2013-05-25T18:53:24-04:00 Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/author/index.php?author=alex-macdonald Copyright 2008, HuffingtonPost.com, Inc. HuffingtonPost Blogger Feed for Alex MacDonald Good old fashioned elbow grease. tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2013:/theblog//3.2522265 2013-01-21T17:15:20-05:00 2013-03-23T05:12:01-04:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/ Observer respectively. Why it is that so many supposed feminists - Janet Street Porter, Julie Bindel and the aforementioned two for example - seem to have such a problem with transsexuals is an issue for another time. Suzanne Moore on Twitter had an argument with a number of transgendered people which resulted in the charming tweet: "People can just f**k off really. Cut their dicks off and be more feminist than me." Now, let's not be coy here - regardless of the nature of the conflict, this is an inexcusable slur; no-one would defend someone throwing "n*gger" around just because they were arguing with a black person. It is not acceptable and Suzanne rightly received criticism for this. What else did she expect? In the Observer, her friend Julie Burchill lept to her defence - by basically extending what was a throw away transphobic comment into a tirade of hateful abuse against a minority group. Including such endearing phrases as "a bunch of dicks in chicks' clothing" and "a bunch of bed-wetters in bad wigs" it was a quite clear piece of abuse which instantly provoked complaints.

Suzanne Moore, seemingly not aware of the concept of digging oneself a deeper hole, then wrote an article for the Guardian titled "This growing culture of outrage doesn't extend free speech - it limits it." Apparently she takes umbrage with the fact that "Suddenly, anyone, anywhere, is offended by everything. Where do these permanently aroused delicate flowers live?" On the Thursday of that same week I also attended a debate at Conway Hall ostensibly about the Leveson Report, but it ended up being a rather farcical mish-mash in which Suzanne Moore and fellow Grauniad columnist Nick Cohen leap to their feet expectorating about the need for "free speech" and the right for the government to stay out of their reporting (yeah, the same Nick Cohen whose support for the illegal Iraq War was based on evidence garnered from a cozy relationship between Alistair Campbell and the Observer's then political editor Kamal Ahmed). What worried me more was that Moore's snide asides about her supposed inability to express her opinions anymore was being greeted by applause from the audience.

Let's check all this out. Firstly, I'll just bypass Moore's blatant hypocrisy - a columnist whose very job is to be (rightly) offended and outraged and then comment on the sexism and injustice that she perceives in our society telling others to stop being offended by because we're not too hot on transphobia is a bit rich. The fact that she also threatened to sue PinkNews for referencing the controversy in an article about a murdered Brazilian transsexual is just too ironic to even comment on. What really worries me here is that a self-confessed feminist is actually resorting to the same tactics used by the likes of Ann Coulter and Nick Griffin to justify her hateful beliefs. It has been a staple of the far-right for a long time - the ultra-conservative radio talk show host Laura Schlessinger was fired from her radio show in 2010 for repeatedly using the N-word; commenting on her resignation, she said "I have made the decision not to do radio anymore. I want to regain my First Amendment rights. I want to be able to say what is on my mind." When the aforementioned Nick Griffin was dropped from a debate on immigration at Trinity College Dublin in 2011 he tweeted "Trinity College Dublin surrenders to PC fascism and far-left intimidation. Debate cancelled!" His rights had again been oppressed. Or take Paul Nuttall, the deputy leader of Ukip, who warns of "Cultural Marxism" at play in society, saying "Freedom of speech is sacred. Indeed millions of Britons died to defend it in two world wars during the last century, so we must protect it against the Cultural Marxists at all costs." Another known opponent of "Cultural Marxism" was, of course, the extreme-right mass murderer Anders Breivik. For Nutall, freedom of speech is stifled when "if you question immigration figures you are labelled a racist; question all women shortlists then you are sexist; question whether homosexuality should be promoted in our schools means you are a homophobe." All these people would presumably be condemned in the harshest terms by a left-wing feminist like Moore and yet she has resorted to the same tactics to defend her and Burchill's remarks.

Well, look, Suzanne, let me point this out to you - you have absolute freedom of speech if you want go and stand on a box in Hyde Park Corner and be as abusive as you like towards trans people. I simply won't go and listen to you. Similarly, I don't follow you on Twitter (nor Nick Griffin) and so I don't care what you write there. But I pay money to buy the Observer and the Guardian because I enjoy their political stance and the journalism they provide. I don't buy Ukip newsletters because I assume they will be full of the kind of gruesome stuff I quoted above. Similarly, I don't buy the Mail for the same reason - conversely, it would hardly be fair for me to buy it and then complain about their positions. All the Guardian's readers have the right to refuse to purchase the paper or complain about the content therein. That's us espousing our freedom of speech - we have the absolute right to condemn and complain about bigotry and ignorance, which is exactly what you purport to do in your column. Essentially what you want is a monopoly on your right to expression without having to endure any of the blowback. When you are provided a platform you are bound by that platform and those who provide it.

It's cheap and sad when Nick Griffin and his ilk do it and its cheap and sad when you do it.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2316559 2012-12-18T19:00:00-05:00 2013-02-17T05:12:01-05:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/
When they talk about immigration of course, it is once again 'common sense' and they are in no way - IN NO WAY - to be taken to be mining any of the same strands of thought as the BNP, from whom they are completely different and 'moderate'.

But are they really so different?

Let's use the 2012 London Manifestos for comparison:

Ukip on immigration:

• Create more jobs for Londoners by saying 'No' to open-door immigration.



• Priority for Londoners - whatever their ethnic origin - for jobs and housing, over migrants and asylum seekers.



• Until the Government gets a grip on our borders, put a cap on the number of immigrants allowed to settle in London.

BNP on immigration:

• London is already overcrowded. We will NOT give amnesty to illegal immigrants.



• All the other political parties will let in more - we'll shut the door!



• While immigration policy is determined primarily by the EU (a key reason for our opposition to Britain's membership) and central government, we will take all measures within the Mayor's power to protect and advance the interests of indigenous Londoners and members of legally settled minorities who contribute to the common good.

Well, first, they both use the same door open/shut metaphor to refer to immigration. They both refer to prioritising Londoners (BNP emphasising that ethnic minorities who are legally settled will be included in this) although Ukip specifically refers to migrants and asylum seekers - while not referring to whether they are legal or not, nor the status of an asylum claim.

On the BNP's website they say they will:

Deport all the two million plus who are here illegally.


In the Ukip 2012 local manifesto they say they will:

Deport all illegal immigrants and failed asylum seekers.

In a 2010 document called 'Restoring Britishness' Ukip refers to combating the Islamisation of Britain, also a key BNP concern. This remarkable text also reads:

Multiculturalism is another tenet of the politically correct class and has been just as
toxic to Britain. In simplified form, it is broadly the belief that people from different ethno-
religious and ethno-linguistic backgrounds can live together in the same society and that the
state is legally obliged to respect all of their cultural mores. The notion that there is, or that
there should be, a common unifying culture is denounced as 'exclusionary', and calls to
integrate are typically met with accusations that the state is issuing ultimatums to ethnic and
religious minorities. Ukip fundamentally disagrees.

Ukip will end multiculturalism and promote an all embracing uniculturalism, one which demands integration, assimilation and a commitment to British values for all UK citizens.

Ukip opposes multiculturalism and this would suggest they therefore oppose "the belief that people from different ethno-religious and ethno-linguistic backgrounds can live together in the same society." There are also constant references to creeping Marxist influence in British politics, particularly mentioning Ed and David Miliband's "Trotskyite" father Ralph as an example.

Now, of course, the BNP have their roots in far more extreme origins - through John Tyndall, the likes of the National Socialist Movement and League of Empire Loyalists were avowedly fascist or neo-nazis and were even involved in the creation of paramilitary units and involvement with Loyalist paramilitaries. And their members have been involved in far more extreme acts of outright violence such as the notorious nailbombs attacks by David Copeland.

But these are just a few comparisons and they need to be pointed out - Ukip advertises itself specifically as "non-racist" and constantly alludes to how it's cool with ethnics and all that. If you need to constantly refer to your own lack of racism in your campaign material (as the BNP does as well) then maybe you have something of a guilty conscience?

Maybe people need to think again about this 'moderate' party...]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.2175248 2012-11-23T11:59:45-05:00 2013-01-23T05:12:01-05:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/
The North London Waste Authority will, on 6 December, decide on whether to award £4.7billion worth of contracts to Veolia Environment Services to take care of waste and cleaning in seven boroughs. Veolia currently already operates in 14 London Borough providing services such as street cleansing and recycling. Their Reuse and Recycling centre is located just off the Old Kent Road in Southwark.

They are also very active in Palestine - they run a number of services in the lands illegally occupied by Israel since the 1967 Six-Day war.

According to Richard Falk, the UN special rapporteur on Palestine and the Occupied Territories:

"Veolia has a 5 per cent share in the CityPass consortium, through its subsidiary Connex Israel, which was contracted by Israel to operate the light rail project in Jerusalem. The light rail is designed to connect the city of Jerusalem with Israel's illegal settlements. Veolia owns approximately 80 per cent of Connex Jerusalem, the company that operates the trains. Furthermore, through its subsidiary company, the Israeli Veolia group, Veolia owns and operates the Tovlan landfill in the Jordan Valley of the occupied Palestinian territory. The Tovlan landfill is used to dump Israeli waste from both within Israel and Israeli settlements. Veolia furthermore operates buses linking Modi'in and Jerusalem via road 443 and thereby servicing the Israeli settlements of Giv'at Ze'ev and Mevo Horon. All these activities directly contribute to flagrant violations of international law."

He put his case quite firmly:

"I am writing to you in my capacity as the United Nations Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in the Palestinian territories occupied since 1967 to urge you not to select Veolia for public contracts due to its active involvement in Israel's grave violations of international law."

The group No2VAG has been active in trying to raise awareness of the issue and have been petitioning North London councillors to drop the bid. "Effectively it would mean that my taxes would pay for a company which is complicit with violation of international law" says Yael Kahn, an Israeli living in North London who leads No2VAG, "I find it absolutely outrageous, so I took it upon myself to do everything in my capacity to block this company. In particular as an Israeli I have been visiting a lot the West Bank and Gaza Strip before I left Israel and I have a lot of Palestinian friends there and I find it absolutely outrageous." She said that her Palestinian friends have expressed their disgust at the bid. "I spoke with Palestinians from Gaza today and they find it absolutely outrageous that while they are being bombed by Israel that North London would give a company which is complicit with Israeli crimes such a huge contract." Her campaign plans to target various North London councils until 6 December decision on the bid. "I would not sleep at night if Veolia is getting this contract."

Their campaign has already provoked some hostility from councillors, in particular Brian Coleman, a Barnet councillor. Coleman, a member of Conservative Friends of Israel, was censured after responding to a critic of the Veolia bid with: "I will continue to ignore this campaign from you and other anti-Zionists. In my book anti-Zionism is just a modern form of anti-semitism. I suppose 70 years ago you would have been in the Blackshirts".

I contacted the NLWA to try and get their side of the story but they informed me that to talk about the issues surrounding the bid might "leave ourselves open to legal challenges" by the companies involved and that it was a case of being "between a rock and a hard place". They sent me this statement:

"Issues around the West Bank / Israel are ones that cause very strong feelings. There has been much said and communicated to the authority in letters and representations regarding this issue. The legal position is however very clear and these are not issues that the NLWA can or will in any way take into account. Rather in undertaking this procurement the authority will do so in accordance with procurement legislation and ensure that a fair and proper competition is run with the winner being the bidder who will offer the best overall package for the benefit of north London residents."

We'll have to wait and see then.

Veolia themselves told me:

"Veolia Environnement has a presence in Israel through its operating local subsidiaries owned by Veolia Israel. In relation to the Occupied Territories, there are no current plans to undertake any further activities or to service the Israeli settlements situated there."

I followed up on this, speaking to the London spokesman from Veolia. He informed me:

"The Tovlan landfill was sold by Veolia Israel in the summer of 2011. For a short tail off period Veolia is advising the new owner on Environmental Protection Standards to facilitate the permit transfer to the new owner, Masua and to assist in the smooth transfer."

The new owner, Masua, is an Israeli settlement in the West Bank, declared illegal by international law.

He disputed discriminatory employment practices on the Jerusalem Light Railway; it has been suggested that the railway only employs those who have completed their military service in Israel, which automatically would exclude both Arabs and Orthodox Jews neither of whom undertake military service. The website for the railway does in fact state that Arabs or Orthodox Jews may have undertaken "civil service obligations". This would still exclude Palestinians in the Occupied Territories and, according to a 2010 job advert, it is also required that Hebrew be spoken at "mother tongue level" which some may perceive as discriminatory towards Arabs and other ethnic minorities in Israel.

The Israel-Palestine conflict touches a nerve internationally more than any other conflict. Rarely does it seem to feel like just a lot of foreigners killing each other in some far-off exotic land, it feels like it hits home more directly. The controversy surrounding Veolia exemplifies this - the opponents of Israel's occupation of the West Bank see opposing contracts with Veolia as an opportunity to give their objections an immediate voice with an immediate effect.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1969748 2012-10-16T08:59:10-04:00 2012-12-16T05:12:02-05:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/
At first, you might think that Theresa May's use of the Human Rights Act (which she supposedly despises) might mean she was turning over a new leaf. However, this month, she willingly sent the young British poet and SOAS student Talha Ahsan to the USA (along with Babar Ahmed and Abu Hamza) to face possible solitary confinement in a supermax prison - in spite of the fact that he also suffers from Aspergers Syndrome. Not to mention that Talha Ahsan's involvement with the USA seems vague at best. According to the BBC, "It is claimed they used the now defunct site - Azzam Publications - to upload extremist videos, raise funds for the Taliban and insurgents in Chechnya."

As vile as McKinnon's extradition would have been, he did at least threaten American security with his actions, directly affecting high profile government and military departments. Ahsan's actions may not be nice (if he committed them), but they do not immediately threaten American security in the same way - and besides, why is he not tried in this country? He was instead put in a maximum security prison, without charge, for six years.

Could the difference possibly be that Talha Ahsan is a Muslim? Surely not.

Speaking to his brother Hamja Ahsan, who runs the Free Talha Ahsan website and campaigns for his release: "He's never been to the United States, y'know, in his life, and the United States are claiming jurisdiction over Britain, which is an independent sovereign nation state. Britain's leaders seem to sell out their sovereignty as if they were the 51st state of America. The first duty of government is protect its own citizens and that's gone out of the window."

According to a medico legal report in 2009, Ahsan is "an extremely vulnerable individual who from a psychiatric perspective would be more appropriately placed in a specialist service for adults with autistic disorders." If McKinnon is a suicide risk, surely this also applies to Talha Ahsan?

Theresa May's actions here are merely a cheap gesture to the public while she allows the 2003 Extradition Act (which even former home secretary David Blunkett now regrets implementing) to force many more British citizens to be shuttled across the pond without evidence for brutal treatment at the hands of American justice; if Talha Ahsan comes to harm as a result of his autism, I certainly hope that people will be quick to point out the home secretary's hypocrisy.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1850995 2012-09-03T19:59:41-04:00 2012-11-03T05:12:01-04:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/
Its not hard to look at Nasser now and think of how things have changed in Egypt - from the point of view of a liberal Westerner it would seem as though the country has retrograded. The smooth, smartly-dressed, progressive Nasser has been replaced by Mohamed Morsi - no less charismatic, but in every other respect, politically, economically and socially Nasser's opposite. Nasser's vision of a pan-Arabic republic governed under socialist (but not communist) principles has been replaced by mindset that uneasily sits liberal democracy next to Islamic theocracy, with a military junta looming over it all. In the Egyptian parliamentary elections the Nasserists won only one seat compared to 37 for the Brotherhood's Freedom and Justice Party. A far cry from the time when Nasser's vision was the most visible view of the Middle East's future - only matched by Michel Afleq's Ba'athism, another Arab Socialist ideology.

So Arab Socialism has fallen far from favour in the Middle East - with everyone from Gaddafi to Mubarak (in name only of course) to Assad seen as champions of the movement, few are willing to re-evaluate its benefits. This is of course music to the ears of the USA. It's important to note that while the Brotherhood may indeed be Islamists, they are, in another sense, very attractive to the West in that they are lead by millionaire businessmen, proper 1% types, who would quite happily embrace a neoliberal consensus. It's hardly ever though of that Islamism as an ideology is far more compatible with unregulated capitalism than it is with the secular ideologies of socialism and communism, but you only need to look at the Brotherhood, or Ayatollah Khamanei's privitization drive, or the oil barons of Saudi Arabia to see that this is often the case. No-one in their right mind would argue that the Arab Spring is a socialist revolution, even though many socialists throw their support behind it.

But Arab Socialism as ideology still has a lot going for it - the brand that was put into play in Syria and Iraq was horrendously bastardised by brutal, crypto-fascist tyrannies of Hafiz al-Assad and Saddam Hussein, who pursued sectarian vendettas which Arab Socialism had originally been formed to override. The other key element was its place in the Israel-Palestine conflict with the PLO largely being made up of Arab nationalists and socialists (although the political spectrum ranged as far as the out-and-out communism of the PFLP as well) and the shift in ideologies in the Arab world can generally be said to fall in line with the shift in the conflict with the Islamist Hamas now being most visible and both Fatah and the Israelis gradually abandoning their original socialist/social democratic aims to embrace more neo-liberal capitalist tendencies.

Now you might ask why Arab socialism - rather than any other left-wing movement - would benefit the Middle East? Because all the original motives for its original ideological creation still exist. A secular, anti-sectarian, anti-imperialist, pan-Arabic movement is still the best and most practical form of government for stablising the region and providing political independence from America or the other emerging superpowers. With more focus on the implementation of liberal democracy, which most modern followers of Nasser consider to be essential, there could be real success here; quietly breaking down the power of the military would, in my view, be a pretty obvious move as well, seeing as how many of these well-meaning movements have degenerated into brutal, tyrannical juntas.

However, as things stand this is clearly just a pipedream - the collapsing Arabic states have so far resulted in sectarian conflict and centre-right or far-right Islamist parties come to the fore. The Muslim Brotherhood's patience paid off and their time has come; the ruthless, impatient social engineering of the Arab socialist dictators is arguably what lead to their downfall (to put it in nice terms) and their beliefs are discredited. It may a long time before people look back behind the bloodshed and authoritarianism to the ideological origins of a movement which set out to created a liberal, united, secular Arabia.

Just a thought, anyway!

What do other people think?]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1628898 2012-06-27T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-27T05:12:06-04:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/
The arms companies (whoops, I suppose we're supposed to call them "security technologies salesmen") present will be:

• Lockheed Martin


• BAE Systems


• Boeing


• General Dynamics


• Raytheon


• EADS


• Finmeccanica


• L-3 Communications


• United Technologies


• Thales


• Rosoboronexport

Now, that's a dodgy bunch of guys for anyone who knows anything about what arms traders get up to, but for now let's turn our attention to Rosoboronexport. They are a "federal state unitary enterprise acting as the sole Russian state intermediary agency for export and import of military and dual-purpose products" according to their website.

They also happen to be the main supplier of weapons to the Assad regime in Syria.

According to an interview with spokesman Vyacheslav Davidenko in February in the New York Times:

"We understand the situation has become aggravated in Syria. But since there are no international decisions, and there are no sanctions from the UN Security Council, and there are no other decisions, our cooperation with Syria - the military-technical cooperation - remains quite active and dynamic."

Shameless, eh?

Some might find it rather strange that the UK would be hosting this company when William Hague, our foreign secretary has called for tougher sanctions on Syria and condemned their actions as "outrageous" and whatever. Actually, to be honest, if you know anything about the arms trade, you'd hardly be surprised. 74% of the world's weapons flow from China, France, UK, USA and Russia. The UK is the world's fifth largest arms exporter - now, considering the number of perfectly sensible, internationally lauded and UN-approved wars and conflicts that happen in the world, it'd hardly be surprising that the UK ends up selling to rather fairly shady characters. To quote Salil Shetty, the General Secretary of Amnesty International:

"Powerful states have shown that they cannot be trusted to put human life and dignity before profit."

Last year I spoke to journalist and former ANC MP Andrew Feinstein, a campaigner who has uncovered the reckless corruption and exploitation that this business entails:

"The grey and black markets in weapons, which are effectively quasi and fully illegal markets, are an extremely important part of the formal government to government weapons trade because when those weapons are first manufactured, their value is increased by the knowledge that they are going to have myriad life cycles through the grey and then the black markets. So they are inevitably because of a lack of controls and regulation, going to be sold to people who probably shouldn't have them. So you have these constant moments of conflict irony, I suppose we could call them."

'Conflict irony' would perfectly sum up our government's attitude towards Rosoboronexport - willingly allowing this company to set up shop and make sales in the UK with the full knowledge that they are also the foremost suppliers of a regime which they continue to publicly condemn. It's a bit like setting up a drug lab right next to a rehab clinic and just shrugging your shoulders and going "I don't see the problem here!"

What can be done?

On the 2 July, negotiations will begin at the UN for an Arms Trade Treaty. According to the UN:

The Arms Trade Treaty Conference will take place at United Nations Headquarters in New York on 2 - 27 July 2012. Negotiations will be carried out by the 193 Member States of the UN. In addition, hundreds of representatives from non-governmental organizations, public interest groups, the arms industry, media and inter-governmental organisations will attend.

This offers a unique opportunity in history for the world's power to finally agree to regulate this most lucrative of industries and bring a modicum of control to the state of violent bedlam which the world currently seems to reside in. Naturally, it doesn't sound too promising. Feinstein was pessimistic:

"I fear what it might be is simply an endorsement of the status quo as it currently exists whereas if it was a very, very strong treaty with serious anti-corruption measures to ensure that the trade in weapons didn't intensify existing conflicts, didn't exacerbate human rights situations in certain parts of the world. If it was that strong a treaty I think too many members of the UN wouldn't support it."

People need to take greater awareness of the dark nature of the international arms trade. Nonsense about how it's our only manufacturing base left need to be dismissed (only around 55,000 people work in arms exports today) and we need to realise the incredible harm that is caused around the world by an unregulated arms trade.

On the 9 July, Campaign Against the Arms Trade (CAAT) will begin their protests against the Farnborough "air show" at the Natural History Museum. I suggest we all join them

If our governments aren't willing to take control of this issue, which causes misery for millions the world over, it's up to us to do it instead. Tell them that we are NOT happy with this.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1603970 2012-06-17T15:37:43-04:00 2012-08-17T05:12:10-04:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/ here. The KKE Greek communist party has also refused to cooperate.

A translation of Syriza's policies by a Canadian paper set them as follows:

• A moratorium on debt servicing.



• Negotiations for debt cancellation, with provisions for the protection of social insurance funds and small savers.



• A pan-European tax on wealth, financial transactions, and profits.



• Nationalization/socialization of banks, and their integration into a public banking system under social and workers' control.



• Immediate reconstitution of the minimum wage, and reconstitution of real wages within three years.



• Immediate reconstitution of collective labour agreements.



• The introduction of direct democracy and institutions of self-management under workers' and social control at all levels.



• Speeding up the asylum process. Abolition of Dublin II regulations and granting of travel papers to immigrants. Social inclusion of immigrants and equal rights protection



• Large capitalist property is to be made public and managed democratically along social and ecological criteria. Our strategic aim is socialism with democracy, a system in which all will be entitled to participate in the decision-making process.

Syriza's policies have probably more in common with Michael Foot's Labour party than with Lenin... and for democratic socialists, that's no bad thing. It means that a victory for Syriza will be registered as less a revolutionary cry and more as a sign to other democratic socialists parties who were held hostage by the right since the 1980's that they can be bolder in their approach - particularly if Syriza is seen to be successful.

What we are hopefully seeing here is the final rejection of the neo-liberal consensus that we have maintained since the 1980's. The supposed failure of Keynsianism and the Bretton Woods system in the 1970's was the mandate for introducing the harsh, uber-capitalist policies of Milton Friedman and Friederich Hayek. 2008 should have been the mandate for finally rejecting them - it has only been the fact that power has been so vastly accumulated in the top of society, in a domineering over-class that has used scare-mongering tactics to keep us believing in their self-serving diatribes, that we have stuck with these policies for so long after they almost brought the world economy to the brink of Economic Armaggedon (there's a phrase that's been thrown about a lot today). Now, the left is once again in ascendence, as it was after WW2, and people can again talk about the failure of the free market without being accused of being fantasists or radicals. 19% of men in Greece are unemployed, as are 26% of women. 24% of people are unemployed in Spain. We complain about a mere 8% in this country...these are all figures that trigger the rise of Keynsianism and the policy of full employment in the first place.

Ideas which were once commonplace - which then became radical - may now become commonplace again. Nationalisation could be a word thrown about the place again without it being the other most socially unacceptable "N word" in modern society. In the UK, both Respect and the Green Party have policies of re-nationalising the railways - a move which would lower the burden on those on lower incomes. And of course, the nationalisation of the banks should be brought back on the table - properly, this time. Even Vince Cable has considered the idea of turning RBS into a public investment bank - why not go the whole hog and turn RBS and Lloyds into the kinds of public utilities they're supposed to be, by taking them into full public ownership and control, or mutualisation? Maybe if Syriza manages this, as it claims to want to, it will no longer seem such an out-there idea.

Of course, the paranoid fear which has been instilled in the left since the their supposed failure in the 70's still lingers - which is why the Labour Party is still afraid of being seen as anti-business, distances itself from the trade unions who created it and feel compelled to bring up the "good things" Margaret Thatcher did rather than pointing out her flaws - flaws which have led us to this juncture. This interview with Jon Cruddas, Ed Miliband's new policy chief (and avowed fan of Hugo Chavez) did give a wee spark of hope...

As parties on the centre-left and hard left seem to be gaining ground all over Europe, it looks more and more possible that the solution to the Eurocrisis could eventually be based around a new system of invasive fiscal policy, debt negotation (i.e. cancellation) and new economic consensus which takes power out of the free market and puts it back in the hands of government and the people. A pipe dream, maybe - particularly since the volatility of the international banking, which has incurred a minimum of new regulation in spite of the crisis (although this could be about to change) means that any radical policies would result in capital flight and economic chaos.

Syriza's victory is far from assured - although with Pasok refusing to join any coalition without Syriza, New Democracy will have no chance of a majority either - but as the best showing the left has had in ages, it could be a sign of better things to come.]]> tag:www.huffingtonpost.com,2012:/theblog//3.1593731 2012-06-13T19:00:00-04:00 2012-08-13T05:12:05-04:00

Alex MacDonald http://www.huffingtonpost.com/alex-macdonald/ Would I Lie to You? who would take seriously the casual class warfare between him and Lee Mack. He used this as a basis to emphasise the need to base opinions on actions rather than backgrounds. "It's wrong to infer from the jokes that being born into a rich family means you're a bad person or that judging politicians on their backgrounds rather than their actions is fair." All sounds very noble coming from the Oxbridge-educated, private school comedian whose status as a well-loved entertainer and columnist for a major newspaper of course has nothing to do with his background.

Watching Sunday Morning Live with Francis Boulle from Made in Chelsea this week kind of pushed me over the edge though - the suggestion that classism or prejudice of people based on their upper-class backgrounds is akin to racism was just too much to take. But it's symbolic of the way that class consciousness has been completely trampled over in this country and a taboo has been created around the suggestion that maybe some people in life actually do more opportunities than others based on their background.

The post-war Labour government did more than any government before or since to eliminate the class barrier with its introduction of high tax rates for the wealthy, the creation of the welfare state, expansion of the public sector, free education, free healthcare etc. and there was a conscious belief among a large percentage of the population in the following decades, even through Tory governments, that things were getting better and that class was no longer the barrier to success it had been before the war.

In spite of this, class consciousness was still on a high. Labour supporters were divided from Conservative supporters and whole communities were structured this way - Labour supported the working class, Conservatives were the party of privilege.

Harold Wilson, in stark contrast to today's RP-speaking politicians, consciously modified his accent to try and emphasise his Yorkshire roots, in spite of the fact that his father spoke upper-class English. Being seen as coming from the working-class gave a sense of familiarity to people; it could be worn with pride.

The problems started in the 80s - Thatcher played down class more than any leader before by attempting to emphasise a free market system which opened up opportunities to all. The phrase "there's no such thing as society" stood to emphasise the pointlessness of class loyalties as much as anything else. The fact that it was completely untrue was irrelevant.

Starting then, and continuing throughout the neo-Thatcherism of the Blair years, an indescribably wealthy uber-class of bankers, investors, businessmen, hedge fund managers and various celebrity types grew as the Labour party became more relaxed about "people getting filthy rich."

Behind this, a massive middle-class grew as well as an increasingly disenfranchised working and unskilled class mainly in the post-industrial North and ghettoised ethnic minorities. With the onset of the financial crisis - caused by the filthy rich - the middle-class are declining again and wealth inequality is going through the roof. Wages are falling, the private sector is contracting, more and more people are unemployed and yet executive pay rose on average 12% in the UK last year, in spite of the FTSE 100 losing 6% of its value. Occupy highlighted this effectively with the 99% campaign - the class divide is not only not shrinking, it is more massive than any time since World War II. Bob Diamond earned last year more money than your average nurse could earn in 21 lifetimes. That's a class divide.

But people don't want to hear it. The Diamond Jubilee summarises this total lack of class awareness - the huge popularity of the event and the register of approval for the monarchy that arose from it signifies this. The Jubilee was immense spectacle of privilege, wealth and hereditary superiority. And the public lapped it up.

Similarly, the election of Boris Johnson as Mayor of London was based on his cartoonish toffery, a self-parody of his own immense wealth and privilege - again the public lapped it up. The cabinet of millionaires hardly needs to be mentioned. Cameron and Osborne belong to an Etonian, Oxbridge, Bullingdon Club heritage which almost guarantees them power; if not as politicians, then as businessmen. Their opportunities in life were guaranteed by their extreme wealth and connections and now they are telling the rest of us that we need to save more, that the public sector needs to be reduced and that the NHS needs reform - even though they haven't the faintest idea of what any of this means for those of us who do not have unlimited wealth.

And yet all the polls are suggesting that they are still trusted on the economy more than the opposition, in spite of the fact that the economy is crashing like a ton of bricks. How much of this is based on an attitude of deference to class superiority? The idea that some people are just "born for power" and should be left to run the country - which is not for the likes of the rest of us?

The idea that someone should not be criticised on the basis of their background sounds pretty noble on paper - but it's in fact a far more regressive and reactionary notion to apply this to those born into wealth and privilege.

Being "posh" is neither a genetic trait nor an irreconcilable accident of birth. It is an establishment of superiority which will almost certainly guarantee you a better lot in life. While it might seem nice to suggest that you shouldn't then criticise the children of the wealthy for something they had no power to be born into, by withdrawing criticism you silence any possibility of the situation improving.

The children of Bob Diamond will do much better in life than any of us will. The children of Ian Donald Cameron and Sir Peter Osborne have done much better in life because of their inherited wealth. We do not all have the same opportunities in life for success. There is a class divide and it's as huge now as it ever has been and rather than accusing everyone who points it out of being a "class warrior" or "communist" we should start to address it and realise that inequality is rampant in our society - and that we CAN and SHOULD do something about it.]]>