Posts Tagged ‘Rachel Reeves’

Thanks to Clintonites, Massive Fall in People Calling Themselves Democrats

March 23, 2017

In this clip from the Jimmy Dore Show, Dore and his three co-hosts discuss poll research showing that the number of people calling themselves Democrats has fallen dramatically. In 2008 when Barack Obama was elected, 40 per cent of Americans called themselves Democrats. Now, in March 2017, it’s only 25 per cent. The number of people calling themselves ‘Independents’ however has risen to 44 per cent. Dore makes the point that instead of automatically voting for Hillary Clinton and expecting her to work for them afterwards, the Democratic base should have made it very clear that they were not going to vote for her unless she did. He also suggests that Progressives wishing proper welfare reforms, worker’s rights and single-payer healthcare, should have considered voting for the Greens. If only 10 per cent of the people, who wanted Bernie to win the Democratic nomination, had voted for the Greens instead, then the Democratic party would have had to wake up to the fact that they needed to win votes there, and moved left. He also expresses disappointment with Sanders for staying loyal to the Democrat party and going Independent, where he could have stood a better chance of winning.

His female co-host makes the point that she is sick of the Democrats, because they aren’t doing anything for working, middle class Americans. Her fellows agree that the Democrats aren’t doing anything to challenge Trump, except to run Red scares and repeatedly claim that they’re fighting for ordinary Americans, when they’re just as corrupt and corporatist as the Republicans.

I’m posting this up not only to show how unpopular the corporatist Dems are in America, but also to refute the main argument and tactic of the Blairites in the Labour party. Blair modeled ‘New Labour’ on Bill Clinton’s ‘New Democrats’. The idea was to move rightward, away from the welfare state and the traditional Labour and Democrat bases in order to win votes from Conservatives in Britain and Republicans in America. This is the so-called ‘centre ground’ the corporatists in both Labour and the Democrats keep banging on about. Both the Democrats in America and the Blairites over here are absolutely convinced that elections can only be won through appealing to Republican voters.

This poll shows the opposite. It shows that rather than gaining voters, the ability of both parties to win elections has actually been harmed by their pursuit of Conservative policies. In Britain, the Labour party actually lost 5 million voters during Blair and Brown’s tenancy in Downing Street. The Labour party now is the largest Socialist party in Europe, and much of that is due to new members joining after the election of Jeremy Corbyn.

And, as the recent revelation about Rachel Reeves’ secret email shows, the Blairites in Labour are willing to do anything they can to keep Corbyn and his supporters out of power. They have shown more than once that they are prepared to split the Labour party, rather than have a genuine centre-left leadership.

Guy Debord’s Cat in one of his recent articles has argued that if all the left-wingers were to walk out and form their own party, the remaining Blairite rump would fade to insignificance. I think this strategy would be suicidally dangerous, but these polls show that it could happen. After all, there are enough disenchanted Democrats to make voting third party a possible viable option.

See: https://buddyhell.wordpress.com/2017/02/27/the-blair-murdoch-axis-and-the-lack-of-choice-for-voters/

I don’t want the Labour party to be split, however. What I would like is for the Blairites to get the message that their shenanigans are and will ruin the Labour party, and that they will never win an election trying to pose as Tory Party no. 2. Failing that, they should go and join the Tories. This is, after all, their natural home. The first thing Blair did when he got into No. 10 when he was elected was to invite her to tea. And the Blairite leadership of one CLP was so terrified of the Corbyn supporters winning, that they wrote to Conservatives and Lib Dems asking them to join to stop them.

Advertisements

No, Owen Smith, You and Neil Coyle are Not the Spiritual Heirs of Clem Atlee and Nye Bevan

September 18, 2016

Mike last week ran a couple of stories, which included amongst their other details the facts that Smudger and another Blairite, Neil Coyle, now seem to be trying to convince the public that rather than being neoliberal privatisers, they are really the spiritual heirs of Clement Atlee, Nye Bevan and ’45 Labour government that set up the welfare state and the NHS.

Last Friday, 9th September 2016, Mike commented on an article from Left Foot Forward commenting on how Smudger had been booed by the Corbynistas after he yet again invoked the memory of Nye Bevan, the architect of the NHS. Left Foot Forward commented that both sides were invoking this iconic statesman, but that their attempts to hark back to him were problematic because of the contradictory nature of his ideas.

Mike commented

Is it true that both sides of the current Labour debate will invoke the memory of Aneurin Bevan? I’ve only heard Owen Smith doing it – and inaccurately.

It seems more likely that Mr Smith wants reflected glory – he says he’s a fan of Mr Bevan so he must be okay as well – than to actually call on any of the late Mr Bevan’s political thought, which would be so far removed from the policies of Mr Smith’s strain of Labour that it would seem alien.

And concluded

You don’t see Mr Corbyn invoking Bevan at the drop of a pin, do you?

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/09/smith-compares-himself-to-bevan-because-he-seeks-reflected-glory-it-isnt-working/

Then Neil Coyle, one of the Blairites, started to bluster about how he was also a true, traditional member of the Labour party after he appeared in a list of 14 MPs Jeremy Corbyn’s followers wished to complain about for their abusive behaviour. Coyle insisted that he had been ‘defamed’ because the complaint was specifically against him for accusing Corbyn of being a ‘fake’. The trouble for Coyle was, he had indeed called Corbyn a fake, and been forced to apologise for it. He also accused Corbyn and his supporters of creating a victim culture, which must surely be a case of projection. This is, after all, what New Labour has been trying to do with its constant accusations of misogyny and anti-Semitism against Jeremy Corbyn and Momentum.

In his own defence, Coyle sputtered

“I am a Labour MP, joined Labour as soon as I could and will always be tribal Labour. I voted for a Labour manifesto commitment today based on decades of policy begun by Attlee and was in my manifesto last May. Couldn’t be more ashamed by fake Labour voting against internationalism, collectivism, security and jobs today. Time for a new leader who shares Labour values. Join now.”

See: http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2016/09/15/neil-coyle-should-not-use-words-like-defamation-when-he-doesnt-understand-them/

Now as Mike points out in his article on Smudger and Nye Bevan, the NHS is an iconic institution with immense symbolic value, so naturally Smudger wants to identify himself with its founder. The trouble is, he and Coyle are polar opposites to what Atlee and Bevan actually stood for.

Both of them were classic old Labour. The 1945 Labour government had put in its manifesto that it was going to create the NHS, and nationalise the electricity, coal and gas industries, as well as the railways and other parts of the transport infrastructure. This was part of the socialist ideology that the workers’ should take into their hands the means of production, distribution and exchange. Bevan himself was a champagne socialist – he got on very well with the circles of elite businessmen in which he moved. But he despised the Tories as ‘vermin’, and his book, In Place of Fear, made it very clear that he felt alienated in Westminster because it was a palace created by the ruling classes to celebrate their power against working people. He was resolutely determined that the NHS should be universal, state-owned, and free at the point of service. It’s true that like some other politicians, he considered charging hospital patients a ‘hotel’ charge for taking up beds, but he dropped this idea. And the reason he left office was in disgust at the introduction of prescription charges.

This is in exact opposition to Blair and his ideological descendants in Progress, Saving Labour and Tomorrow’s Labour. Blair vastly extended the Tories’ privatisation of the NHS, quite apart from demanding the repeal of Clause 4, which committed the party to nationalisation. He and his followers, Smudger, Coyle and the like, stand for privatisation and the dismantlement of the welfare state. While Bevan wanted to remove the fear of want and destitution from millions of the working class, Blair and co have striven with the Tories to bring it back, through measures designed to ingratiate themselves with the Tory press. Such as the introduction of the Work Capability Test, which was launched after a conference in the early 2000s with the Labour party in consultation with insurance fraudsters, Unum, and which specifically assumes most disabled people claiming benefit are malingerers. And then there was the case of Rachel Reeves declaring that New Labour would be even harder on benefit claimants than the Tories. Quite apart from approving comments from New Labour apparatchiks about the wonders of workfare.

As for Coyle’s claim that he supports ‘internationalism and collectivism’, you to have to wonder when. For many on the left, who consider themselves ‘internationalists’, the term does not include imperialism and the invasion of other, poorer nations for corporate profit. But this is what Blair’s foreign policy – the invasion and occupation of Iraq consisted of, just as his successors, Cameron and May, are also imperialists. Mike states in one of his pieces that he doesn’t know how many of the 552 MPs, who voted for air strikes in Syria, were Labour; but he does know that two, who voted against it, were Corbyn and John McDonnell.

As for ‘collectivism’, it should be noted that this is not the same as ‘socialism’. Blair claimed to be a collectivist in making private enterprise work for the community as part of his vaunted Third Way. Which incidentally was the claim of the Fascists. In practice, however, this meant nothing more or less than the continuation of Thatcherism. This was shown very clearly by the way Blair invited her round to No. 10 after he won the election, and the favouritism he showed to Tory defectors.

So no, Owen Smith and Neil Coyle are not the spiritual heirs of Atlee and Bevan. Whereas the latter stood for the welfare state, socialism and improving conditions for the working class, Smith and Coyle have done the precise opposite, as have their followers. Mike also reported this week that in 2014 the Labour party conference voted down a motion to renationalise the NHS. This shows how far New Labour and its supporters have moved from Atlee’s and Bevan’s vision. They are Conservative entryists, who deserve to be treated as such, and removed from power before they do any more harm.

Vox Political: Labour Should Not Let Disabled People Die Just to Curry Favour with Press

March 11, 2015

This is another piece of Mike’s that needs to be reblogged. In his piece, Why are disabled people being asked to die for Labour’s election hopes, Mike reports how Liza van Zyl, a campaigner against the work capability assessment system and the deaths it has caused, was told by the Labour MP Owen Smith that Labour did not support any change to the current work capability assessment. They were afraid that it would damage Labour’s chances of getting into power by allowing them to be attacked as soft on benefits. The article begins

… Especially when it won’t improve those hopes?

Extremely disturbing news has reached Vox Political, courtesy of Liza Van Zyl on Facebook. Extremely long-term readers may recall Liza was the lady who received a visit from police who claimed she had committed a criminal act against the Department for Work and Pensions, just before midnight on October 26, 2012 – being that she had been highlighting the deaths of sick and disabled people following reassessment by Atos and the DWP for Employment and Support Allowance.

Fortunately for those who still have to undergo these assessments, she was not discouraged and has continued to fight for those who cannot stand up for themselves. However, she is currently suffering severe disenchantment with the Labour Party, as she recounts below:

“We heard from Owen Smith MP today [Saturday, March 7] (a member of the left wing of the of the Labour Party leadership) that it is important for disabled people to continue to die, lest any commitment by Labour to scrap the Work Capability Assessment generate a negative response in the press and affect Labour’s general election chances.

“He said that while he personally doesn’t like the WCA, his Labour colleagues will not support scrapping it because of fears it will play badly with the right wing press and damage Labour’s electoral chances… I’ve since been contacted by other disabled people who’ve raised the issue with their Labour MPs, and the response has been: Yes, the WCA isn’t nice but if Labour commits to scrapping it, it would appear to be ‘soft on welfare’.

“The similarities of these responses (and given that Owen Smith is a frontbench shadow sec of state and therefore presumably is up to date on party strategy) indicates that this is an agreed line or represents an actual decision. This is profoundly disturbing, given that a great many Labour MPs know in detail exactly what suffering and deaths the WCA is responsible for among their own constituents: Tom Greatrex organised a powerful meeting of Labour MPs with Chris Grayling two years ago. Dame Anne Begg is herself a disabled person, as are other MPs.

Mike asks the question when this decision was taken, and why didn’t left-wing MPs like John McConnell, Dennis Skinner and Jeremy Corbyn protest?

He also makes the good point that this policy will not benefit the Labour party, but will actually harm it. Disabled people and their friends and families also vote, and they won’t support a party that continues to let their loved ones die, all for its own cynical political advantage. The opinions of the right-wing press can be discounted. Their readers won’t vote Labour, and so there is no point courting them.

He also points out that if, as he hopes, Labour does decide to scrap the work capability assessment, then its silence on this policy in order to win the election also makes it guilty of the same misrepresentation and lies that have resulted in public distrust of politicians generally as self-interested liars.

Mike also points out that he has written to Rachel Reeves, Labour’s shadow minister for welfare, and Ed Miliband about this issue before, only to be met with stony silence. He has suggested that people should write to the very same right-wing press, of which Labour seem so afraid, to point out how their refusal to change the WCA will stop then and others like them from voting for the party. He himself is perfectly willing to draft the letter.

Mike’s article is at http://voxpoliticalonline.com/2015/03/10/why-are-disabled-people-being-asked-to-die-for-labours-election-hopes/. Go there to let him know what you think about this policy.

Private Eye on the Political Influence of Big Accountancy

February 16, 2015

In my last post, I criticised the pernicious cross-party influence of the think tanks and lobbying firms. I posted up an article on them from a 2012 issue of Private Eye. That same issue also carried another relevant article, describing the way the big accountancy firms, in this case, PricewaterhouseCoopers were also working for all of the major political parties. They were similarly active promoting their polices of tax avoidance, while avoiding the repercussions for their role in the collapse of banks such as Northern Rock and the development of tax avoidance schemes. The article ran

Anybody wondering why the fallout from recent financial scandals never gets too near the big accountancy firms that are at the heart of so many – the failure to audit collapsing banks properly, the sale of billions’ of pounds’ worth of tax avoidance schemes – will be interested n a few lines from the annual report of PricewaterhouseCoopers (Northern Rock auditor and adviser on Barclays’ tax avoidance schemes, among other lucrative lines).

PwC, it emerges, “provided a total of some 3,454 hours of free technical support to political parties during the year”, valued at £400,000, and made up of “2,622 hours ot the Labour Party and 832 to the Liberal Democrat Party”. In recent years, it reveals, “the trend has been that we have provided more hours to the opposition parties as they have less support infrastructure”.

Small wonder coalition and opposition alike are expanding the opportunities for PwC’s offshore tax schemes (<Eyes passim) and overlooking the obvious need to rein in Britain’s big beancounting operations.

This is exactly correct. Mike over at Vox Political has sharply criticised Rachel Reeves, for example, for accepting the help and advice of the big accountancy firms. This help isn’t free. The cost is the continuing corruption of British politics and the erosion of public confidence in the willingness and ability of their leaders to represent them, not corporate big business.

Bravo! Margaret Hodge Tackles the Political Accountancy Companies

February 9, 2015

Mike over at Vox Political has this story about Labour’s Margaret Hodge criticising the increasing involvement of PricewaterhouseCoopers and the other major accountancy firms in working for political parties: The perils of pandering to PricewaterhouseCoopers. He writes

This is something that broke while Yr Obdt Srvt was still recovering from a recent illness, but is still worth covering because Labour really needs to understand the danger of association.

Margaret Hodge, Labour’s chair of the Commons Public Accounts Committee, broke ranks to warn the Shadow Cabinet against accepting – shall we call it – “help” from accounting firms like PricewaterhouseCoopers on Friday. She said it was “inappropriate” and she was right to do so.

It’s the political equivalent of accepting “help” from the Mafia – you end up in their pocket, owing them favours.

According to the BBC, Labour MPs including Ed Balls (Shadow Chancellor) and Chukka Umunna (Shadow Business Secretary), along with Rachel Reeves (Shadow Work and Pensions Secretary) have received more than £540,000 in research assistance from the firm in the past 18 months alone.

PwC is one of the ‘Big Four’ accountancy firms – the others are Ernst & Young, KPMG and Deloitte – who also advise the Conservative-run Treasury on tax policy. It should not be beyond anybody’s wit to see there’s a clear conflict of interest if the firm is advising both Labour and the Tories on tax policy.

Mike also points out that PricewaterhouseCoopers were also advising businesses on how they could avoid tax, which is another conflict of interest. He makes the point that where they are advising all parties, and making their own observations and suggestions, the danger is that political parties will be promoting the accountancy firms’ own policies, against the interest of their constituents and electorate.

PricewaterhouseCoopers have also said that they welcome Margaret Hodge’s report, but say that they did not mislead parliament when they appeared before it two years ago in 2013.

Mike askes the obvious question of whether this can be believed. He fully agrees with Hodge, and recommends that all of the big accountancy firms be removed from assisting political parties.

This is exactly right. Private Eye for years has been covering the way the big four accountancy firms have been ‘assisting’ the political parties. The question of how far they are responsible for the mass of legislation allowing massive corporate tax avoidance, while the tax burden is passed on to the poorest sections of society. They aren’t alone in peddling assistance and influence to the major parties. The Eye has also reported on how big business, including the banks, insurance companies, arms dealers, private healthcare companies and the gambling industry, have lobbied parliament, and sponsored party conferences and meetings. Under Blair, the companies striving for corporate influence even included Wackenhut, a private prison company.

This is just a small part of a particularly noisome Augean stable that desperately needs to be cleaned out.

We can begin by showing the door to the accountancy firms.