Guardian Unlimited | Columnists | A game of double bluff
by George monbiot - don't always agree with him of course, but this article summarises my own view of blair's motivations and following the french non it's clear that blair is gearing up for a neoliberal assault on "old europe", welfarism, and "the past" (you can see the line in Martin Kettle's usual obsequy in the same issue of the grauniad)
Tuesday, 31 May 2005
Thursday, 26 May 2005
The ultimate postmodern spectacle
here's a para i wish i'd written...
Terry Eagleton writing about Michael Jackson...
It is hardly surprising that he has expressed a wish to live forever, given that death is the final victory of nature over culture. If the US sanitises death, it is because mortality is incompatible with capitalism. Capital accumulation goes on forever, in love with a dream of infinity. The myth of eternal progress is just a horizontalised form of heaven. Socialism, by contrast, is not about reaching for the stars but returning us to earth. It is about building a politics on a recognition of human frailty and finitude. As such, it is a politics which embraces the reality of failure, suffering and death, as opposed to one for which the word "can't" is almost as intolerable as the word "communist".
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | The ultimate postmodern spectacle
Terry Eagleton writing about Michael Jackson...
It is hardly surprising that he has expressed a wish to live forever, given that death is the final victory of nature over culture. If the US sanitises death, it is because mortality is incompatible with capitalism. Capital accumulation goes on forever, in love with a dream of infinity. The myth of eternal progress is just a horizontalised form of heaven. Socialism, by contrast, is not about reaching for the stars but returning us to earth. It is about building a politics on a recognition of human frailty and finitude. As such, it is a politics which embraces the reality of failure, suffering and death, as opposed to one for which the word "can't" is almost as intolerable as the word "communist".
Guardian Unlimited | Guardian daily comment | The ultimate postmodern spectacle
Monday, 16 May 2005
Wednesday, 11 May 2005
Politics should be about ideas not rampant egos - The Herald
Politics should be about ideas not rampant egos - The Herald
Politics should be about ideas not rampant egos
Iain Macwhirter May 11 2005
email author
Jack McConnell may have been gracious about the departure of the Liberal Democrats' leader, Jim Wallace, but many in his party are not sad to see the back of him. It's not just that they didn't rate Wallace as a minister: there has long been resentment among Labour MSPs and MPs at the way the Liberal Democrats claim credit for the achievements of the Scottish Executive while somehow distancing themselves from failures such as the parliament scandal, NHS waiting lists and the sluggish economy – even though Wallace was enterprise minister. This has allowed a party of "amateurs" – as Labour sees them – to become the second party of Scotland in the 2005 election.
Many Labour MSPs would be happy to see Wallace take the Scottish Executive coalition with him into the political wilderness. Some LibDems, such as MSP Mike Rumbles, agree that voters dislike the backstage deals and horse-trading of forming a coalition. Party activists loathe compromising on manifesto promises so electoral enemies can acquire ministerial limos.
It's not as if there isn't another way, say critics of coalition. Look at Wales, where Labour governs as a minority and the LibDems support it only on an issue-by-issue basis. Many Labour MPs would like to scrap Scotland's additional-member electoral system.
But it isn't going to happen. Talk of abandoning the Scottish Executive partnership is likely to remain just that: talk. The truth is the coalition, appearances to the contrary, has been a considerable success, and not just for the LibDems. Both parties have benefited from co-operative government.
As this column has argued, home-rulers of the 1980s would be astonished at what the Scottish Parliament achieved in a short time. Not just big policies such as free personal care, scrapping tuition fees, a ban on smoking and land reform, but minor measures such as improved school meals, free bus passes and freedom of information. Much of this is down to the nature of coalition government which has helped to correct the deficiencies inherent in the party system.
Labourites get angry if you point out how many of the successful measures implemented by the executive started life in LibDem election manifestos. You don't hear McConnell complaining. The presence of the LibDems in government has often been useful to the first minister because it liberates him from his party's tribalism.
The coalition is not just fairer, it allows new ideas to enter government. The Scottish Executive stands as a model for post-sectarian politics, and Westminster will eventually have to adopt something similar. Labour's leader-in-waiting, Gordon Brown, is known to be opposed to electoral reform. But if he thought about it, he'd realise it is essential for his own project to renew and revive British politics.
Fairer voting would restore democratic legitimacy, provide a new centre of political gravity, allow parties to think out of their boxes and marginalise extremism. It would end boom-and-bust politics. It involves taking power away from the centre. However, as Brown discovered with the Bank of England, handing away power can increase the effectiveness of government. Left to its own devices, Labour would probably have done very little with the Scottish Executive. Had it been running a one-party state, most of its energies would have been wasted defending the vast bureaucracy. Measures such as the reform of local government would have been blocked by cooncil godfathers. Ditto personal care. McConnell's smoking ban would probably never have got off the ground had the LibDems not been around because of the electoral consequences.
Critics of electoral reform argue that coalitions are unstable and hand disproportionate influence to minor parties. Britain needs the smack of firm government, according to defenders of the Westminster system, instead of marshmallow administrations where no-one gets what they want and radical change is impossible.
But this is an outmoded ideological approach rooted in the politics of the past century. Britain is no longer a society organised into classes reflected in monolithic parties representing capital and organised labour. Of course, there are still rich and poor, and inequality is greater now than in the 1980s, but this is not how the political system works now.
With the passing of manufacturing, the working class is no longer an organised and potent political force. Managed capitalism is the only game in town. This requires a different kind of politics. It is no longer about seizing the state in the interest of a section of society, but building consensus on moral propositions: equality of opportunity, individual liberty, racial tolerance, collective provision of essential services.
If this formulation sounds familiar, it is because similar sentiments were expressed by Brown in speeches recently. His "progressive consensus" – which Brown has apparently persuaded the prime minister to endorse – is very much this kind of project. Unfortunately, Brown hasn't drawn the logical conclusion: that the constitution needs to change to reflect this.
You cannot build a progressive consensus under an electoral system so manifestly unfair that a party can win an overall majority of 66 on less than 36% of the popular vote. That isn't democracy: it is elective dictatorship. It is hardly surprising that, under such a system, well-meaning politicians end up behaving like dictators. Armed with a 160-seat majority, a politician can do anything – even blunder into a war.
Gordon Brown knows perfectly well that our political system is rotten and discredited and needs radical reform. The public loathe the adversarial Commons style with its petty point-scoring and demeaning sectarian abuse. They want debate, of course, and they want argument, but they want to be treated like adults and see their politicians behave like adults.
Modern issues, such as nuclear power, pensions, climate change – all the difficult issues that get left out of election campaigns – need a new kind of political culture in which ideas can be drawn from outside the party loops; the kind of intelligent politics that has worked in Scotland.
People no longer want closed-mind politicians who dissemble and prevaricate and regard the seizure of power as an end in itself. They want politics that brings the best people together to find solutions to problems, rather than providing a platform for rampant egos mouthing banal slogans or devious dog-whistlers exploiting fear.
The best people don't go into politics anymore because life in the establishment political parties is so unpleasant. Who wants to join brain-dead organisations more concerned with self-preservation than the common good? The Labour/Conservative duopoly is an anachronism. The only way to renew politics is to circumvent these relics by reform. History has handed this task to Gordon Brown.
Politics should be about ideas not rampant egos
Iain Macwhirter May 11 2005
email author
Jack McConnell may have been gracious about the departure of the Liberal Democrats' leader, Jim Wallace, but many in his party are not sad to see the back of him. It's not just that they didn't rate Wallace as a minister: there has long been resentment among Labour MSPs and MPs at the way the Liberal Democrats claim credit for the achievements of the Scottish Executive while somehow distancing themselves from failures such as the parliament scandal, NHS waiting lists and the sluggish economy – even though Wallace was enterprise minister. This has allowed a party of "amateurs" – as Labour sees them – to become the second party of Scotland in the 2005 election.
Many Labour MSPs would be happy to see Wallace take the Scottish Executive coalition with him into the political wilderness. Some LibDems, such as MSP Mike Rumbles, agree that voters dislike the backstage deals and horse-trading of forming a coalition. Party activists loathe compromising on manifesto promises so electoral enemies can acquire ministerial limos.
It's not as if there isn't another way, say critics of coalition. Look at Wales, where Labour governs as a minority and the LibDems support it only on an issue-by-issue basis. Many Labour MPs would like to scrap Scotland's additional-member electoral system.
But it isn't going to happen. Talk of abandoning the Scottish Executive partnership is likely to remain just that: talk. The truth is the coalition, appearances to the contrary, has been a considerable success, and not just for the LibDems. Both parties have benefited from co-operative government.
As this column has argued, home-rulers of the 1980s would be astonished at what the Scottish Parliament achieved in a short time. Not just big policies such as free personal care, scrapping tuition fees, a ban on smoking and land reform, but minor measures such as improved school meals, free bus passes and freedom of information. Much of this is down to the nature of coalition government which has helped to correct the deficiencies inherent in the party system.
Labourites get angry if you point out how many of the successful measures implemented by the executive started life in LibDem election manifestos. You don't hear McConnell complaining. The presence of the LibDems in government has often been useful to the first minister because it liberates him from his party's tribalism.
The coalition is not just fairer, it allows new ideas to enter government. The Scottish Executive stands as a model for post-sectarian politics, and Westminster will eventually have to adopt something similar. Labour's leader-in-waiting, Gordon Brown, is known to be opposed to electoral reform. But if he thought about it, he'd realise it is essential for his own project to renew and revive British politics.
Fairer voting would restore democratic legitimacy, provide a new centre of political gravity, allow parties to think out of their boxes and marginalise extremism. It would end boom-and-bust politics. It involves taking power away from the centre. However, as Brown discovered with the Bank of England, handing away power can increase the effectiveness of government. Left to its own devices, Labour would probably have done very little with the Scottish Executive. Had it been running a one-party state, most of its energies would have been wasted defending the vast bureaucracy. Measures such as the reform of local government would have been blocked by cooncil godfathers. Ditto personal care. McConnell's smoking ban would probably never have got off the ground had the LibDems not been around because of the electoral consequences.
Critics of electoral reform argue that coalitions are unstable and hand disproportionate influence to minor parties. Britain needs the smack of firm government, according to defenders of the Westminster system, instead of marshmallow administrations where no-one gets what they want and radical change is impossible.
But this is an outmoded ideological approach rooted in the politics of the past century. Britain is no longer a society organised into classes reflected in monolithic parties representing capital and organised labour. Of course, there are still rich and poor, and inequality is greater now than in the 1980s, but this is not how the political system works now.
With the passing of manufacturing, the working class is no longer an organised and potent political force. Managed capitalism is the only game in town. This requires a different kind of politics. It is no longer about seizing the state in the interest of a section of society, but building consensus on moral propositions: equality of opportunity, individual liberty, racial tolerance, collective provision of essential services.
If this formulation sounds familiar, it is because similar sentiments were expressed by Brown in speeches recently. His "progressive consensus" – which Brown has apparently persuaded the prime minister to endorse – is very much this kind of project. Unfortunately, Brown hasn't drawn the logical conclusion: that the constitution needs to change to reflect this.
You cannot build a progressive consensus under an electoral system so manifestly unfair that a party can win an overall majority of 66 on less than 36% of the popular vote. That isn't democracy: it is elective dictatorship. It is hardly surprising that, under such a system, well-meaning politicians end up behaving like dictators. Armed with a 160-seat majority, a politician can do anything – even blunder into a war.
Gordon Brown knows perfectly well that our political system is rotten and discredited and needs radical reform. The public loathe the adversarial Commons style with its petty point-scoring and demeaning sectarian abuse. They want debate, of course, and they want argument, but they want to be treated like adults and see their politicians behave like adults.
Modern issues, such as nuclear power, pensions, climate change – all the difficult issues that get left out of election campaigns – need a new kind of political culture in which ideas can be drawn from outside the party loops; the kind of intelligent politics that has worked in Scotland.
People no longer want closed-mind politicians who dissemble and prevaricate and regard the seizure of power as an end in itself. They want politics that brings the best people together to find solutions to problems, rather than providing a platform for rampant egos mouthing banal slogans or devious dog-whistlers exploiting fear.
The best people don't go into politics anymore because life in the establishment political parties is so unpleasant. Who wants to join brain-dead organisations more concerned with self-preservation than the common good? The Labour/Conservative duopoly is an anachronism. The only way to renew politics is to circumvent these relics by reform. History has handed this task to Gordon Brown.
Tuesday, 3 May 2005
These are Blair's last days
george's analysis here spot on and if only the title was true...
my guess is a majority of something like 80 and a ruthless New Labour assault on all enemies directly afterwards... learned nothing and forgotten nothing
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | George Galloway: These are Blair's last days
my guess is a majority of something like 80 and a ruthless New Labour assault on all enemies directly afterwards... learned nothing and forgotten nothing
Guardian Unlimited Politics | Special Reports | George Galloway: These are Blair's last days
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
