HOW MANY LABOUR LEADERSHIP CANDIDATES CAN DANCE ON THE HEAD OF A PIN ?
So, yes, there is a Labour Party leadership contest going on, not that it is generating much interest or indeed much heat or light. The Labour Party, I remember them, they ran the country for 13 years and claim to be a left of centre party with its roots in Socialism. Then why is it so pitiful to see the candidates pointlessly rehearsing the postures of both the previous leader and, indeed, the current coalition partners ? They all echo and mirror each other in a desperate attempt not to appear 'extreme' or frighten the middle-classes or, God forbid ' business interests' and the City. They are able to admit only that there was a strategic fault with the last Labour government, that they were too managerial, too remote, but as to spelling out any vision or revision of the values and goals of their politics they remain virtually silent. They are all falling over one another with the same platitudes about fairness but will not stray from the line regarding the mantras of the markets, that competitiveness, entrepreneurial activities by self-interested individuals and that profit focused private business, banking and financial services will remain unchallenged as the only future.
There is the deficit, of course. But, hang on, was that not the result of blind adherence to the mantras of ' the market' ? There are now banks that are in practice owned by the government, but being run as if they are still private companies. There must be scope for serious changes that yes, horror of horrors, might be branded Socialist, but for pities sake, does not one of the candidates have the courage to actually stand up for that view ?
I have a book published in this country in 1940. As most people who are educated know, although not Mr. Cameron, it seems, that was when this country stood alone in Europe and was in a very vulnerable and dangerous position with potential invasion by a hostile Fascist enemy. In America meanwhile it was business as usual. The book is called 'I Believe' , and consists of 25 essays by different people, some politicians, some writers, some philosophers about what they believe in. Some have religious convictions, some do not. The remarkable thing is nearly all of them speak of the need for a radical change from the prevailing Capitalist orthodoxy , even in those unstable and threatening times. There is a clear common ground among these intelligent people from different backgrounds, countries and specialisms that to a considerable extent the then current war had, in some part, stemmed from the vast inequalities and problems created by untrammeled capitalism. That ownership was concentrated in the hand of the few and wealth was very badly distributed is taken as a given, and, moreover, as something that must be actively addressed. It is understood that with such conditions tyrants that claim to be able to sort this out overnight may gain power, and this can result in a justification for war and all the horror and disaster it brings.
It was indeed in this country that in the period immediately after that war that a Labour government under Clement Atlee did address this issue and make a start on the changes deemed to be necessary.
What has happened to so obscure the fact that, if anything, the concentration of wealth and ownership is now even more concentrated in the hands of the few from these well educated so-called Socialist politicians ? Why are they so afraid of saying so ? I watched Ed Milliband, possibly the slightly more 'radical' of the bunch who has a chance of election, on the excruciating programme run by Andrew Neil. A fellow guest was someone who worked with Alan Sugar, so you can pretty well guess his position as a unswerving narrowly focused 'business guru' sidekick. What was noticeable is how Mr. Milliband did not challenge a single bit of the mind-numbing prattle about competitiveness necessarily being a good thing, simply agreeing with every proposition and clearly concerned about being seen as remotely 'leftie' and thus 'loony' and not in the 'real world' that is increasingly being allowed to be defined by such as Mr. Sugar being given such expansive airtime on the BBC in its programming.
When Labour dropped Clause 4 and a commitment to moving towards collective ownership of the means of production it lost a key part of what defined it as a Socialist party. While the idea that any of the current crop of leadership contenders would ever even hint at re-evaluating that goal is laughable, even in a situation where privatised utilities are screwing every penny out of their uncompetitive monopolies with few obligations to their captive customers whatever their ability to pay, is it too much to expect that one of them might clearly state what are the principles and goals of this allegedly post- Blair new Labour project ? Because I am blowed if I can see any that distinguish or give hope for a real alternative to this regressive ConDem old Etonian agreement.
There is the deficit, of course. But, hang on, was that not the result of blind adherence to the mantras of ' the market' ? There are now banks that are in practice owned by the government, but being run as if they are still private companies. There must be scope for serious changes that yes, horror of horrors, might be branded Socialist, but for pities sake, does not one of the candidates have the courage to actually stand up for that view ?
I have a book published in this country in 1940. As most people who are educated know, although not Mr. Cameron, it seems, that was when this country stood alone in Europe and was in a very vulnerable and dangerous position with potential invasion by a hostile Fascist enemy. In America meanwhile it was business as usual. The book is called 'I Believe' , and consists of 25 essays by different people, some politicians, some writers, some philosophers about what they believe in. Some have religious convictions, some do not. The remarkable thing is nearly all of them speak of the need for a radical change from the prevailing Capitalist orthodoxy , even in those unstable and threatening times. There is a clear common ground among these intelligent people from different backgrounds, countries and specialisms that to a considerable extent the then current war had, in some part, stemmed from the vast inequalities and problems created by untrammeled capitalism. That ownership was concentrated in the hand of the few and wealth was very badly distributed is taken as a given, and, moreover, as something that must be actively addressed. It is understood that with such conditions tyrants that claim to be able to sort this out overnight may gain power, and this can result in a justification for war and all the horror and disaster it brings.
It was indeed in this country that in the period immediately after that war that a Labour government under Clement Atlee did address this issue and make a start on the changes deemed to be necessary.
What has happened to so obscure the fact that, if anything, the concentration of wealth and ownership is now even more concentrated in the hands of the few from these well educated so-called Socialist politicians ? Why are they so afraid of saying so ? I watched Ed Milliband, possibly the slightly more 'radical' of the bunch who has a chance of election, on the excruciating programme run by Andrew Neil. A fellow guest was someone who worked with Alan Sugar, so you can pretty well guess his position as a unswerving narrowly focused 'business guru' sidekick. What was noticeable is how Mr. Milliband did not challenge a single bit of the mind-numbing prattle about competitiveness necessarily being a good thing, simply agreeing with every proposition and clearly concerned about being seen as remotely 'leftie' and thus 'loony' and not in the 'real world' that is increasingly being allowed to be defined by such as Mr. Sugar being given such expansive airtime on the BBC in its programming.
When Labour dropped Clause 4 and a commitment to moving towards collective ownership of the means of production it lost a key part of what defined it as a Socialist party. While the idea that any of the current crop of leadership contenders would ever even hint at re-evaluating that goal is laughable, even in a situation where privatised utilities are screwing every penny out of their uncompetitive monopolies with few obligations to their captive customers whatever their ability to pay, is it too much to expect that one of them might clearly state what are the principles and goals of this allegedly post- Blair new Labour project ? Because I am blowed if I can see any that distinguish or give hope for a real alternative to this regressive ConDem old Etonian agreement.
posted by GORDON COMSTOCK @ July 28, 2010
0 Comments
