News commentary and predictions of political trends and what the future holds

Latest

Labour and Brand

Maybe now that faux-socially-aware Cameron has fallen, the Labour party will have some cachet in the occupation of the middle ground?

Corbyn has been a refreshing nuisance, a politician who actually is convinced his point of view aligns with the voters and it seems that is correct.

It is the 174 MPs who have no-confidence in a genuine socialist who seem to be in the wrong party. They appear to be liberals, not socialists. They still call themselves “Blairites”? Surely “Social Democrats” is a better name for them, and their electoral chances are better under an accurate name and flag, than pretending they have the ear of the average Labour voter?

Get out of the way of candidates that can follow Jeremy Corbyn bringing socialist values back to Labour, where they belong. We do not need another Thatcherite party calling itself Labour competing with the Conservatives, we need representation, preferably proportional, and with accurate political branding.

This empahsis on “leadership” is simply distraction. Labour do not deserve power when 174 of their MPs are not Labour.

If you vote Labour while the party is populated by Blairites you are voting for Social Democracy at best, or perhaps should vote for the Lib Dems. “Labour” failed to get a majority under Ed Miliband: Blairism was right of Thatcher.

Labour is doomed if it does not establish its identity. Maybe after this government, we will need a socialist party to compete for our votes. Corbyn is one of the best leaders in our Parliament, in my opinion, but I am not a Labour voter.

It rather depends on what “leadership” means. If it means setting policy objectives and behaviour by example, then Corbyn appears to be setting up a socialist plank which has its audience. The Blairites – or Social Democratic lobby – also have a very good plank but it is not “Labour”. It is entirely, in my view, an issue of brand confusion brought about by Blair, by taking over the centre ground, he defined a new breed of centrist, who are basically neo-liberal economically but socially aware on “issues”. I would say the real inheritor of this brand is Cameron but he is over the top insofar as austerity went, and not very successful either. Theresa May has already defined herself to partly take this “centre” ground with her announcement of Miliband’s ideas about worker representation on boards. I understand your point of view is seen as common sense, but I have a very different perspective. I have seen a successful Left Wing modernised Labour party win 2 terms under one PM and then 4 terms in office under the next, bring about a surplus without harsh austerity while banning nuclear weapons, ending discrimination against gay people and minorities (New Zealand, under David Lange and then Helen Clark).

I am not 100% behind Corbyn, but he is brand Labour, and the “Blairites” are not left-wing. When they achieve growth through liberal policies and then become Left leaning (as their brand dictates), like Gordon Brown tried, they lose power.

Yes, I do agree that Corbyn will not win an election until socialism becomes possible, but it is important that we have a range of real options to vote for. I do think that if Labour split and the Neo-Liberals took over from the UKiP vacuum, that they would win the next General Election but they will not as Labour, as that brand is not what they are.

The referendum showed how their constituancies did not follow with their thinking, that their brand of socialism did not appeal to Labour voters. Blaming Corbyn’s leadership is simply illogical. They did not follow his lead and have lost the hearts and minds of the people who elected them. People vote for MPs, not simply a “leader”. This media led thinking that we only vote for a PM is as logical as a return to Royal rule.

For democractic representation to work with Party politics – we have to understand what we are voting for. I appreciate your arguments are reasonable and the goal of winning a GE is laudable, but if you do not sort out the brand, then voters will only be disappointed.

Deadly Air Pollution

The WHO warns that air pollution is killing millions in cities. It is a growing problem – cities in China and India covered by thick smog. In the UK London has exceeded its NO2 levels for 2016 a few days into the year. Politicians are questioning the value of expansion at Heathrow if it increases the level of air pollution and makes millions more at risk.

President Obama Achievements

A list of over 300 major achievements mark this president’s New Year and the most successful period of fiscal growth of any, including Ronald Regan.

Guns and America

Contradictory values lead America into thinking they are safer with the proliferation of guns into the general population with Donald Trump infecting the conversation with suspicion of Muslims as the source of terrorism. Far more innocent people have been killed by American guns than by terrorism. President Obama calls for stricter gun control and the Republicans think this endangers Americans?

Since, and including the tragedy of 9/11, the comparison is stark:

3,380 dead from terrorism
406,496 killed by American guns

The US is insane to listen to the false ranting of a merchant of fear, Mr Donald Trump is the current leading source of terror in the minds of Americans. And the frightening thing is, they buy it. Lock stock and two smoking barrels. Violence is inflicted by American guns, not infiltration. Homeland Security should reassess its remit.

Question of Airstrikes

David Cameron wants to launch airstrikes over Syria and is going to bring this to a vote in Parliament. It is a “modern decision” – being a political animal, instead of an actual strategy to resolve the pressures that causes human suffering on a massive scale, instead of an actual path that removes Assad from power (if that is the will of the Syrian population) while destroying Daesh: we have the dichotomy: bomb them or do nothing.

There is a precedent: previously Cameron brought a vote on bombing Assad. When that failed, there appears to be no other military option taken to improve matters in Syria, until Parliment voted almost unanimously to bomb ISIL in Iraq.

To bomb, or not? Why is that the question? Is it a lack of imagination or simply that it is a military decision, and not a political one? Parliment could be ruling on a more generalised intention, and then engaging a wide-ranging strategy.

The insistence upon bombing Syria or not drowns out other intelligent voices.

The use of social media by ISIL is the weapon of communication, that our bombs seek to silence. Dead terrorists can not post to their twitter accounts, being the theory. Unfortunately, they can and do have an influence. As martyrs, these murderous forces seem to increase the potential of their voices, even if it is spoken by others.

Bombing them is providing a pretext for their families to also turn against us. We lay wreaths and say “Lest we forgot”. Victims of bombing do not forget, either. Some are taking revenge, in memory of their own fallen. How can we learn from the mistakes of the Iraq war when Chilcot is stale bread in the oven? The Government’s actions in Libya and Iraq were a military fantasy.

War is horribly expensive but our “let’s get it over with” summary attitude ignores the fact that our actions are not solving the problem. The forces of parliamentary democracy seem not lead us to a solution but a choice between ill-fated paths.

It is a vote that nobody should “want”. Cameron and Osborne both attempt to destroy the Labour party, and this “vote” is designed to do just that. How are we served by a Government that spends more time trying to destroy Her Majesties Opposition than improving the lot for its voters? The language of Government should not be divisive, it should be inclusive. The PM acts more like an election strategist than a leader. He shuts down debate.

Corbyn, right or not, at least he wants to employ our best weapon: our ears. Correct and truthful analysis before the actions in Libya and Iraq would have worked for better outcomes. We elect these great minded individuals and political parties to examine the truth to prepare the ground for progress.

Going to war to be more popular is destructive. Terrorism is the last gasp of a failed ideology, buying votes with bombs is corruption.

See also – article Eight Ways to Defeat ISIL

Attacking Syria

The latest craze indulged in by Western Governments seems to be dropping bombs on Syria. It is intended to stop Daesh/ISIL from its path of terrorising civilisation but there are so many consequences that can not be sensed from 30,000 feet above. Bombs kill people, destroy lives and property as well as terrorists.

The UK and the EU

The Uk is thinking about leaving the EU. Campaigns run to see if Britain would be better inside or outside the EY seem to address the advantages for Britain. The most significant advantage for the UK is that without the UK influencing the EU, the largest market in the world may not work as well as it does with the UK.

The EU needs the UK. Without its “Westernising” influence, it’s connection with the USA and the English language, it reduces the EU. Being a part of it, and influencing it, the UK of course benefits but if the UK left the EU, although it may experience certain advantages of independence the greatest loss to the world would be that of an integrated and successful EU.

The Labour Leadership

UK: The leadership of the Labour Party has been contentious ever since Ed Milliband snatched it from his brother David and became Leader of the Opposition after Gordon Brown had spectacularly lost the election 2010 following claims Labour overspending had caused the deficit to balloon after the 2008 financial crisis. That claim seemed to provide a rationale to give power to the Conservatives, but not exclusively, going into coalition with the doomed Liberal Democrats. In the following election rout, Ed Milliband lost even more spectacularly as did the Liberal Democrats, giving power to a somewhat surprised Conservative Government. Ed Milliband resigned and now Labour is electing a new leader.

Left-wing outsider Jeremy Corbyn entered the race at the last minute, and against all odds has become the odds-on favourite to win the leadership, touting left-wing ideals such as free education and the cancellation of the nuclear Trident scheme, completely at odds with the other three candidates who seem to be too similar to each other to fight the surge of popularity of Corbynmania.

In the meantime Labour heavyweights have pitched in to criticise the prospect of a Corbyn led Labour party. Tony Blair has twice written articles saying it could finish the Labour party as his policies were not electable.

Air Pollution

Breathing Space

Long ago Disturbing Trends identified air pollution as the primary problem facing human survival. It seems that via the alarm of the consequences of global warming which is now climate change or instability the idea that our cities can kill us now seems evident. The most frightening aspect of which is that for many, the damage is already being inflicted. On us. On all life in badly polluted cities. Live hard, die young. Almost guaranteed.

Now posh Delhi homes can get air filters which no doubt in a constant kind of way have a daily cost in energy multiplied by 3 million homes this may expand into therefore making the air of Delhi pollute another part of the country sigificantly whilst protecting the lives of these inhabitants. Or they could create stronger norms of industrial behaviour: e.g. using filters on chimneys by immediate legislation or your factory gets shut down. The government could help those in financial need. Remove the pollution because tolerating it is making your environment, i.e. all life forms at risk of extinction.

It is beyond comprehension why