Apathy in the UK – Handing power back to an unchanged Labour Party…?

Nothing new at the start of 2013… No time to post anything during the latter half of 2012, but it turned out to be a pretty flat year, no significant changes in the overall state of affairs. Certainly no apocalypse, not even a revolution, well not in the West…

A brief review of the year; the Coalition has stumbled along, the UK economy has effectively flat-lined, Europe is still clinging on to its lower regions, the US is still coming to terms with itself, as China appears to continue its rise and the developing world is continues to develop, rapidly… And all the while the Labour Party are still spewing out the same s**t they have been for past two years, well actually the past 20 years.

The Left haven’t changed, they never do, occasionally they grow up, but… Anyway, is the Occupy Movement still going…? ‘UK Uncut’ is still kicking about and some of the UK Left’s hypocrisy and idiosyncrasy were recently exposed within their protests… (The tax avoiding Guardian newspaper giving significant coverage to UK Uncut’s campaign against tax avoidance, “Anarchists” opposed to Government joined in with the protests, demanding a bigger state (though they claimed a means to an end…) and all of this was seen as it turned out that Starbucks were pretty much the biggest tax avoiders of all… Haha!)    

And Argentina is still banging on about a ridiculous claim on the Falklands Islands, no less ridiculous than Britain’s… 

    Obama and Kirchner get close?

    'They're thousands of miles away and it's not like they're hot...'

Like Hawaii.

So yes nothing new, I’ll just pick it up where I left off; the Coalition have had a ‘mid-term review’  

    Cameron leaves Clegg behind?

    'You're a f**king liability Clegg...!'

And Labourites were spouting the same old propaganda at the Fabian Society last weekend, so I will review the relatively unaltered British political landscape; the Coalition are roundly criticised for everything they do, often rightly so, but Labour can say anything they like, with few picking them up on their hypocrisy, (so is the nature of the Liberal-Left…) and they have remained around 10 or more points ahead in the opinion polls. 

How that translates to the ballot box is another thing and that was part of the last post, nothing much has changed since… There were by-elections, a Mayoral election and Police Commissioner (PCC) Elections in November (ridiculous timing) and again the results highlighted how misleading opinions polls can be and how empty Labour’s rhetoric always is, it showed the true state of British politics, quite far removed from Labour’s fantastical proclamations.

There was no way that even Labour could try to spin the PCC results, so they focussed on the low turnout, instead of John Prescott humiliation to a Tory in Humberside, funny that…

I bet there were some aides running for cover when the result was announced...

    John Prescott might get handy?

    'You won't like me when I'm angry...'

His wife would have taken the brunt of it, one way or the other…

    Prescott's finest moment?

    'Who's f**king next?!'

There was an apparent anti-Labour vote in the only Mayoral election in Bristol and they were always going to keep that on the down low… And what resulted from that loss was a reaction from Labour HQ which showed a glimpse of the truly offensive side of Labour’s politics and philosophy, the aspects that we will all suffer if things run their present course; their use of manipulation and their desire to control. But I'll come back to that.

So Labour put their energies into spinning the three by-elections results and cranked up the bullshit production to overdrive. Three safe Labour seats Croydon North, Middlesbrough and Rotherham, so safe that even at their ‘lowest’ in 2010 in the midst of economic crisis with Gordon Brown in power, they still voted Labour in their droves in these constituencies… To put it into context, even at their very lowest in 1983, in Middlesbrough and Rotherham, they still won by some margin. The common phrase for this is they ‘could put up a pig’ and enough numbskulls would still scrawl a cross on the ballot paper, just fortunate enough not to dribble too much and spoil the paper… Ah it sounds harsh, but come on where is the self-respect…?

That’s not to denigrate everyone in these constituencies, far from it, only 25-33% of the electorate turned out to vote; the total percentage of the electorate voting for Labour barely rising above 15%.

Yet Ed Miliband saw fit to translate the results as an endorsement of “One Nation Labour” (the s**t he’d been spouting a few weeks earlier and again at the Fabian Society last weekend)… 15%?!!

One f**king Nation?!! 

    Miliband - A face you'd like to slap?

    Oh, you just could…

All this talk of 'One Nation', almost makes you think Ed might be worried about Scottish Independence...

15% of those eligible to vote, this is the anger coursing through our streets…? Oh it’s palpable, in the public sector… It just doesn’t seem to be translating on election days. Because remember the country is on its a**e, so it appears, and this Government is widely despised, so surely it should be more than 15%? 40 plus percent of those polled, and then only 15% of those registered, in Labour Heartlands…

Or is that just the system, it’s a safe seat so why go out in the November rain…?

Whatever, it’s not a f**king endorsement of Miliband or Labour, or any kind of clear signal to anyone, about anything...! But what the f**k, the only result that matters is that Labour gain the seats, that’s First Past the Post…

Some 65-75% of the electorate had enough self respect to abstain, but what happens then? 15% of the electorate hold sway? How on earth can that be ‘fair’? To use a Labourite sound-bite…

This Government is certainly unpopular and many more than 15% do not and would not support them, or are in outright opposition to them, but they don’t necessarily support Labour. Yet that small percentage could see Labour return to power without having to do anything, no reform, no clear and effective policies, just the same old faces and ‘normal service’ resumed.

    The Labour Cabinet - The Usual Suspects?

    The Same Old Muppets...

People are angry at the Coalition Government; they should be incandescent with rage how cheaply power may be given back to Labour! If only they could do something about it… Like vote for a different party…? It doesn’t have to be the Tories.

Do average people even consider how cheaply power is given away in this country full-stop? Even at the height of their power New Labour didn’t get the support of over 30% of the electorate, in 2005 they had a useful majority of seats with only 22% of the electorate voting for them and how many of those voters were in Scotland and Wales…?!

22% and a strong enough Government, stronger than Major’s in 1992, they received the support of 19% of the electorate in 2010. Rock bottom with a hugely unpopular Leader… Only 3% between strong Government and Opposition? How is that right?

Not only that; more and more it’s looking like the same people are voting for Labour, keeping the party’s share of the vote consistent, and very little seems to effect their decision in placing their vote…

In my last post I looked at this situation, from the local elections. Some 15% to 25% of any electorate could easily be made up from local Public Sector workers, students and unionised private sector workers, or even Old Labour, not to mention the odd Liberal Lefty making their weary way in the Private Sector…

    'What do we want? 'Fair Pensions!'

    'When do we want them?' 'Next week if at all possible please...'

It’s an organised, vocal, minority, using their right to vote effectively and with little opposition, getting their way. Ultimately controlling the country; minority rule.

Becoming 40 plus percent when pressed in an opinion poll…

A lot of people don’t like either the Tories or Labour, but forgetting the recent economic records of both parties, it’s in part because of the similarities between them; from cut backs to benefits and pensions to the deregulation and privatisation in the economy.

There is great disillusionment with politics and people feel their votes are irrelevant. I think a lot of apathy does stem from some unrealistic expectations, of Government and in general, but that’s too deep an issue to go into now. Why though would people sit back and watch an unreformed Labour Party walk back into power?

They may not blame Labour completely for the economic crisis and of course the banks were more directly at fault, but Labour shouldn’t be excused and ultimately they will not solve the country’s problems; economic and social.

If they get back in with the support of their minority, with a few floaters, what more do they have to do than appease those supporters…? What more did they ever do???

And why would they change a system that can allow them access to power so easily?

The modern Labour Party is all about control, in almost every possible sense in fact; from controlling MPs and the party line to controlling the population through surveillance. But in order to achieve their objectives they have to maintain power and as I have pointed out the current system allows them easy access to Government. The First Past the Post system is now weighted towards them (though obviously the Tories still do ok…) and in what is supposed to be a “progressive” party, so a large proportion of them want to keep the current and would not consider Proportional Representation (they were divided over the Alternative Vote, which was only a watered down version of FPTP, but possibly the ‘slippery slope’ to PR…). This is the ultimate act of control from a party of progress, retaining the system that can see them hold onto power with the support of a minority.

    Labour's No to AV Campaign - 'What do we want?'

    'Consolidated power...!'

For a clear illustration of the more despicable aspects of Labour’s desire to control, we should return to look at what happened in Bristol following the election of George Ferguson as Mayor. Labour HQ put a stop to Local Labour Councillors joining in coalition with the new Mayor, apparently due to some petty grievances, and this shows a clear example of both their centralised control and their apparent aversion to consensus.

The confrontational politics of the British Parliament are archaic, yet Labour wants to keep it like that. PR would be a consensus inducing mechanism, to bring about a new political culture, true representation and a system fairer to every voter, but Labour wants FPTP to allow them to rule alone…

    One Electoral System To Rule Them All...?

    Labour delegates leave the conference...

The move by Central Labour was quite significant and a deliberate signal. The people of Bristol should be concerned, if Labour Councillors are to act along the lines of the national political system by deliberately opposing any actions of the Mayor, whether or not they will be on any benefit to the city. The Mayor becomes a failure and Labour can regain power…? It’s really not good…

But most people don’t notice these things and Labour get away with it, time and again. For some it seems it’s almost become a case of ‘better the Devil you know’, perhaps recalling the days before the current downturn and cutbacks, of course we don’t know what would have happened if Labour had won the last election…

A lot of people must think they’ll be better off under Labour, even if only in the short term; while Labour gives with one hand and takes away with the other.

An example of this was raised again last week, as the Tories removed Child Benefit from high earners, this was one of Labour’s master-strokes giving a little back to everyone, including millionaires…! How very fair of them, they taxed you more over £35k, but they gave you a few quid back if you had kids and that’s always nice. You’ll remember that come election time… They froze the personal allowance so hurting lower paid workers, but they kept shelling out child benefit to millionaires.

Labour has decried the changes but they haven’t said they’ll reverse it…

Miliband believes in “Universal benefits”, so every family is dependent on, or feels indebted to, a Labour Government and low paid single workers can help pay for it without a break (even if you’re saving to start a family, but how could Labour legislate for that in the tax system and still make them dependent on a handout…?)      

Labour criticism has in part focussed on the application of the changes and it does seem a bit of an odd set up by the Tories, but Miliband is happy to keep shelling out to millionaires to save on back office functions? Never bothered them before… A few extra public sector pen pushers or hand outs to millionaires?? (They’ve changed…?)

But Labour do have more specific plans to take away with the other hand from higher tax rate payers (>£150k), announcing a policy that would reduce their pension tax relief. 

Give with benefit, take away tax relief, but who will remember their pension while they get a couple of extra quid in the pocket now; it might win a few rich votes, but the key is apparent ‘fairness’ of benefits for all, while also taxing the rich. It’s the middle income votes he wants; the “squeezed middle”. So this is great, screw the top and bottom…!

Miliband has claimed there aren’t many millionaires as part of his justification for universal benefits, but it’s everyone up to, you f***ing kn*bhead… And part of it is the principle, normally Labour and the Left are very particular about their principles…

    A pair of Pragmatic Idealists?

    More commonly referred to as a pair of useless c**ts...

Labour are so transparent, it’s astounding. Almost as astounding as a family earning 50k+ making out they are being hard done by… Depends how many kids you’ve got I suppose...? 

The ‘all caring’, standing up for the working man or whoever the f**k is relevant at the time, is what the New New Labour party are all about. This is the angle they will take on issues like benefits, often emotive, talking about ‘hard-working families’, patronising and contradictory, when they also talk about taxing high earners. The ‘squeezed middle’ or ‘the rich’, whichever is the appropriate sound-bite at the time…

As I have said it is easier for Labour in opposition, they can say anything they like because they don’t have to back anything up, yet…

For various reasons and in these caring times…, Labour and the Left have found it easier to control the prevailing political agenda in recent times and push their point of view to the forefront of public consciousness, as seen with the tax avoidance issue, where the Left (and Labour are happy to join in) have tried to turn tax into a moral issue. As I remember from childhood, the tax man was the one of the most hated in the land; Inland Revenue employees roundly jeered on the likes of Bull’s Eye…

Who wants to pay more tax than they have to? When an ISA is tax free savings and the self employed actively work to reduce their tax payments; at what point does avoiding tax become ‘immoral’?

Labour did nothing about tax avoidance in power, all of the situations brought to light recently, from Starbucks to Vodafone, occurred under Labour. Yet they have happily jumped on the moralising band wagon and few look back at their record.   

    Convicted MPs - Labour taking the moral high ground?

    Well it's not like they were cheating their taxes...!

The recent benefits cap is no surprising benefit to Labour, but another example this week which plays well into the hands of Labour is news such as high street chain Jessops going into administration. It’s incredible the number of people who directly blame this Government, apparently ignoring competition from the internet and supermarkets, the prevalence of camera phones and all the other factors involved in a particular business model failing.

HMV followed Jessops, but that has been coming for a long time and well documented, the whole music industry has been in turmoil for years. And it turns out Blockbuster have quickly followed HMV, but who knew they were still kicking about...?  

There is an underlying feeling that the situation would be better if Labour was in power throwing some money around and perhaps more concerning it seems to be a belief that the Government should somehow support such companies, to save their businesses and therefore the jobs. How is that ‘fair’? Forget the banks being ‘bailed out’ for a moment; it would be unfair to the bailed out company’s competitors, whether big or more strikingly, small; the independent traders, who will never get such Government support.

If someone thinks Government is there to simply preserve the high street and everything else as they remember it from childhood, then that is a worrying outlook…

    Newport's empty shops after the economic downturn.

    Actually it was pretty much the same before the downturn...

The feeling is underlying in Britain and there are a lot of expectations, but there’s a subject to tackle another time, on too large a scale, one which I’ve baulked at for most of last year…

At the next election many voters will be swayed by a feeling that things could be better under Labour and Labour are very could at propaganda, they learnt the tricks up to 1997 and they have not laid off since. The rest of the electorate will just stay at home; because they hate the Tories, might feel betrayed by the Liberal Democrats and maybe see Labour as the patronising bunch of c***s they are. Perhaps…

    Cameron, Miliband and Clegg, all having a laugh?

    What a choice...

There are other parties and people should vote for them. Obviously UKIP are polling well at the moment, but the way that is panning out and with a poor turnout, a higher proportion of the vote for UKIP will simply hand power to Labour, without a struggle.

I wouldn’t really advocate voting UKIP (certainly not in the current circumstances) and definitely do not recommend voting for the BNP, although far more people voted for these parties in the last election than the Green Party and the Greens got most of their votes in one constituency, to get themselves one voice in Parliament.

There are always other parties in every constituency and I would still advocate voting for the LibDems, despite their decision to go into Coalition, which was a mistake. But then it could be said that they have tempered the Tory Government, who knows what it would have been like had the Tories won a majority in 2010, raising the tax threshold was one of the LibDems’ flagship policies, and Labour having regained power doesn’t even bear thinking about…

    Brown reflects.

    'It should've been me...' 

A broad spread of votes with perhaps a few unusual MPs and completely disproportionate numbers of seats in Parliament would have to give weight to the argument for Proportional Representation. I’m not writing now specifically to make the argument for it, I did bring it up in posts around the last election and I will make a case for it again. The fact is it would put an end to minority rule and parties only concentrating on swing seats, MPs only have to actually promote the views of certain vested interests.  

We don’t need and shouldn’t have compulsory voting, but not voting in the next election is not an option, it would be throwing power away, giving it back too cheaply to the same old New Labour Party.

    Miliband has tried to move Labour forward?

    The past is never far away...

    Brown and Kinnock catch up...?

    'And the stupid f**kwit will do anything we say!'

You say you want a revolution..?

Well, where to start..?

With the Occupy movements
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.occupylondon.org.uk/

Occupy Wall street, New York


Occupy London Stock Exchange


Developing from the Occupy Wall Street movement, the Occupy London Stock Exchange action is attracting a lot of interest at the moment and the movement has spread far and wide. But it seems to me that confusion reigns within the movement and its supporters, and so in turn, its detractors.

We all want to change the world and if they just wanted greater reform to the Banking sector, economic reform and a ‘fair deal’ for the poor, then it would be more coherent, would garner wider support and gain greater momentum. The UKUncut movement and the anti-cuts (http://falseeconomy.org.uk/) movement are at least clear in their aims.

However, this Occupy movement encompasses all of the anti-coalition politics that has gone before and more. They did manage to gather round and come up with a statement detailing their objectives.

This was welded together from the meeting of a lot of very strongly opinionated groups and gives a picture of the wide variety of viewpoints and aims of the people involved. They want a lot; a lot of very different things.

What is it that you want to do..?

'We want to be free...'

The first clear contradiction is that they state the current system is unsustainable, but then go on to say they do not accept the need for cuts and support student and public sector strike action.

So they want to overturn the ‘current system’, but they want to maintain the systems that the Labour government funded on the tax receipts from the boom in the financial sector and the pension arrangements that have been developed by successive governments over post-war years. Pensions that could only be sustained through continually increased input from younger generations, not to mention good performances in the stock market. I’ve mentioned previously that the students and public actions don’t actually sit very well together, if the students actually thought about it.

None of it fits together… But I’m sure they’re working through ideas how to marry it all up; a new system that will maintain public sector jobs and services, create worthy jobs for millions, make education free for millions and pay for the pensions of millions of people to retire for some 20 to 40 years on a reasonable income.

Good luck chaps…


The stated aims would seem reasonable to many and as I say, they do blend a lot of what has been demanded by public protests over the last couple of years. However, the first aim about the unsustainable system, as well as the ‘structural change’ mentioned in point seven, represent the underlying theme of the movement which is anti-capitalism, even the idea of a genuine revolution and a desire for anarchism or communism. I think the political theory gets somewhat blurred there.

All over the world, a symbol of defiance from a Hollywood film










The mask company must be doing very well

Regardless of any stated aims, wanting an end to the capitalist system, revolution, a communist system or anarchy means so much more than wanting the bankers to pay their ‘fair share’ and economic reform.

Again if we’re talking anarchy, as in no government, then the desire to maintain government spending and public sector spending is incongruous.

Laurie Penny (PennyRed) and many more would very much like an end to global capitalism apparently.
http://www.swp.org.uk/
http://www.fifthinternational.org/

Rage against the machine



I'm intrigued... Let's give 'em a go..!

Anarchy in the UK? http://occupylsx.org/?p=268

It is with these anti-capitalist notions that everyone gets confused, supporters and critics alike. A good example of this occurred on ‘Have I got news for you’ on BBC One 21/10/2011

Within the scoffing of this Tory (Louise Mensch) there is a point and it’s completely overlooked, deliberately by Hislop, Merton and Baker; anti-establishment radicals that they are. She attempts to mock the anti-capitalists for participating in the capitalist society and enjoying its spoils; buying ‘coffee’ and tents, using smart phones, but she is rebuffed, of course. How could all of them get by without participating? A revolution cannot live on fresh air alone… Simple actions like buying coffee do not undermine your principles.

Well not in most cases. But this lot have been queuing up at Starbucks, the epitome of global capitalism! If she had just talked about the likes of Starbucks then she’d have made a point.

The fact is companies like Starbucks and Tesco do represent the system, its success as well as its failure, in pushing out smaller traders for instance.

Hislop et al (and hundreds more on Twitter) mock the Tory for saying the protesters are hypocritical for ‘buying coffee’, but the point should have been made clear about where it was bought. You can get coffee in all sorts of places, many independent. If you are making a very public protest against capitalism and you buy coffee from Starbucks, a massive global corporation, then it is contradictory.

I appreciate we’ve all got to eat, drink and clothe ourselves and the fact is where else would they get a tent and unfortunately for anti-capitalists, phones (very useful for revolutions it seems) are only produced by multi-national conglomerates. We all have to live within the current system, but Starbucks is something else (using them for the toilets or not. Or is just using the toilets sticking it to the capitalists..?).

One Twitterite questioned if she was suggesting that they should grow the beans themselves (aha hahahaha…). No, they could go to one of the many independent coffee shops, that I have no doubt there are in the city of London! You smug p****.

Too pricey? Is that because of the system? F*** ‘em anyway, they’ll just look like hypocritical t***s. To the right wing at least.

But maybe that’s it, they don’t care? They get cheap coffee (and/or use the toilet) and don’t see it as hypocritical, because when they finally get it together these corporations won’t exist..? Might as well get a reasonably priced coffee while you can and if you’re independent in London (charging more) you’re just as much a slimey capitalist… The employees will be liberated from both forms of slavery..!

Rejoice comrades, you will be free!

To do what instead..?

Maybe it’s ok because it’s fair trade (apparently, more Twitter…), but it took public criticism to get them to stop their policy of leaving the f***ing taps on non-stop! Not very environmentally conscious.

And that’s effective action right there, by the Sun newspaper no less

Would the Occupy protesters have crossed this picket line?



'You will be free, soon. But I just want an Americano right now...'

In Bristol there have been a number of protests about a Tesco store opening in an area known as Stokes Croft. Basically the protesters believe they’re defending their area from the effects of an evil corporation. If they boycotted the store, as well as smashing its windows, yet went round the corner and shopped in the more established Tesco superstore in a nearby area, wouldn’t that be hypocrisy?

Late night shoppers turn nasty

'We don't want your sort round here!!'

But in the cold light of day, a change of heart...

'It's just sooo convenient...'

It seems a lot of Lefties are willing to overlook hypocrisy, right wing bloggers are usualy quick to pick them up on it though - Guardian’s Tax Hypocrisy is Ridiculous

On the subject of the Guardian, their tax and Left wing hypocrisy, Twitter contributor @NewRedDawn ended that particular discussion with another user on this note:

"@fatcouncillor If I cheated on my wife, would I be a hypocrit (sic) for saying another man should not cheat on his? yes, but my advice invalid? no" (22/10/11)

“Don’t do as I do, do as I say” seems to be the order of the day for some Leftists.

NewRedDawn's tweets make for interesting reading and he does have some distinct views and ideas, also here on his blog, which I am yet to become completely familiar with…

As indicated by this gem of a tweet - "#occupylsx: communism to me, as a goal = super abundance of goods, elimination of want. Surely that is always a worthy goal?" (22/10/11). He advocates pure socialism/communism and he appears to think the 'do as I say' doctrine is perfectly reasonable. If he is right about the revolution, what in the Lord’s name does the future hold? Nothing different from the past…?

They seem to only worry about hypocrisy if it comes from rich Tories, because ultimately they’re in the right and they remain morally superior.

Hislop would normally love to pick up such contradictory behaviour, but this one is text book Daily Mail and the point was incredibly badly made by a Tory. Hislop, Merton and Baker couldn’t be seen to be on side with a rambling Tory and ridiculing a ‘popular’ Left wing movement, opposing the bankers and Coalition. But I’m sure one of them would have slipped in the Starbucks line had it panned out differently and everyone would have loved it…

Not sure what the Leftists on the internet would think though, they wouldn’t have been so quick to tweet their derision. They’re happy to gloss over their contradictions when they’re on the front foot against a bumbling Tory; very much like their current opposition to the coalition, happy to overlook their failings in government over 13 years that has lead us to this situation.

The confusion on the programme was clear, Louise Mensch saying being anti-capitalist you shouldn’t enjoy any of its benefits while campaigning against it and Hislop saying you can buy a coffee and still protest against banks, corporate greed, etc. But they want so much more than that, more fundamental than just wanting to stop cuts and make bankers cough up, and Mensch was just all over the place.

The global movement has gained some support and of course the anti-cuts protests already have massive support in this country, and more so the action against banking and corporate greed. But I doubt there’s much popular support for communism or anarchism, particularly in the US. People want a fairer system and representation but I don’t believe they want a true revolution. What exactly would that involve? (Historically speaking, armed conflict)

I don’t think people really understand what they want and that includes many involved in the movement. What kind of system do they actually see being created? One where everyone will have smart phones and there are still companies (or collectives?) producing them in abundance…?

We’d all love to see the plan…

If they wanted some clear effective action then shouldn’t they boycott Starbucks and other such companies? They might actually hurt the system that way. If a worker’s main power is (or was) to remove their Labour, then so to a consumer’s most significant power is their choice of consumption. At least it would be have greater symbolism, surely the Left place some significance on such action…

UKUncut are all about boycotting and picketing companies ‘guilty’ of the legal activity of tax avoidance. Topman, Vodafone, Boots and God knows many more, they’re all at it and all have them have been caused tremendous inconvenience by hordes of UKUncut and anti-cuts activists.

Outside


And in


It seems to have quietened down recently, maybe building up for further action, such as Occupy or combining with the strikes in November.

But maybe they realised they could no longer buy anything (and live without feeding the capitalist pigs..!) because all these c**ts are screwing over their tax, off-shoring their activities and where would one shop if one stuck religiously to your ideals…?

I imagine Starbucks must be alright with their tax (?), though judging by the Guardian example that can’t be certain, they like the coffee just as they like the media support…

They certainly couldn’t boycott Apple. Where would a revolution be without iPhones, iPads and all the other smart devices on the capitalist market? Along with the social media on the internet, they’ve revolutionised revolutionary movements and the organisation of protests. Although guns and/or military backing still seem to be the main difference with a successful revolution.

Throughout this (points 2 and 7) and previous action the participants and advocates have tried to claim solidarity with protests and revolutionary movements around the world, many of which have used social media, but many more that have guns as actual concern, whether it be using them or facing them.

The Occupy movement claim ‘We are the 99%’ and of course right wing commentators have mocked them for this and to be honest it’s quite fair. They are claiming to represent 99% of the population that suffer because 1% control the majority of the wealth and resources.

But they don’t represent all of the 99%, not even a fraction of it. They are just part of the 99%, but that’s not as snappy. There’s no point in even dissecting all of the groups they clearly do not represent in this nation alone, but with a core of anti-capitalism and revolutionary beliefs they are far from representing the majority of the world’s people, across a vast array of cultures and beliefs.

Even in America (where the slogan originated), with an underlying right wing or conservative sensibilities, does the Occupy Wall Street movement really represent 99% (or should the percentage be adjusted nationally for the number included in the 1% of the world’s population? It gets complicated…)?

This article suggests a majority of Americans supports Occupy Wall Street - http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/10/21/MNFI1LKTTN.DTL

But what change would this huge and diverse number of people want?

The 99% are a lot of people wanting a lot of different things and most do not see the overthrow of the ‘system’ as a solution. Reform, yes and overthrow of particular governments, that’s a different subject.

When the student and anti-cuts happened there was a commonplace comparison with the uprising of the Arab spring, as mentioned above with Laurie Penny.

Gets me everytime…


But what does the occupy movement really have in common with the Arab people of North Africa and the Middle East? They have been trying to overthrow dictators and genuine oppression.

Do these people have similar ideas on freedom and do they want the same outcomes as the Occupy movements? The new rulers of Libya have recently declared that they will use the Sharia code as a basis for their law, not quite what the protesters have in mind…

As I have mentioned before a lot of the Arab political movements that ended in Dictatorships have had ‘Socialist’ principles, including Gaddafi, and Hugo Chavez, a hero of the world’s Left says Gaddafi was a martyr..! So where does the solidarity with the Libyans lie?

Do they really have much in common with the protests in Greece? There are a lot of Left wing revolutionaries there and there is action opposed to austerity, but the Greeks lived far beyond their means and too great a proportion of the population have problems with paying their taxes, so again where is the solidarity?

How about in Eastern Europe where they spent years trying to rid themselves of tyrannical Socialist governments? Now I know this lot will be professing inclusion and fairness, not the kind of centralist authoritarian governments that Eastern Europe endured but many of them do want socialism/communism. I’m not sure how that sits with those that lived in under these regimes and fought so hard against them.

Apparently Lech Walesa, the Polish solidarity hero, changed his mind about visiting Occupy Wall Street, due to the underlying influences from anti-capitalists and the hard Left.

So many of the current activists are too young to remember what happened, but don’t they research their history?

However much the current system is reformed, how will the new system work? In the globalised economy nothing works in isolation, either in a system of taxing the rich or pure communism, do they see it working in isolation? Like North Korea or Cuba (blockades and sanctions aside…)? Or like the USSR and its allies (obviously a much bigger scale)?

The Left often use the examples of much smaller countries that have successful higher tax economies (e.g. Scandinavia), but a vital difference is the population size, as well as cultural differences.

If the protesters had a proposition for some sort of global agreement on higher tax (or just equal tax levels) it might at least provide clarity. Getting agreement on it would be another thing, but a clear proposal would be a start (demanding an end to 'global tax injustice' is not the same thing).
Certainly the idea of eliminating tax havens was proposed from an early stage after the 2008 financial crisis and it did seem to have widespread support, at the G20 summit in the April 2009 for instance. However, I’m not sure how much effective action was taken, despite every UK Uncut have had to say on the matter, as this article suggests - G20 has failed to crack down on tax havens

A higher tax world economy would of course effectively be a socialist revolution. Some of the activists clearly want a world revolution of sorts, many will indeed claim to be Trotskyists and maybe some of them believe it could happen. But they must envisage stern opposition surely?

Really when you look at it closely all you’re left with is a lot of questions and if they were asked you’d more than likely get a lot of very different answers.

On a recent Newsnight programme ‘film maker’ and ‘writer’ Michael Moore compared the movement to the Suffragettes in terms of the attitude towards new movements and political concepts. But as Paxman pointed out the suffragettes had a clear and achievable goal, the Occupy movement has nothing of the sort.

People do want change and if there were some clear and considered ideas, then maybe there’d be more momentum. And it could enter the political arena and create change that way. I’m sure most of them would agree with the need for electoral reform (except maybe rabid ‘anarchists’), but following this years referendum on AV that has been set back years in some part because of the Labour party, the party that led us to the current state we’re in. The Left’s aims and objectives often differ greatly.

There needs to be economic change, though not necessarily of the nature the Occupy movement are suggesting, and maybe some change will stem from this action, it has a powerful voice when combined with its internet and media presence.
Protest movements often do cause change and pressure governments, though not quite the change that some would like. There have been comparisons with the political protests of the 1960s, particularly 1968 and how they caused political change.

The fact is in 1968 it was a different world, there were different circumstances and they had different goals.

1968


But then whatever change occurred we still ended up in the current situation. It always settles back to the old routine…

2003


You should learn from history (as the activists should about Eastern European socialism), but you need to understand circumstance and context, situations are rarely exactly the same. There are massive differences in the world today, already there is a huge amount of upheaval in the world economic system and the world’s powerbases and that should be the topic of my next post.

China and India are rising and while their poor populations still desire further change, the economic growth has already delivered for many. This has already affected and will further alter the West’s standard of living and it is not clear that these people want exactly the same things as the “99%” parked outside St. Paul’s Cathedral in London.

The location of the camp might be adding further ambiguity to the message; they were unable to ‘occupy’ London Stock Exchange so they’re outside the nearby cathedral. So St. Paul’s closing their doors has become major news and there is no issue with the Church as an organisation, as far as anyone can tell.

But they’re always sending out mixed messages.

For example; Billy Bragg’s tweet on the 22nd October

"Now #occupyLSX have shown how easy it is, thousands of atheists will be buying tents today and camping outside their local CofE church" ???


'What the f**k are you on about Billy?!'