I wrote this late last night. I've decided to share it after all.
February 15, 2003.
I remember that day so well. I marched. We all marched. We marched as one, from Glasgow Green to the SECC. It seemed like the whole of Glasgow, the whole of Britain - God, the entire world - was marching. I even managed to get my old dear out marching. We talked to each other. We laughed as we saw the banners - "BLIAR", "WEAPONS OF MASS DECEPTION", and the huge mannequin of George W Bush with the words "FUCKING COWBOY" emblazoned on it. Free from the apathy of the living room, liberated from the matter-of-fact-ness of the radio and the safe, controlled detachment of the television screen, we were, all of us, vindicated by each other. We had all been moved to come together here, and we were all bolstered by one another's passion.
John Swinney spoke, Tommy Sheridan spoke, many others spoke. Tommy Sheridan said that the Glesga Polis couldnae count, which drew a big laugh, as I recall. I certainly laughed. The Police had estimated that there were far less of us than there actually were. It felt like there were millions of us. And, of course, there were - all throughout Britain, London, Birmingham, Liverpool, Manchester... the whole of Britain united as one to screech out the words:
"NOT IN OUR NAME".
It was the biggest political demonstration in British history. And it achieved almost nothing, save for certifying our beliefs, and cementing for all the world to see our absolute repudiation of what was about to happen. Not that that would rejoin the dismembered limbs, or resurrect the corpses littering the streets and farms, of course. But at least it meant something.
Tony Blair was scheduled to appear at the SECC that day, to address the Labour Party conference at the very culmination of our march, the very time our demonstration was to arrive outside. Blair's speech was hastily brought forward at the last minute to ensure that he would be long gone by the time we got there. He showed just how much he truly cared about democracy that day. How much he cared about genuine opposition. How much he cared about saving hundreds of thousands of people from violent death, and a tinderbox region of our planet from the ignition that is turning into an inferno even as I type this, even as you read it.
I don't care what John Chilcot says today. I couldn't care less. This isn't a history book. I don't need sources and I don't need corroboration. I was alive. I saw it. I heard it. I lived through it. I remember the lies and the propaganda, the dross that was plastered all over the newspapers about weapons so fast and so powerful that they could destroy me in three quarters of an hour's time. I remember the dodgy dossier. I remember the death of David Kelly. I remember Alastair Campbell's face, skewed and twisted with self-righteous, meaningless fury. And I remember what Tony Blair did. I don't need anyone to tell me the truth about what I already know.
Tony Blair is a war criminal. If all the judges and jurors throughout the planet declared otherwise, I would still gainsay them, because I was there, I remember, and I know exactly what he is. The fact that this man is allowed his liberty, never mind the obscene wealth and protection - paid for by the public - that he is permitted to enjoy, is a monstrous insult against every single decent, just and beautiful thing in this world. He is a monster, a traitor, a dissembler, a deceiver, and a war criminal.
If you ever chance to read this, Blair, know that you are hated. Know that you are despised, held in the lowest contempt, by many, many more people than you realise. Tens of millions of people died in two global wars to get the United Nations established, so it could help end the monstrous power games that took both our species and our planet to the very brink of extinction, and in the year 2003, you unzipped the fly on your bespoke suit and urinated on every single one of their graves. History will condemn you more than I ever could.
I detest you. I revile you. I hate you. But I don't want you dead; unlike you, I am not a murderer. But if karma ever does catch up with you, and your own precious lifeblood is spilled by someone else, whether it be victim or vengeful assassin, you can rest assured of one thing, Blair.
It is "NOT IN MY NAME."
Steven McBrien
Showing posts with label Lib-dems. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lib-dems. Show all posts
Wednesday, 6 July 2016
Saturday, 11 April 2015
Tactical Voting - Are the Unionists insane?
No – really, they must be. Even they would realise it if they bothered to do joined up thinking, not just focusing on the next quarter or imminent election like their pals in London’s City have taught them to do.
Just as they did in the referendum, they’re only looking at the here and now, the immediate reward, like a bunch of toddlers chasing lollipops. The problem is, once that lollipop’s gone all that is left is the stick. And sticks are just good for beating things with, or perhaps burning.
The burning will be on the pyre of pretense this time.
The flame of outrage will spring to life because even the craziest of Scots, as in anyone not confined indefinitely at ‘her majesty’s pleasure’ due to being just a little more than moderately disturbed, will come to understand ‘it’s all bollocks’.
Those Scots who were convinced to vote ‘NO’ during the referendum did so in order to keep the Barrel of Westminster Apples. However, the contents are already rotted and are no good for anything other than cider vinegar. Nevertheless the label on the tub proudly proclaimed in shiny red, white and blue the contents to be of ‘finest vintage’ while the media ‘Heralded’ it as such and the average establishment ‘Scotsman’ peddled those wares hard.
That MSM portrayed a scenario of ‘saving’ something and like puppies or drowning kittens, we’ll usually try to save something we know. They bet on it. Even then, it was close, because it took the entire establishment surging north in the last days, vowing everything with fingers tightly crossed behind its collective three party back, all the while singing ‘a Gordon for me’ as it lined up behind its new front man. So what if it was its old front man? It worked, it reportedly changed the votes of less than a handful of a hundred of us, but it was enough.
Several months on and we’re heading for the GE. However, the Scots aren’t buying it any longer. While I did expect a post referendum reaction I’ll admit to being surprise at the strength of it.
This time the singing isn’t coming across as melodic, not to enough of us to count anyway. You see, we know that with fifty or so MP’s, even holding the balance of power, they’ll still be the ‘feeble fifty’.
We know it because we’re already being told so, and we’re being told what will happen afterwards by London’s tame media.
We’re being told that the Tories and Labour will unite at Westminster to pass any legislation that might need to get passed to suit their very personal agendas and Scotland, with her wishes, be-damned.
However this is problematical as a formal alliance or coalition will strip from the English Electorate any illusion of there being two real choices. No, they’ve got to do it on a case by case basis, for that illusion of democracy must be preserved.
The quandary is, with so many individual MP’s or prospective MP’s having wildly varying opinions, especially on things like Nuclear Armaments and energy, there’s absolutely no way they can chance a ‘free vote’; the USA’s military industrial complex and her quiet lobbyists just can’t allow that either, in the case of Trident at least.
It will be downplayed in the media, but there’ll be no avoiding it, there will need to be a formal alliance between the Labour and Tory parties to achieve their joint aims. It might be case by case to try to fool England’s populous, but happen it will, and the Scots at least will know.
Of course, they can avoid it, if they can form an intentionally ‘ineffective’ government with the SNP involved and then engineer a ‘crisis’ where the administration loses a vote of confidence. They’d do it when the polls were favourable, preferably right before a big vote where Labour-Tory cross party unification is needed, though they’ll probably try to pull in the Lib-Dems and present it as ‘national unity’.
The crisis will be engineered when the polls swing enough to make a single party majority a virtual certainty. The “calamity” will be instigated by creating a need for a vote on something the SNP just can’t support. The government, like Callaghan’s in 1979 will fall apart, just as he knew it would before he called his confidence vote. And the blame and sham cries of “Foul” will once again be heaped upon the SNP. Consequently, it can be almost guaranteed the Tories will be elected. After all, England’s media at least, doesn’t want us dastardly Scots anywhere near the corridors of power.
In the meantime, to preserve the pretense of democratic rule in England, it’s entirely possible some major concessions towards Scotland might just have to be voted through. They’d do it because it’d probably make the polls swing faster as well.
North of Hadrian’s wall, the world is viewed rather differently, as will be the outcome this potential future election. The Scots will have a constitutional lesson that can’t be swept under the carpet. ‘Like trying to pull us out of Europe’ we’ll be told in no uncertain manner that our voices don’t count.
The Europe bit? That’s smoke and mirrors. That almost certainly won’t happen.
Trashing the value of democracy in Scotland, it’s an ongoing thing in the Union – and the Union will run true to form.
So why vote SNP, why try and outdo the ‘Tactical Vote’?
Because in the several months they are down London way, those men and women might just achieve a lot, and even if they don’t manage that, they’ll still achieve a lot – for the elections in 2016.
You see, these 2015 elections aren’t about 2015, they’re about a better goal; they’re about an absolute majority at Holyrood 2016. A majority that will be deliver by a thoroughly aggrieved nation.
When the SNP achieves this majority it will then have the ‘changed circumstances’ required allowing a call for a snap referendum. Those who’d object to that would be objecting to democracy, as it would be undoubtedly the expressed will of the Scottish people.
And what happens if the Unionists see this plan? It’s irrelevant, because the only way to stop it is to allow full participatory democracy in London, there’ll be no ‘feeble fifty’; there will be a ‘mighty minority’.
So, go ahead, defeat that tactical voting proposal. You know you really want to.
Elect those SNP MP’s and poke that Westminster ant hill with a 400 mile long stick.
It’ll be a delightful watching the outcome.
Just as they did in the referendum, they’re only looking at the here and now, the immediate reward, like a bunch of toddlers chasing lollipops. The problem is, once that lollipop’s gone all that is left is the stick. And sticks are just good for beating things with, or perhaps burning.
The burning will be on the pyre of pretense this time.
The flame of outrage will spring to life because even the craziest of Scots, as in anyone not confined indefinitely at ‘her majesty’s pleasure’ due to being just a little more than moderately disturbed, will come to understand ‘it’s all bollocks’.
Those Scots who were convinced to vote ‘NO’ during the referendum did so in order to keep the Barrel of Westminster Apples. However, the contents are already rotted and are no good for anything other than cider vinegar. Nevertheless the label on the tub proudly proclaimed in shiny red, white and blue the contents to be of ‘finest vintage’ while the media ‘Heralded’ it as such and the average establishment ‘Scotsman’ peddled those wares hard.
That MSM portrayed a scenario of ‘saving’ something and like puppies or drowning kittens, we’ll usually try to save something we know. They bet on it. Even then, it was close, because it took the entire establishment surging north in the last days, vowing everything with fingers tightly crossed behind its collective three party back, all the while singing ‘a Gordon for me’ as it lined up behind its new front man. So what if it was its old front man? It worked, it reportedly changed the votes of less than a handful of a hundred of us, but it was enough.
Several months on and we’re heading for the GE. However, the Scots aren’t buying it any longer. While I did expect a post referendum reaction I’ll admit to being surprise at the strength of it.
This time the singing isn’t coming across as melodic, not to enough of us to count anyway. You see, we know that with fifty or so MP’s, even holding the balance of power, they’ll still be the ‘feeble fifty’.
We know it because we’re already being told so, and we’re being told what will happen afterwards by London’s tame media.
We’re being told that the Tories and Labour will unite at Westminster to pass any legislation that might need to get passed to suit their very personal agendas and Scotland, with her wishes, be-damned.
However this is problematical as a formal alliance or coalition will strip from the English Electorate any illusion of there being two real choices. No, they’ve got to do it on a case by case basis, for that illusion of democracy must be preserved.
The quandary is, with so many individual MP’s or prospective MP’s having wildly varying opinions, especially on things like Nuclear Armaments and energy, there’s absolutely no way they can chance a ‘free vote’; the USA’s military industrial complex and her quiet lobbyists just can’t allow that either, in the case of Trident at least.
It will be downplayed in the media, but there’ll be no avoiding it, there will need to be a formal alliance between the Labour and Tory parties to achieve their joint aims. It might be case by case to try to fool England’s populous, but happen it will, and the Scots at least will know.
Of course, they can avoid it, if they can form an intentionally ‘ineffective’ government with the SNP involved and then engineer a ‘crisis’ where the administration loses a vote of confidence. They’d do it when the polls were favourable, preferably right before a big vote where Labour-Tory cross party unification is needed, though they’ll probably try to pull in the Lib-Dems and present it as ‘national unity’.
The crisis will be engineered when the polls swing enough to make a single party majority a virtual certainty. The “calamity” will be instigated by creating a need for a vote on something the SNP just can’t support. The government, like Callaghan’s in 1979 will fall apart, just as he knew it would before he called his confidence vote. And the blame and sham cries of “Foul” will once again be heaped upon the SNP. Consequently, it can be almost guaranteed the Tories will be elected. After all, England’s media at least, doesn’t want us dastardly Scots anywhere near the corridors of power.
In the meantime, to preserve the pretense of democratic rule in England, it’s entirely possible some major concessions towards Scotland might just have to be voted through. They’d do it because it’d probably make the polls swing faster as well.
North of Hadrian’s wall, the world is viewed rather differently, as will be the outcome this potential future election. The Scots will have a constitutional lesson that can’t be swept under the carpet. ‘Like trying to pull us out of Europe’ we’ll be told in no uncertain manner that our voices don’t count.
The Europe bit? That’s smoke and mirrors. That almost certainly won’t happen.
Trashing the value of democracy in Scotland, it’s an ongoing thing in the Union – and the Union will run true to form.
So why vote SNP, why try and outdo the ‘Tactical Vote’?
Because in the several months they are down London way, those men and women might just achieve a lot, and even if they don’t manage that, they’ll still achieve a lot – for the elections in 2016.
You see, these 2015 elections aren’t about 2015, they’re about a better goal; they’re about an absolute majority at Holyrood 2016. A majority that will be deliver by a thoroughly aggrieved nation.
When the SNP achieves this majority it will then have the ‘changed circumstances’ required allowing a call for a snap referendum. Those who’d object to that would be objecting to democracy, as it would be undoubtedly the expressed will of the Scottish people.
And what happens if the Unionists see this plan? It’s irrelevant, because the only way to stop it is to allow full participatory democracy in London, there’ll be no ‘feeble fifty’; there will be a ‘mighty minority’.
So, go ahead, defeat that tactical voting proposal. You know you really want to.
Elect those SNP MP’s and poke that Westminster ant hill with a 400 mile long stick.
It’ll be a delightful watching the outcome.
Tuesday, 7 April 2015
Vote for Labour, Get Maggie.
And she isn’t even running in this election, bit difficult, since she’s dead. But her policies and ideals are in the race, and they’re under Labour’s banner too.
As I went through my little exercise yesterday, I was shocked to discover that even UKIP are to the left of Labour?
Yes, surprising, isn’t it?
Personally, I’d always stereotyped the ‘Kippers’ as somewhere akin to the Monster Raving Loonies. How wrong was I? At least in part. That’d be the part that doesn’t deal with any policies of demonisation and racism.
As I went through my little exercise yesterday, I was shocked to discover that even UKIP are to the left of Labour?
Yes, surprising, isn’t it?
Personally, I’d always stereotyped the ‘Kippers’ as somewhere akin to the Monster Raving Loonies. How wrong was I? At least in part. That’d be the part that doesn’t deal with any policies of demonisation and racism.
To try to sort my way through the confusion of the parties in this GE, it seemed fair to tabulate what they were offering, and what they stood or stand for. To that end, I rustled up the ten most important policies to me. I then looked to see where the parties and participants in last week’s debate stood on them. The fact that I was able to find a view from the seven parties on each of my preferred policies seems to support the fact that they might think they’re relevant too.
I use the phrase ‘stood or stand’ above and this is where we find some surprises. For as we know, times changes much.
Any newly adopted policies that might not generally agree with historical positions I marked as neutral - yellow.
Where a party was in reasonably substantial support of the policy they got a green tick.
If the opposed or did not support the policies they got a red cross.
Fairly straightforward.
If I couldn't make up my mind where the party specifically fell in regards to a policy, or no particular opinion was expressed, then I’d allocate two symbols. The poor Lib-Dem’s were the only party to get hit that way; you just can’t swear a vow and not keep to it. It’s also why the majority got nailed on this, but the Lib-Dem’s with student fees and a ‘federal UK’ effectively did it twice, so they get two black marks.
On a personal basis I believe politicians who lie like that (really no other word for it, is there?) should be jailed for electoral fraud. They made promises in return for votes, and didn’t keep them. No different to me selling you my ‘reliable car’ then you finding out the following morning it is only good for the breakers yard. The difference here is the big UK parties are asking you to buy another car, in the same condition, while telling you it’s all bright, shiny and new. There’s a fool someplace in that scenario, and judging by the reactions of Joe and Josephine public, it wasn't the big UK parties. On the other hand, with MSM spoon-feeding the public, what other options had they? From this point of view the internet and social media have been a great leveler.
Seems like it’s time for a change? There’s no shame in learning, just - for some - the effort is beyond them.
At least in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we've got that option, a nice bright shiny new vehicle in the form of the SNP. And so far, it has mostly done what it says on the tin. We’ll need to keep watching it though, just in case those attitudes it’ll be around are infectious. After all, there’s a track record there - just look at Labour?
Anyway, here’s the table, and based solely on policy, with my interpretation of the results, you really can see UKIP is probably a little to the left of Labour, which might account for some of their mass appeal in spite of being so poisonously radical and extreme in some areas of what they propose.
It transpires with these policies, UKIP is further LEFT than Labour.
Interestingly, the best correlation for everything might just be the referencing of 1950 Labour, because it does two things. It shows the popular appeal of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP to be based upon support of policies which Labour championed back then, and shows how far the current Labour Party has drifted from those values. In my world that’s a clear indicator of why the red rose is hemorrhaging support. It’s not that public values or what the public really wants that has changed.
Fairly straightforward.
If I couldn't make up my mind where the party specifically fell in regards to a policy, or no particular opinion was expressed, then I’d allocate two symbols. The poor Lib-Dem’s were the only party to get hit that way; you just can’t swear a vow and not keep to it. It’s also why the majority got nailed on this, but the Lib-Dem’s with student fees and a ‘federal UK’ effectively did it twice, so they get two black marks.
On a personal basis I believe politicians who lie like that (really no other word for it, is there?) should be jailed for electoral fraud. They made promises in return for votes, and didn’t keep them. No different to me selling you my ‘reliable car’ then you finding out the following morning it is only good for the breakers yard. The difference here is the big UK parties are asking you to buy another car, in the same condition, while telling you it’s all bright, shiny and new. There’s a fool someplace in that scenario, and judging by the reactions of Joe and Josephine public, it wasn't the big UK parties. On the other hand, with MSM spoon-feeding the public, what other options had they? From this point of view the internet and social media have been a great leveler.
Seems like it’s time for a change? There’s no shame in learning, just - for some - the effort is beyond them.
At least in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, we've got that option, a nice bright shiny new vehicle in the form of the SNP. And so far, it has mostly done what it says on the tin. We’ll need to keep watching it though, just in case those attitudes it’ll be around are infectious. After all, there’s a track record there - just look at Labour?
Anyway, here’s the table, and based solely on policy, with my interpretation of the results, you really can see UKIP is probably a little to the left of Labour, which might account for some of their mass appeal in spite of being so poisonously radical and extreme in some areas of what they propose.
It transpires with these policies, UKIP is further LEFT than Labour.
Interestingly, the best correlation for everything might just be the referencing of 1950 Labour, because it does two things. It shows the popular appeal of Nicola Sturgeon and the SNP to be based upon support of policies which Labour championed back then, and shows how far the current Labour Party has drifted from those values. In my world that’s a clear indicator of why the red rose is hemorrhaging support. It’s not that public values or what the public really wants that has changed.
A glance over these two charts quickly reveals the true state of affairs.
With nearly 50% of Scotland’s electorate readying to vote SNP on this platform, we can clearly and simply see that what those folk are in effect voting for was much, if not most of what Labour stood for in its prime.
Scotland has not abandoned Labour. Labour has abandoned Scotland
By looking at this and examining current voting intentions then it follows, Scots still have much the same values they had after the Second World War. Moreover the form that we Scot’s desire our society to take hasn't really changed an awful lot. Does this in point of fact mean that we have not moved forward in 70 years, or is this indicative of our desire to retain a core value that is a foundation stone in our society which we choose to protect?
The Labour party on the other hand..? Well, only the folks at the top of that tree and their financial backers in the City of London or perhaps the Unions can really answer that one, can’t they? Then again, it has never really been the Labour Party since before Maggie broke the Unions, has it? If it had been, perhaps she might not have been as successful in her aims as she was. I can say that because the Labour Party of the fifties was quite honourable, by comparison anyway, and what gave Maggie her toehold in 1979 was Labour’s reneging and twisting of the vow on Scottish devolution.
Simply put, in 1979 had there been no lie there would have been no Maggie. Now wouldn't that have been nice?
One thing that’s very clear, it’s not your father’s Labour Party, it sure as hell isn’t your grandfather’s, and for all the difference, you might as well vote Tory these days, or Lib-Dem, if you don’t mind backing a bunch of liars.
Then again, from what I’m seeing here, you really couldn't get a silken thread between them, could you?
Additionally, from what I now see when I look at where the Tories were in 1980, against where Labour is today, then it really should be:
‘Vote Labour – Vote Maggie’
Because right now, Labour’s proposing support for things like the creeping privatisation of the NHS and international treaties without looking to see if they’re compatible with our core values.
That’s stuff that even Maggie didn’t dare to put on the table!
Simply put, in 1979 had there been no lie there would have been no Maggie. Now wouldn't that have been nice?
One thing that’s very clear, it’s not your father’s Labour Party, it sure as hell isn’t your grandfather’s, and for all the difference, you might as well vote Tory these days, or Lib-Dem, if you don’t mind backing a bunch of liars.
Then again, from what I’m seeing here, you really couldn't get a silken thread between them, could you?
Additionally, from what I now see when I look at where the Tories were in 1980, against where Labour is today, then it really should be:
‘Vote Labour – Vote Maggie’
Because right now, Labour’s proposing support for things like the creeping privatisation of the NHS and international treaties without looking to see if they’re compatible with our core values.
That’s stuff that even Maggie didn’t dare to put on the table!
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Perspectives – Something that is Lacking in Labour.
At the end of the day life is about perspectives. The interesting thing about perspectives is that they’re personal. It’s why we don’t always [or often] all agree, and it’s why on those rare occasions that most of us do agree it’s called a common perspective.
The common Scots political perspective is social democracy, we don’t all agree with that all the time, but it’s reasonably accurate for most of us, most of the time. It’s emphasised by our voting tendencies.
To any individual capable of thought and wishing to secure an elected position in our nation it means any policies pursued should fit into the realm of being social or democratic. Those who can tick both boxes you might just be approaching a sure thing, deliver and watch the trust build. Fail to deliver, as the Liberal-Democrats discovered, and there will be a price for the betrayal.
Johann Lamont, Labour’s latest leadership incumbent north of the border went out of her way the other night to ensure she didn’t check either box. In fact she went so far as to take a rubber and remove the options of either social or democratic from the paper itself.
This was her effective promise to us.
It didn’t matter that she didn’t actually wield a piece of paper with strikethroughs over these two words, Social and Democracy.
Collectively that’s what we perceived she did. Twitter and Facebook lit up with it, a great many column inches were dedicated to it. People in the streets, including the average committed and dedicated Labour voter are left sadly shaking their heads. Shaking their heads and for the first time for many of them, though they may not yet realise it, they are now considering a “Yes” vote.
Ms. Lamont’s Newsnight announcement of future Labour policy was announced in dictatorial fashion, like a manifesto it has been embedded in our collective consciousness. There was no consultation of Labour members we heard of, no party conference discussion, no apparently collective decision making.
It was a decidedly Stalinesque media announcement by the red party that certainly wasn’t socialist and it assuredly wasn’t democratic.
Our perspectives are now in the process of being shifted again, but this time they’re not being nudged just by a fraction, this time our perspectives are taking the full brunt of a 10’ long 2x4 beam across the forehead. And it’s not being wielded gently.
New Labour, Scotland’s traditional party will be removing social equality from our land.
Cut away the fluff, strip the dressing, and dump the salad and desert, that’s the basic statement from Labour in Scotland. The meat in the oratory was “Just like England” and “Death to social equality, death to opportunity”.
That’s as blunt as it gets, like the individual hit by the 2x4 the average Unionist Scot has to absorb the blow, overcome the pain and shock, they have to comprehend what’s happened and they have to rationalise it as part of their healing process.
That rationalisation falls into three roughly even categories, “they didn't mean it” will account for a small amount of voters, those who refuse the evidence of YouTube, the media or their own often neglected research. Fundamentally these are the deniers in any society.
Then there are the justifiers, those who will look for any reason to accept the actions just perpetrated on them, and they’ll come up with everything from “it’s really not needed” to “we just can’t afford it anyway” through “It’s really my fault, you know”.
Over the coming months as the impact is processed we can expect the deny-ers and justifiers to make up the smallest portion of these previously “secure” Union votes.
Lastly we’ll have the realists, the ones who look into what’s on offer, and they’ll see that where Scotland’s Labour Party would have them walk is down the path of social inequality, of unbridled capitalism and of relative deprivation for most individuals.
For the majority this vision will not sit well with their perception of a fair, free and socially democratic land.
These are the ones who will realise that the raft of services proposed for elimination will not only remove some fundamental and unique aspects of our culture, but they will hurt us all universally.
Consider the average taxpayer, if we have no children our taxes still go for schools, we accept that, it’s a cultural and social necessity. That’s just one example.
We all pay in to support the common good of society, those who don’t pay their fair share are criminals or sociopaths; there really are no other words for them. These individuals reap our hard bought benefits and don’t contribute. That’s abhorrent.
Now consider Johann Lamont’s proposals, they’d lead to the re-introduction of means testing on an across society basis, that would be hugely expensive, demeaning and just as abhorrent.
Ms. Lamont proposes that those who can’t afford to pay, whose means tests prove they’re poor, deprived, or otherwise “worthy” of state aid will still have free access to services.
Ms. Lamont’s just alienated the poor, just as effectively as ATOS alienates the disabled. She has erected barriers in our society.
Ms. Lamont’s also put Labour in a place of alienating the rich. She’s telling them that their extra taxes they pay on their extra income will now be used to help the poor, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but she’s also telling them they’ll be taxed again, because the benefits they’re paying their extra taxes for will not be available to them or their children. They’ll have to pay again if they want those benefits.
Not only will the rich pay more, they’ll pay twice and then some. There’s no world in which that’s a fair shake. It’s a shakedown.
Ms. Lamont’s also alienated the middle classes, because she’s introducing uncertainty. Where will elderly care go? Where will the levels be set to qualify? Will my band D home suddenly have to pay for rubbish collection while the band C is exempted? Why should I pay £10,000 more for my daughter’s education than the McDonald’s next door when I only make £2,000 a year more?
As soon as we create a society of “I get but you don’t”, we create societal fractures. In Ms. Lamont’s world the poor could get free university without encumbrances, the middle class can scrimp and save and endure decades of debt so that their children have “equal” opportunity. This policy is proving a disaster in England, why bring it here unless you've simply been ordered to?
Mundane to extreme examples perhaps, but these are perceptions that are being created.
A fair tax system is where taxes are paid universally, with an increasing but not undue or inappropriate burden on the wealthy, and all share equally in the benefits of the taxes. VAT can’t be removed from children’s shoes only if you make less than twice the average wage.
Society has arguable obligation to provide food and shelter to all, at a basic level, with some limitations that society allocates. There’s no question these should be income based provisions.
Everything else in society should be provided as it is paid for, to every citizen. That is a fair society.
An unfair society will expect the folk in the band D house to pay more tax, to support charity, to invest in their children’s future as they also have to save for that education while being taxed for another child’s school.
Members of a fair society should simply expect severely unfair treatment to cause these supporting individuals to move. It’s like any relationship, if we perceive we are being treated inappropriately, we first tend to try to work out the issues, but if irreconcilable differences are there then we’ll tend to leave the relationship.
Scottish Labour just gave every appearance of reaching the “irreconcilable differences” point with many of their supporters; it will spill over into the referendum vote and future elections.
Labour achieved “irreconcilable differences” through proposing severely unfair treatment across Scotland’s franchise. The visit to the “decree absolute” stage may take time for many, but it is road they will travel. Even Tory London didn’t dare go so far so quickly.
Even Tory London would be aware that if just 1/3 of Scotland’s defence under-spend was used in Scotland then all these programs could not just be maintained, but increased, and we’re not even touching the savings through scrapping Trident.
Even Tory London would be aware that not only could these programs be expanded by doing this but that we’d be able to increase our military substantially, reversing London’s cuts.
Tory London also knows that even after all that was achieved there’d be money remaining to invest in either infrastructure or begin a sovereign wealth fund. Just from the defence under-spend.
Tory London appears to know something that formerly Labour Scotland doesn't and that’s why Labour in Scotland is working so hard to alienate all social levels of Scots society. Then again perhaps they have also been left wondering where that 2x4 came from, because it certainly doesn’t seem to have helped the “Better Together” cause at all.
“Better Together” is now severely compromised, because no matter the future damage control, no matter the policy or leadership changes in the next two years, the memory of the words uttered by Johann Lamont will remain fixed in the perception of many an average Scot.
The average non-politically inclined Scot now knows fully what’s on offer from the Union, and judging from the media and street reaction, they don’t like what they perceive at all.
The common Scots political perspective is social democracy, we don’t all agree with that all the time, but it’s reasonably accurate for most of us, most of the time. It’s emphasised by our voting tendencies.
To any individual capable of thought and wishing to secure an elected position in our nation it means any policies pursued should fit into the realm of being social or democratic. Those who can tick both boxes you might just be approaching a sure thing, deliver and watch the trust build. Fail to deliver, as the Liberal-Democrats discovered, and there will be a price for the betrayal.
Johann Lamont, Labour’s latest leadership incumbent north of the border went out of her way the other night to ensure she didn’t check either box. In fact she went so far as to take a rubber and remove the options of either social or democratic from the paper itself.
This was her effective promise to us.
It didn’t matter that she didn’t actually wield a piece of paper with strikethroughs over these two words, Social and Democracy.
Collectively that’s what we perceived she did. Twitter and Facebook lit up with it, a great many column inches were dedicated to it. People in the streets, including the average committed and dedicated Labour voter are left sadly shaking their heads. Shaking their heads and for the first time for many of them, though they may not yet realise it, they are now considering a “Yes” vote.
Ms. Lamont’s Newsnight announcement of future Labour policy was announced in dictatorial fashion, like a manifesto it has been embedded in our collective consciousness. There was no consultation of Labour members we heard of, no party conference discussion, no apparently collective decision making.
It was a decidedly Stalinesque media announcement by the red party that certainly wasn’t socialist and it assuredly wasn’t democratic.
Our perspectives are now in the process of being shifted again, but this time they’re not being nudged just by a fraction, this time our perspectives are taking the full brunt of a 10’ long 2x4 beam across the forehead. And it’s not being wielded gently.
New Labour, Scotland’s traditional party will be removing social equality from our land.
Cut away the fluff, strip the dressing, and dump the salad and desert, that’s the basic statement from Labour in Scotland. The meat in the oratory was “Just like England” and “Death to social equality, death to opportunity”.
That’s as blunt as it gets, like the individual hit by the 2x4 the average Unionist Scot has to absorb the blow, overcome the pain and shock, they have to comprehend what’s happened and they have to rationalise it as part of their healing process.
That rationalisation falls into three roughly even categories, “they didn't mean it” will account for a small amount of voters, those who refuse the evidence of YouTube, the media or their own often neglected research. Fundamentally these are the deniers in any society.
Then there are the justifiers, those who will look for any reason to accept the actions just perpetrated on them, and they’ll come up with everything from “it’s really not needed” to “we just can’t afford it anyway” through “It’s really my fault, you know”.
Over the coming months as the impact is processed we can expect the deny-ers and justifiers to make up the smallest portion of these previously “secure” Union votes.
Lastly we’ll have the realists, the ones who look into what’s on offer, and they’ll see that where Scotland’s Labour Party would have them walk is down the path of social inequality, of unbridled capitalism and of relative deprivation for most individuals.
For the majority this vision will not sit well with their perception of a fair, free and socially democratic land.
These are the ones who will realise that the raft of services proposed for elimination will not only remove some fundamental and unique aspects of our culture, but they will hurt us all universally.
Consider the average taxpayer, if we have no children our taxes still go for schools, we accept that, it’s a cultural and social necessity. That’s just one example.
We all pay in to support the common good of society, those who don’t pay their fair share are criminals or sociopaths; there really are no other words for them. These individuals reap our hard bought benefits and don’t contribute. That’s abhorrent.
Now consider Johann Lamont’s proposals, they’d lead to the re-introduction of means testing on an across society basis, that would be hugely expensive, demeaning and just as abhorrent.
Ms. Lamont proposes that those who can’t afford to pay, whose means tests prove they’re poor, deprived, or otherwise “worthy” of state aid will still have free access to services.
Ms. Lamont’s just alienated the poor, just as effectively as ATOS alienates the disabled. She has erected barriers in our society.
Ms. Lamont’s also put Labour in a place of alienating the rich. She’s telling them that their extra taxes they pay on their extra income will now be used to help the poor, and there’s nothing wrong with that, but she’s also telling them they’ll be taxed again, because the benefits they’re paying their extra taxes for will not be available to them or their children. They’ll have to pay again if they want those benefits.
Not only will the rich pay more, they’ll pay twice and then some. There’s no world in which that’s a fair shake. It’s a shakedown.
Ms. Lamont’s also alienated the middle classes, because she’s introducing uncertainty. Where will elderly care go? Where will the levels be set to qualify? Will my band D home suddenly have to pay for rubbish collection while the band C is exempted? Why should I pay £10,000 more for my daughter’s education than the McDonald’s next door when I only make £2,000 a year more?
As soon as we create a society of “I get but you don’t”, we create societal fractures. In Ms. Lamont’s world the poor could get free university without encumbrances, the middle class can scrimp and save and endure decades of debt so that their children have “equal” opportunity. This policy is proving a disaster in England, why bring it here unless you've simply been ordered to?
Mundane to extreme examples perhaps, but these are perceptions that are being created.
A fair tax system is where taxes are paid universally, with an increasing but not undue or inappropriate burden on the wealthy, and all share equally in the benefits of the taxes. VAT can’t be removed from children’s shoes only if you make less than twice the average wage.
Society has arguable obligation to provide food and shelter to all, at a basic level, with some limitations that society allocates. There’s no question these should be income based provisions.
Everything else in society should be provided as it is paid for, to every citizen. That is a fair society.
An unfair society will expect the folk in the band D house to pay more tax, to support charity, to invest in their children’s future as they also have to save for that education while being taxed for another child’s school.
Members of a fair society should simply expect severely unfair treatment to cause these supporting individuals to move. It’s like any relationship, if we perceive we are being treated inappropriately, we first tend to try to work out the issues, but if irreconcilable differences are there then we’ll tend to leave the relationship.
Scottish Labour just gave every appearance of reaching the “irreconcilable differences” point with many of their supporters; it will spill over into the referendum vote and future elections.
Labour achieved “irreconcilable differences” through proposing severely unfair treatment across Scotland’s franchise. The visit to the “decree absolute” stage may take time for many, but it is road they will travel. Even Tory London didn’t dare go so far so quickly.
Even Tory London would be aware that if just 1/3 of Scotland’s defence under-spend was used in Scotland then all these programs could not just be maintained, but increased, and we’re not even touching the savings through scrapping Trident.
Even Tory London would be aware that not only could these programs be expanded by doing this but that we’d be able to increase our military substantially, reversing London’s cuts.
Tory London also knows that even after all that was achieved there’d be money remaining to invest in either infrastructure or begin a sovereign wealth fund. Just from the defence under-spend.
Tory London appears to know something that formerly Labour Scotland doesn't and that’s why Labour in Scotland is working so hard to alienate all social levels of Scots society. Then again perhaps they have also been left wondering where that 2x4 came from, because it certainly doesn’t seem to have helped the “Better Together” cause at all.
“Better Together” is now severely compromised, because no matter the future damage control, no matter the policy or leadership changes in the next two years, the memory of the words uttered by Johann Lamont will remain fixed in the perception of many an average Scot.
The average non-politically inclined Scot now knows fully what’s on offer from the Union, and judging from the media and street reaction, they don’t like what they perceive at all.
Wednesday, 26 September 2012
Britain’s Unequal Society – where you can be stopped from marrying.
Didn't we all have a wonderful day at the march in Edinburgh on Saturday? I know I did. However I’ve decided I won’t blog about it as many others will and I reckon they will do it admirably. Therefore, back to the blog in hand.
No, the title is not a typo. The United Kingdom, David Cameron’s vaunted golden land, home to the latest Olympics, proclaimed as a beacon of democracy, the “Mother of Parliaments”, and a place of freedom and enlightenment.
What Westminster projects, acclaims and espouses continues to walk farther and farther from reality as each new initiative passes. Administration after administration, Labour, Conservative or coalition, the steps made to equalise society between 1945 and 1965 have been eroded.
When it comes to inequality, we in good ol’ Blightey universally rank in the top ten, it really doesn’t matter which indices are checked, the butcher’s apron is right there nudging the top of the list.
This is not the dream of the average person.
The latest raft of policies and proposed new immigration laws being brought to the legislative table proposed or under serious consideration includes such issues as special immigration lines for “high value individuals”. The only time that any individual should gain precedence in any system is for either a medical emergency or a credible threat to wellbeing.
Saving twenty minutes because your cheque book is fatter should never be a consideration.
Then there’s the new immigration laws, they amount to an obscenity of inequality. A system whereby Scots are additionally unfairly treated in comparison to the South East. In fact, this is a situation where everyone else in these unequal shores is treated in a discriminatory fashion with respect to London.
The laws appear equitable on the surface, setting basic income thresholds for certain immigration criteria. That appears fine at first glance until one understands that there’s no national or regional differentiation allowed.
The unequal aspects that need addressed, but will not be, aren’t those where someone willing to put £5 million into a UK bank gets two years shaved off their residency requirements, or 3 years off for really good behaviour, AKA a £10 million deposit.
No, the unequal aspect that really needs addressed is the effective marriage ban on anyone making less than about $22,000 a year. That’s right, meet, love, marry whomever you want, but if you make less than £22,400 a year you won’t be living in the UK.
Home Office
This overall provision makes even the United States draconian immigration laws look positively benevolent.
Where it gets worse is that £22,000 isn’t the same dependent upon where you live. Londoner’s have much higher salaries, employeebenefits.co.uk notes that salaries paid to Londoner’s are £10,000 higher than those paid to the rest of the UK.
In simple English, or in Westminster speak if preferred, a mechanic in Putney can get married to his Sweetheart, a mechanic in Peebles, Powys or Peterlee can’t. A hairdresser in Southall has no issues with her beau, but stylists in Saltcoats, Saltney or Skipton are pretty much left without a hope.
These are real people, real lives and real discrimination.
How long will it be before the human rights act gets invoked over this legislation is a question worth asking, until one considers that the initiation of any legal action takes money, and in the case of human rights law usually a lot of money, and the legal aid budget is being decimated.
So the Tory, Lib-Dem coalition is again targeting those who are the most vulnerable in our society while effectively working to prevent them having the means to defend themselves.
The Cameron-Clegg message is clear, if you go on holiday, volunteer overseas, or simply like to travel, don’t date.
Democracy in action, equality in action, big society in action, Westminster style.
No, the title is not a typo. The United Kingdom, David Cameron’s vaunted golden land, home to the latest Olympics, proclaimed as a beacon of democracy, the “Mother of Parliaments”, and a place of freedom and enlightenment.
What Westminster projects, acclaims and espouses continues to walk farther and farther from reality as each new initiative passes. Administration after administration, Labour, Conservative or coalition, the steps made to equalise society between 1945 and 1965 have been eroded.
When it comes to inequality, we in good ol’ Blightey universally rank in the top ten, it really doesn’t matter which indices are checked, the butcher’s apron is right there nudging the top of the list.
This is not the dream of the average person.
The latest raft of policies and proposed new immigration laws being brought to the legislative table proposed or under serious consideration includes such issues as special immigration lines for “high value individuals”. The only time that any individual should gain precedence in any system is for either a medical emergency or a credible threat to wellbeing.
Saving twenty minutes because your cheque book is fatter should never be a consideration.
Then there’s the new immigration laws, they amount to an obscenity of inequality. A system whereby Scots are additionally unfairly treated in comparison to the South East. In fact, this is a situation where everyone else in these unequal shores is treated in a discriminatory fashion with respect to London.
The laws appear equitable on the surface, setting basic income thresholds for certain immigration criteria. That appears fine at first glance until one understands that there’s no national or regional differentiation allowed.
The unequal aspects that need addressed, but will not be, aren’t those where someone willing to put £5 million into a UK bank gets two years shaved off their residency requirements, or 3 years off for really good behaviour, AKA a £10 million deposit.
No, the unequal aspect that really needs addressed is the effective marriage ban on anyone making less than about $22,000 a year. That’s right, meet, love, marry whomever you want, but if you make less than £22,400 a year you won’t be living in the UK.
Home Office
This overall provision makes even the United States draconian immigration laws look positively benevolent.
Where it gets worse is that £22,000 isn’t the same dependent upon where you live. Londoner’s have much higher salaries, employeebenefits.co.uk notes that salaries paid to Londoner’s are £10,000 higher than those paid to the rest of the UK.
In simple English, or in Westminster speak if preferred, a mechanic in Putney can get married to his Sweetheart, a mechanic in Peebles, Powys or Peterlee can’t. A hairdresser in Southall has no issues with her beau, but stylists in Saltcoats, Saltney or Skipton are pretty much left without a hope.
These are real people, real lives and real discrimination.
How long will it be before the human rights act gets invoked over this legislation is a question worth asking, until one considers that the initiation of any legal action takes money, and in the case of human rights law usually a lot of money, and the legal aid budget is being decimated.
So the Tory, Lib-Dem coalition is again targeting those who are the most vulnerable in our society while effectively working to prevent them having the means to defend themselves.
The Cameron-Clegg message is clear, if you go on holiday, volunteer overseas, or simply like to travel, don’t date.
Democracy in action, equality in action, big society in action, Westminster style.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)