corbyn, the new Labour leader, has been against the Trident nuclear missile system: He wants to scrap it.

The hysteria over this has been epic–from the Press, from within his own party, and from the Conservative Party.

His opposition has been characterized as wildly irresponsible, but someone finally polled the issue: 49 percent agree with Corbyn, scrap the missiles. 51 percent disagree.

This is a statistical dead heat.

So, something which half the population supports is somehow massively opposed by the elites and the press.

I mean, issues over which the population is split down the middle can be controversial, but I see no indication that Trident is an important issue to ordinary Britons, compared to, say the NHS, austerity, the EU, or immigration.

As for Trident and its merits, upon investigation, I have come to Corbyn’s position (which I did not support originally).  Trident is not a fully-independent deterrent. The missiles are made by the US, maintained by the US and supplied from the same pool the US uses. While Trident may be “operationally independent,” the US could pull the plug on the program any time it wanted.

Trident is a deterrent as long as the UK is on good terms with the US. But, if it’s on good terms with the US, it has the US umbrella anyway.

Trident is only useful if you think the US might not retaliate for a nuclear attack on the UK (yeah, right, unless there’s been a HUGE falling out, in which case Trident is gone), or if the UK wants to nuke something itself that the US doesn’t want to nuke.

This is worth paying for? A small, first-strike nuclear capacity?

But the larger point is simpler: It’s not a very important issue to most Britons, and it’s not something about which the polls are skewed. So why is the establishment so hysterical about it?

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

I Will Take Your Squealing over Litvinenko’s Assassination Seriously if You Have Criticized Obama’s Drone Assassinations

By

On January 21, 2016

Comments

So, a retired British judge came out with a report saying Putin probably approved the death by radioactive tea of ex-Russian spy Litvinenko. Which means “almost certainly.”

And there is much brouhah.

And I yawn.

Because the difference between killing Litvinenko and the American drone assassination program under Bush and Obama, is that Bush, and especially Obama, have assassinated a LOT more people than Putin has.

No one with sense can take these arguments seriously any more. You cannot claim anything but tribal identity politics when your argument is, “Don’t do what we do.”

Hypocrisy doesn’t even cover it.

A good world requires that we don’t do things that are wrong, even if we think there is some short term advantage to it.  Certainly Putin was wrong, but “killing less people is better than killing more.”

Okay?

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

UK Labour By-Election Victory

By

On December 4, 2015

Comments

Not only did Labour win, but they won with a record vote count. The candidate is quite a bit to Corbyn’s right, but it’s safe to say that this was about the national party, not about the candidate.

Meanwhile Corbyn has the highest approval ratings of any UK political party leader, though those ratings are negative. Yes, every other leader is hated more than he is.

Both these results are remarkable given the relentless media campaign against Corbyn.

As far as I can see, Corbyn, and the old-left he represents (Corbyn being essentially a 1960s Liberal), face two main problems: the MPs within his own caucus who are good “middle-way” Blairites and the media.

As for Corbyn’s first problem, the Blairites have now outed themselves, and those who voted for war in Syria flagged themselves. It’s not Corbyn’s job to deal directly with those pro-war MPs–that responsibility falls on the Labour Party membership. Labour’s rank and file need to make sure that these MPs are not candidates in the next election. Corbyn shouldn’t have to tell them this; it should be obvious.

Now for Corbyn’s second problem: the media. The media have overplayed their hand; their virtual unanimity, along with their nitpicking on the smallest of details, has made them look deranged. What harm they could do, they have done, and there is little ammunition left.

Corbyn reminds me a lot of Canada’s New Democratic Party Leader, Thomas Mulcair. Mulcair lost the Canadian election, but he went into the election with a lead because he had proven again and again that he was a man of integrity, that he had principles he would hold to no matter what.

Corbyn is similar. He has principles, and he has stuck to those principles for decades, even when the path to success appeared to call for abandoning them. The fact that the media hates him is not an unalloyed negative–in fact, it positions him solidly as an outsider. This is a good thing when a huge chunk of the electorate is looking for somebody who does not have the approval of The Powers That Be.

As with Mulcair, I think that Corbyn is likely to have his chance to win an election. Likewise (as with Mulcair), either Corbyn can blow it, or his luck can turn (or both). But he should have a good shot.

This is extraordinarily promising. The old order is breaking down, due to the enforcement of austerity and their continued emphasis on war, when any fool can see that neither austerity nor war have worked.

The propaganda machine is failing. You can see it in the US, where the relentless demonization of Trump simply has not worked (don’t get me wrong, Trump is damn near fascist, unlike Corbyn). People are looking for leaders who don’t parse as tools.

This can be good, and it can be bad. In the 30s, Germany got Hitler, Italy got Mussolini, and America got FDR.

This time around, Britain has a chance to get Corbyn, a genuinely good and principled man. May they be lucky enough to do so.

And the elites in the UK should remember that Corbyn is the best deal they are likely to get. If they do manage to stop him, the next person who parses as independent of their whims, either from the right or left, will be someone who intends to bring them to heel, or liquidate them.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Jeremy Corbyn and the Syrian Bombing Vote

By

On December 2, 2015

Comments

So, today there will be a vote in the UK House of Commons to determine whether the UK should bomb Syria.

The Conservatives and the Liberal-Democrats will vote yes. The SNP will vote no. And Corbyn has allowed Labour party members to vote according to their consciences.

This is a close vote, but even if every Labour party member voted no, the motion would fail.

Nonetheless, much of the media is blaming Corbyn for the possibility of bombing.

Seventy-five percent of Labour party members are against bombing Syria, and the logic on the side of not bombing Syria is strong; interventions in the Middle East since 9/11 have seen an inexorable rise in terrorism rather than a decrease.

But there is more to consider. Corbyn has always said he would bring more democracy to Labour, and this is in line with that promise. This is a case of one principle “no war” going against another principle “more democracy.”

Also, letting Labour MPs vote against bombing Syria, when the majority of Labour party members are for it, may be very smart politics. Smoke the pro-war MPs out, let them run up their flags, and when the time comes for candidate selection, well, everyone will know who is for war. The majority of voters selecting candidates are free to use the next election to ensure that Corbyn has a party of MPs who are anti-war. This gives him a much stronger hand.

The Labour party has been rife with backbiting since Corbyn won. The majority of MPs did not want him as leader, do not want him as leader, and have been doing what they can to weaken him.

Corbyn cannot deal with this alone. It must be dealt with by the membership, who must get rid of those members. Corbyn does have limited ability as leader to flush them out, but he can hardly refuse to sign nomination papers from 60 percent of MPs. They have to be sent packing by the membership.

So, if you are a British Labour member, remember who voted for war and turf them.

Correction: I had the math wrong on the vote. If every Labor member voted “nay,” it would not make a difference without a lot of Conservative members also voting against.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

David Cameron and a Dead Pig

By

On September 21, 2015

Comments

The allegation has been made that British Prime Minister Cameron put his privates in the mouth of a dead pig. Given how strict British libel laws are, this may well be the case.

I don’t have much to say about the content of the accusation, but it’s a good opportunity to talk about PR and damage control.

Tory PR people and friendly media should do two things and two things only.

One: Put out two explanations, meant for friendlies. The first is the “youthful hijinks” line. The second is the “It didn’t really happen” routine—not credible.

Do this for two days maximum.

Then do the second thing: Shut up. This isn’t, as people say, a conversation you want to have. No fuel. No engagement. No comment.

And, well, maybe a third thing: Advance parties should be on the watch for protesters dressed as pigs, with pictures of pigs, etc. There’s nothing they’re going to be able to do about the odd pig squeal sound, I’m afraid, that’s just going to be part of Cameron’s life, for however long that life may be.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

So, You Supported Corbyn: Here Is What You MUST Do if He Is to Survive and Win

By

On September 14, 2015

Comments

Intra-party war is coming in the British Labour party. I agree entirely with Salvage:

There is war coming in the Labour Party. Already, the bad-faith resignations and rumour-mongering of leading right-wingers signals the scale of resistance Corbyn will face—

—When their onslaught begins in earnest, they will be fighting with the party machinery at their disposal. They will be fighting with the press on their side, with the Tories as tacit allies, with business at their backs. They will have the support of the civil service and the state apparatuses. They will undoubtedly benefit from Clockwork Orange-style deep-state intrigue. But, far more fundamentally, they will benefit from the fact that Corbyn is obliged to work with a parliamentary party that is overwhelmingly hostile to what he wishes to achieve, and is apt either to force him to make damaging compromises, or to engineer habitual crises for him, or both.

So, you voted for Corbyn. You’re a Labour party member, old or new. What MUST you do to have Corbyn’s back?

Because, be clear, he will fail without you. He will lose. He and a few allies within the Labour party cannot win this fight alone. He will be destroyed by lack of cooperation, scandals, and engineered crises. The vast majority of all media coverage will be negative, etc.

You must take over the locals—the branches and constituencies. Flood them. If the officers don’t act how you think they should, let them know. And by “let them know,” I mean, get in their faces.

Make sure your local MP, who probably doesn’t like Corbyn or support him, know that if he doesn’t get onside, he won’t be the nominee in the next election. Make his/her life personally unpleasant. If s/he votes against Corbyn, picket him. Mock her. Make sure there is a cost. Because on the other side, that MP will know that if they oppose Corbyn, they will be taken care of by the City and the other usual suspects.

You must prove there is a cost for opposing the democratic will of the majority of Labour party members. MPs and officials must know that if they try to sabotage Corbyn, their days in the party are numbered and will be extremely unpleasant.

The carrot is that if they get onside, they’re gold. They can keep their positions, they can feel like they’re part of a swelling horde.

But if it isn’t clear to officials and MPs that the cost for opposing Corbyn is too high, they will, and they may well win.

You elected Corbyn, but without your staying in his corner, and fighting, he’s just a sacrificial goat. A real leader is only as good as his followers. You have a real leader now, a man who genuinely wants to create a kinder, fairer Britain, a man who has lived his life in line with his beliefs.

This is what and who you wanted. Now go and make him a success. If he fails, it will be as much on you as on him.

If he succeeds, the same.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

As Corbyn Rolls Towards the British Labour Nomination

By

On August 14, 2015

Comments

Picture of Jeremy Corbyn

Picture of Jeremy Corbyn

So, Jeremy Corbyn, who believes in re-industrializing England, re-nationalizing the railroads and various other genuine left-wing policies is cruising towards the Labour nomination, leading every poll.

I am, of course, pleased.

Let us examine why:

  1. Neoliberalism has been in charge in England since Thatcher in the 70s. There were some good years, but the simple fact is that most of the population is no better off than before her, and many are worse off. Neoliberalism, for most people in Britain, has failed. Incomes are stagnant or down, university tuitions are way up, universal healthcare is being dismantled, the welfare state is mean and stingy, and increasing amounts of people can’t afford to buy a home where the jobs are (London). Thatcherism, and Blair’s “New Left” has failed.
  2. Corbyn talks like an ordinary human being. He has held to the same principles and policies for his entire life, even when times were against him. It is credible that if elected Corbyn will actually implement those policies. Being yesterday’s man is important, because the media is full of stories about how the younger generations are doing worse than their parents and grandparents.  Sure, Corbyn wants to do stuff that is out of fashion, but those old-fashioned politics, according to the media, worked better than the new-fangled ones.
  3. Labour has lost two elections in a row. Worse, they were wiped out of their Scottish stronghold by the SNP, who won because they ran to Labour’s left.  Contrary to all the squealing from neoliberals like Blair, the evidence is that Labour lost more seats because it was too right-wing, rather than because it was too left-wing.

A lot of Labour politicians and officials are whining about Corbyn, stating that Labor will be wiped out if he wins the election. All that doom-mongering has done nothing I can see to slow Corbyn down. I would go further, I would say that having Tony Blair against him is to his benefit. Labour may have been better than Conservative, but Blair accelerated neoliberal policies, and got Britain into a war that is very unpopular on the Left. The more Blairites blare, the better for Corbyn.

As I noted before, the most important thing for people with genuine belief (and Blair is a true believer) is maintaining control of all parties likely to gain power.  Labour falling would be a major blow to neoliberalism (of which the New Left is part).

I’ll discuss Corbyn’s policies later. They aren’t bad ideas, per se, but as with Syriza (in a much less serious way), I wonder if he understands just what would be required to make them work. The current world economic structure was set up specifically to make sure that the sort of policies which worked in the post-war, liberal period, the sort of policies Corbyn wants to institute, can’t work. Indeed, they aren’t even allowed by the various, existing trade agreements.

In the meantime, barring something major, I expect Corbyn will be the new Labour leader. And I expect he will be the next Prime Minister of Britain, because Cameron is going to keep driving most Britons’ standard of living into the ground.

If you enjoyed this article, and want me to write more, please DONATE or SUBSCRIBE.

Page 8 of 9

Previous

Next

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén