“No one ever seizes power with the intention of relinquishing it” - Would the British people really give power back to the Labour Party..?

With the Tories seemingly desperate to f**k up at every turn and the LibDems hiding in a corner, probably crying at the prospect of a further drubbing at the upcoming local elections; the national opinion polls have been quite concerning.

             Nick Clegg

             A lot on his mind...

The polls had settled back to an average Labour lead of perhaps four or five points. But a recent YouGov poll put Labour on an 11 point lead! Particularly concerning for the LibDems, with UKIP overtaking them. They’ve been bad for a while and UKIP rising but this is marking a low point…

              Clegg reflects

              'It's hardest at night...'

                            Clegg breaks down...?

                           "Sneezes", but must squeeze out a few tears...

              Clegg and Cameron

              'Don't you ever embarrass me like that again Clegg!'

So how did Labour manage it?

               Mr Ed Miliband

              'What was the question again...?'

Well Labour didn’t really do anything. The lead grew soon after the Tanker Drivers strike debacle, when there were calls for Francis Maude to resign over misjudged advice to stock up on petrol that caused panic buying of fuel and apparently even led some people to fill jam jars with petrol, not to mention set themselves on fire… It was pretty stupid, but that doesn’t necessarily mean he should be held responsible for all stupidity that can be linked to it… Labour’s lead then jumped to 10 and stayed around that level for a while.

               Frances Maude

               Something of the reptilian..?

Earlier in the year there was a period when the two main parties were neck and neck but it seems the Labour lead has grown and been maintained since the furore over NHS reform. That’s a contentious issue of course and with unemployment rising and, whatever the reasons, economic growth stalling; after the petrol ‘crisis’ the Coalition inexplicably decided to relinquish the high ground on Civil Liberties by raising the prospect of greater monitoring of internet and mobile phone use, something that many had thought had been thrown out with totalitarian Labour. And the Labour Party are then the ones who then benefit from this seemingly incompetent and certainly uncertain government. As if Labour are above a fuel crisis…

Along with the more significant factors testing the faltering Coalition there have over blown issues, inflamed by Twitter use; for instance “PastyGate”.

There has also been "outrage" over “Grannytax” and more recently "Charities tax", following the spring budget. The Guardian even questioned the focus on the 'Grannytax', but it wouldn't stop the Labour Party trying to exploit every single opportunity to attack the Tories.

Determined to appear inept at every opportunity, it seems that Coalition is staying together perhaps only because the LibDems know they would be scr*wed if they left. And they’re hoping given time, if things improve for the government, then so in turn it might for their party, in it for the long haul now.

The truth is they’re damned if they stay and damned if they don’t, if they do get crucified in May or something else goes bad for the Government (looking likely…), some in the party might want them to cut their losses and leave the Coalition.

And then what? Then Labour win? The same f***ing party that got us here in the first place. They haven’t changed; Miliband and Balls were balls deep in Brown’s s**t and they have not had to pay like the last Tory Government did following 1997.

              Balls and Brown

              'Yes Ed, go on...'

              Miliband and Brown

              'I wonder what I'll be having for tea...'

              Miliband, Brown and Mandelson

               All in it together...

If an election was called this year and Labour did win; we would simply have a reconstruction of the government under Gordon Brown, but potentially with the Unions having an even greater influence and with more benefit to the public sector…
                 
               But seriously, this lot?? In Government???

               Seriously???!

Labour are benefitting not only because of their investment in creating dependence, but simply because people don’t like the Tories and they don’t like ‘cuts’ to public services. Who does...?

Fortunately nothing is that certain, Labour can’t be sure that the current polls will play out across the country in an election. George Galloway recently won the Bradford West by-election while the Coalition was dropping to some of its depths.

               Galloway - In touch with the people...?

      Peace, freedom and a few less fat bastards eating all the pie...

Labour could only get the backing of 12% of the electorate in one of their safe seats. Irrespective of Galloway’s politics and why people voted for him, that was a kick in the teeth for Labour.

12% when they are showing 40+% in opinion polls? You can’t rely on anything, thankfully…

They seem to now realise it. The results in the 2011 local elections didn’t reflect exactly the national polls at the time and in the Scottish elections they were well beaten by the SNP. Only in Wales did they succeed to any meaningful level and that doesn’t actually mean much. Even now Labour could put up a pig in most Welsh constituencies and they’d still vote for it and that says everything…

If anything Galloway’s win showed a lack of real support for the mainstream parties, as Galloway said, which goes alongside the continuing general apathy (Only 50% turnout in Bradford West).

Apathy aside, that’s good, for many reasons. But forgetting the possibility of alternatives and genuine choice, just for one very crucial reason; it is good because then Labour don’t win by default.

Labour haven’t really gained directly from the Tory dip; UKIP have benefitted. So it’s just the right dividing and Labour have gained the Left of the LibDems and in that case, the division of opinion remains at similar levels.

The elections in May will be interesting, though the London Mayoral election has a life of its own…

             Boris Johnson and Ken Livingstone

             Old Muckers...?

The local elections will be more telling and it’s doesn’t look good, with all the problems outlined.

The NHS in particular stirs the passions, greater than most other matters of public expenditure. Obviously the economy will remain the core issue, but the NHS is an issue which can clearly divide the parties and apparently unite opposition. The fear is privatisation by the backdoor, the type of thing that was already occurring under Labour. The Tories are a bit more up front about it. Though the immediate intention is still for the services to remain free at point of service, it will obviously change how the services are delivered and affect a lot of people’s employment, and many fear for the longer term prospects of the free service.

Well apparently the NHS does employ something like 1.7 million people, in a working population of somewhere around 30 million that’s a lot. So it’s no wonder there is such interest and concern.

How many people rely on the NHS, for services and for employment, whether directly or indirectly?

Is it the very centre of what Blair, Brown and New Labour tried to build? Dependence at every turn, whether intentional or as a fortunate side effect?

And this is what could see them return to power, anytime from now until the 2015 election deadline.

Even though what Labour built was based on an unsustainable economic boom and this was clear for two years before the 2010 election, the Tories were unable to secure an outright majority and now Labour could see their way back into power, without having to provide any evidence of change.

The fact is Labour won't have to do much to get votes in the public sector. The charts below give some indication of the strength of Labour support in the public sector compared to the private sector before the general election.

The Tories must have got some votes from public sector workers in 2010 and certainly the LibDems did; it would be interesting to see the breakdown of voting intentions now…

Considering what they took us to and everything that has happened and been identified since the economic crash, Labour have managed a neat trick. They’re close to getting away with it; the greatest trick the Labour Party ever pulled…

             The Devil Inside..?

             He wishes…

There are problems throughout the economy and essentially all can be linked back to the last administration (they did have 13 years), so why would anyone in their right minds think this Labour Party could do anything about the economy?? Well, some do. But the key issue for Labour voters, their first thought, must be services and spending.

Of course services should be available to those in genuine need, but they can be delivered more efficiently and a majority of people should understand that, certainly those in the private sector. It may mean job losses, but genuine efficiency should lead to benefits elsewhere.

The Tories seem to view private sector involvement as the only mechanism that can deliver efficiency, but it doesn’t necessarily mean benefit to wider public and that is one reason they lose support. Money is leached out of the system and the fallacy has already been illustrated by Labour’s use of Private finance initiatives.

The public sector managers the Tories don’t trust to deliver efficiency, making them want to use the private sector, are the same managers who will be implementing the cuts… Do they apply the constraints of their budgets appropriately, fairly, sensibly and responsibly? Are jobs defended over services..?

Central Government make the budgets cuts and so the public institutions that Labour built to their current forms and the Labour Party that brought us to the current state of affairs, are not the ones who stand accused.

               Cameron and Osborne having a laugh…?

                I’m not saying they’re blameless...

Fortunately there are people who are not so easily fooled and many feel the often well paid managers making the decisions in the public sector are the ones who should be cut. The Tories have a lot of cause not to trust the managers to deliver efficiency. I have worked in both sectors and the differences are stark. If you could apply some of the culture of the private sector (the better bits…) to the public sector, there would be less need for cuts to services and therein lies a crucial problem…

In the end they, like the Labour Party, look to protect their lot and their power. And the Tories are damned either way; it’s either jobs or services, or both… It doesn't go down well. For many swing voters, it’s perhaps more ‘Better the Devil You Know…’

              The recent history of the Labour Party

               It's all there...

People need to look beyond the immediate concerns and through the Labour propaganda and spin.

Mandelson’s left the limelight, but Labour spin writes itself now…

'When I said I'd no problem with people getting stinking rich...'

It’s particularly people in low and below average paid private sector positions (and very much so those without children), because ultimately they are the ones that pay the most, one way or the other. But here again, Labour used another method to secure support by creating apparent dependence outside of their core dependents; by giving with one hand and taking away with the other, in the form of tax credits and the like. They disguised it; but in the end you pay…

Labour’s, and the Left’s, only economic policy seems to be maintaining public spending to increase growth… That wouldn’t restructure the economy and the debt would still have to be serviced, well who would pay for that? The rich..? Don’t bank on it…

              Miliband, Brown and Mandelson; entertaining rich people

             Brown talking a good game...?

And Labour would still outsource and cut where necessary, that’s why the trick is so intricate, the public sector would still lose, pensions for instance would have to be reformed (even the IMF think so and Labour wouldn't ignore that...). However, Labour would lessen the blow in the public sector and transfer more of the hit outside the realms of their supporters. The Unions will get their voice heard under any administration and the noise continues unabated for Coalition - Civil service and health staff call May strike over pensions.

Ultimately Labour will look to strengthen their power base, because that’s all they know… And surely they’ll not want Scotland to go their own way…?

In an election, unbiased and reasonable people must be able to see through Labour and if they don’t like the Tories or are offended by the Libdems, there must still be a choice..?

                     Real electoral choice…?

                     Which nutter?

               But better than this...?

               Which pr**k...?

And on a good turnout if there were votes outside of the main parties then change could happen and real consensus created. Not have one party of whichever persuasion holding the majority to ransom, one way or the other.

The socialist dream will not happen to wider society under Labour; it’s saved for their supporters. Brown spent a good 10 years trying to create his dream in the public sector, financed by a private sector open to the effects of world competition, and we all know how it ended. And still to this day, reform pending; you either join the party or work to pay for it…

The Labour Party don’t know how to improve society at large and I’m no longer sure that they even care.

If the British people give power back to Labour; they’ll try their damnedest to never it see it slip from their grasp again.

               If you want a picture of a Labour future, imagine this...

                Because nothing has changed...

“Power is not a means, it is an end”

                And Brown knows it...

                ‘Was it all just a bad dream…?’

Momentary lapse of reason? – Roger Waters can’t help diving into the Falklands dispute…

So now Roger Waters has waded into the Falklands dispute, following Sean Penn blundering in, as discussed in the previous post.

Well to be fair to both of them they were in the area, apparently specifically asked to comment and one doesn’t like to be rude to the host (Waters in Chile, but on his way to lucrative concerts in Argentina...).

And Roger Waters has something more of a history with the topic and perhaps interest in it; the Pink Floyd album Final Cut was inspired by the 1982 conflict.

Clearly he has issues, he’s sung about them for a long time, and it seems he stated “I am as ashamed as I possibly could be of our colonial past” and this apparent internal strife can lead to very tortured music and lyrics, as well as some confused political beliefs. As with Sean Penn, judging this dispute along long held beliefs, Roger Waters thinks the Falkland Islands “should be Argentinian."

Then it seems he later drifted into the realms of contradiction, going on to add that; “they (residents) are British, aren't they, so they have a point of view and there is a case to be made.”

Roger Waters

Tortured..?

This is part of the reason confirmed Leftists (mostly British) run into trouble and tend to avoid the subject:

- They ‘know’ that “colonialism” is bad and the islands are much closer to an independent nation, other than a major European former colonial power or the U.S. (let’s leave it at that for now…), so that must mean they have a rightful claim over the islands, surely…?

- Yet there is a long settled population that wishes to remain under British rule, and the independent nation in question does want to annex originally uninhabited islands to control oil and it’s effectively the same political aim as a formerly Right wing military government, that launched an unprovoked attack and invaded the islands in the not too distant past…

Must be confusing for people who think the world is now both righteously and neatly aligned against the old evil European and U.S. dominated world (while not thinking about all the other tin pot dictators and oppressive/aggressive regimes throughout the world)…

Roger Waters performing The Wall

'Which side you on..?'

He did admit in a separate interview that “it's not a simple situation”…

But again being fair to Waters, he’s over there, it’s a relevant topic and he has a track record on the subject.

Sean Penn still seemed to hang on to his black and white version of both history and current affairs.

He didn’t think the “world today” would tolerate Britain’s colonialist ideology, well as things appear to be coming to some sort of a head in the run up to the anniversary, while Roger Waters’ comments broke and mentioned in a linked article above; the Argentinian government has instructed many of their leading companies to stop importing British products.

How very diplomatic at this “sensitive” time. I wonder if Sean approves?

And does he believe the ‘world today’ will tolerate this deliberately antagonistic trade sanction as part of an imperialist objective to secure territory for oil?

Who knows many countries probably will accept it, but not because the world is the place that Penn and Waters and so many in the Left believe it to be.

Hugo Chavez and Sean Penn

'Are you with us Sean..?'

With all the self righteous rhetoric spewing over the debate this is a ridiculous action. The Argentinian Government are beginning to show very clear signs of desperation and could actually make David Cameron and his Government appear in control... They were quick to denounce this action.

But where do we go from here..?

Roger sees walls everywhere he goes...

Mystic Rambling – Is Sean Penn out of his depth wading into the Falklands affair?

24/2/12 As I was finishing and publishing the post below, Sean Penn having taken a breath and thought about his comments, has written for the Guardian and responded to his critics and the "transparently corrupt and non-diligent propaganda machine that is much of the British press". It often takes a week, as it did for this post...

Mr Penn raises the effect of the oil deposits on the situation, as mentioned in the post below, but again does not seem to consider that the desire for control exists on both sides of the dispute. He also mentioned immigration which I alluded to at the end of the post, but I don't know the specific details of the immigration policy and this is obviously the tricky ground, especially when you take into account a possible oil rush.

He seems to focus more on 'UK support' for Pinochet in Chile, when he needs to focus more on the "legitimacy of Argentinian claims" and the motivation for the claims.

I can understand his calls for dialogue but not the way he's doing it. From his Guardian article (and overlooking possible sarcasm 'God Save the Queen', etc) it does seem he's a principled and intelligent man, I'm just not sure he's being very objective here, as discussed below:

There is a simple answer to (the title) question, but these are complicated matters, as it is with so many things. The world economic situation and Britain’s position in the world are extremely complex. In some ways the sheer enormity of the situation has led to a lack of posts on this blog, along with the problem of limited free time…

However, old Sean has popped up and raised an issue that appears simple on the surface - Sean Penn accuses Britain of 'colonialism' over Falklands, but it's actually a lot more complicated than he’s assumed.

It does also relate to the wider issues of Britain’s place in the world, as well as the Left’s view of the world. So while there has been a torrent of abuse and criticism directed at Sean Penn from a variety of mostly British commentators, I’ll still add my thoughts on the matter, he really has shown himself up and consequently highlighted a lot of problems.

Sean Penn

Problems...

Sean Penn has chosen to wade in just as tensions rise higher than they’ve been since the war. The 30th Anniversary is approaching, Prince William has now been stationed on the island and there is the apparently significant deployment of HMS Dauntless.

The Prince is only posted for search and rescue and perhaps one could question the timing, but the truth is that it certainly doesn’t alter the circumstances of the islands and the reasons for the dispute. Some MPs might be visiting, but surely that can’t bother the Argentinians..? Must again be the timing, it’s a sensitive issue…

It is very sensitive, on both sides of the dispute. So why did Sean Penn stomp in with his size nines??

Well clearly he thinks it’s an uncomplicated black and white issue. He’s rocking around South America taking photo opportunities with political leaders, as he does.

Sean Penn and Hugo Chavez

Old muckers...

Sean Penn and his dad, apparently...

No, it's the Uruguayan President, apparently...

Sean Penn and the Argentine President, Cristina Kirchner


And asked to comment about the Falkland Islands, the situation is clear to him:

“The world today is not going to tolerate any ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology”

He called the Islands ‘the Malvinas’, he was in Argentina of course, but still it is apparent he knows little about the situation, or at least doesn’t understand it, hasn’t thought it through.

This has become increasingly clear as he responded to the criticism of original comments, calling it “hyperbole” and went further to condemn the insensitivity of Prince William’s deployment to the islands.

Politicians, Journalists, Bloggers, and a multitude of internet commentators pointing out specific details and criticising his partisan contributions to a very complicated matter is “hyperbole”, but Mr Penn accusing Britain of a “ludicrous and archaic commitment to colonialist ideology” during a period that he does recognise is sensitive; well he must believe that’s appropriate and reasonable…

The legacy of colonialism is central to the issue of course, the imperialism that he so despises is fundamental.

“My oh my, aren’t people sensitive to the word colonialism, particularly those who implement colonialism."

And therein Sean Penn highlights his lack of understanding and how wildly he is missing a crucial point.

We have the UK that once ruled over a something like a quarter of the earth’s land masses and now oversees a few small territories dotted around the world, having relinquished control of almost all of its colonies and only retaining influence where the populations still desire it.

And then there is the claim from the former Spanish colony that wants to take control of originally uninhabited land, now populated by people that would like to remain under British control.

So who’s trying to “implement colonialism” now?

The Argentine President, Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner has stated that Britain is a colonial power in decline, certainly in comparison to Argentina seeking new dominions; a colonial power in the ascendency…?

The Leader of Argentina

Your Majesty...

And when David Cameron recently accused the Argentinian government of colonialism, they certainly seemed a bit touchy. Sensitive one might say, Mr Penn?

A little upset and they seem to believe that their claim doesn’t relate to colonialism. As if their colonial population prior to 1833, was ‘essentially’ indigenous and not at all colonial. There is a clear case of double-think going on with many Argentinians, the paradox is should be obvious.

In this article, written in response to Cameron’s comments, it states clearly that the word “original” was removed from a statement about the removal of the pre-1833 population. Former, not original, but such detail is trivial semantics it appears…

It seems one form of colonialism is better than the other for Sean Penn, amongst others. “Archaic” colonialism is out, but the neo-colonialism of former colonies is fine by Sean..!

Except that of the USA, of course…

And along that line we come to crux of the issue, the reason for the passionate claims, and counter-claim; oil.

Sean Penn has actually rather cleverly been dragged into territorial claim motivated by oil.

If it weren’t for the possible presence of a large amount of oil in the vicinity, ‘Las Malvinas’ really would be nothing more than some windswept rocks in the South Atlantic. They’d be the ‘Falklands’ to everyone; populated by a few crazy Brit farmers and fishermen. Not the apparently extreme affront to the national sovereignty of Argentina.

Falklands Islands or Las Islas Malvinas?

Whatever you call them, they're bleak...

Here the BBC lay out the respective claims.

Why aren’t the Argentinian government’s claims imperialistic?

In response to Sean Penn’s comments a number of examples of other similar territorial situations have been pointed out, mostly to illustrate the absurdity of many of the aspects of the Argentinian claims. Each situation is different, but they are relevant; why are some originally uninhabited islands with a settled population that has determined its own nationality fundamentally different to any other similar example?

Not to attempt to try to list all of the possible similar cases, but it is worth mentioning some. One that probably got the most coverage last week was this Telegraph blog post: Sean Penn should return his Malibu estate to the Mexicans

The US did annex a number of states from Mexico following the US-Mexican war. I don’t believe that Sean would defend many of the acts perpetrated by US Governments, in the more distant past as well as in recent times, but it’s still technically relevant(the British historian, Dan Snow, directed a question to Sean Penn on Twitter about the circumstances of Guam, but it was pointed out that he probably wouldn’t attempt to justify such American overseas actions).

One of the main arguments that the Argentinians use is that self-determination is not applicable as the former population was removed by force, citing a UN resolution (so post 1945, in fact 1960 for the particular resolution).

The Mexicans would have a good case, maybe someone should tell them..? Maybe Sean didn’t know? He likes Latin America it seems and dislikes US foreign policy, so should be happy with that kind of ‘regime change’…

Many will simply say this is ancient history, but it was still extremely relevant less than 100 years ago, in part bringing about the US entry into the First World War – The Zimmerman Telegram. And with the Falklands we’re talking about force applied nearly 180 years ago whereas the Mexican-American war ended 164 years ago.

If they’re using a relatively modern convention to settle a dispute that began over 100 years before United Nations was founded, how far can we go back? And what other examples can we then include? Certainly the former Mexican states.

Do the Spanish want Jamaica back? It was taken by force (damn British pirates...) and therefore self determination of the current population doesn’t apply…?

Is it just that the Spanish don’t actively raise their potential claim? As with Mexico and their former territories, because they should probably think about staking a claim…

Is it that a treaty was applied at the time? Surely effectively agreed under duress, due to the act of force that is now crucial to the stipulations for sovereignty? Where does current international law stand on such treaties signed following acts of perpetrated long before the international mandate of the UN existed?

If the Argentine forces of Galtieri had been victorious in the 1982 conflict and some sort of terms and handover agreed, would that have applied under any international law?

As far as I can tell looking at any summary of the islands’ history, the Argentine ‘population’ that was ‘forcibly removed’ in 1833, wasn’t much to speak of and so I doubt anyone thought it warranted a treaty. Who knew how things would pan out..?

The Spanish seem to get involved a lot… There is the ongoing issue of sovereignty over Gibraltar. Acquired by force many years ago, but the current population have determined that they want to remain British.

But it’s so close to Spain??? In fact, so close, it’s practically in Spain..!

Gibraltar

So close...

Unlike the Falklands… Where it’s just that Argentina is the nearest country.

South America, the Atlantic and the Falkland Islands

So far..?

And proximity as a claim? Can it really be that simple?

A lot of your everyday average internet commentators (Argentine, British and others) have stated that they believe such islands should be ruled by the closest nation, so again regardless of the inhabitants’ wishes. Well if there were some crazy turn of events and a selection of these people were given power, there’d be a few island states getting ready for some interesting regime change…

The Canaries Islands (once more the Spanish and again taken by force many years ago), the Channel Islands (oh wouldn’t the French love that..?), the Faroe Islands (closer to Britain, but also close to two nations other than the sovereign power) and Greenland (though granted we’re talking autonomy, but what does it matter what the people want..?), Bermuda, Guam, Puerto Rico and there’s more…

Hawaii was mentioned a lot in the recent reactions, it is relevant, in terms of proximity (although no major nation is closer than the US) and the way in which it became part of the USA. And though they did have a choice in officially becoming a state; in the referendum they didn’t have the choice of becoming independent.

Many of the internet based advocates of the Argentinian claims, used examples such as the Hebrides and what if they were under Argentine rule? The world would be a vastly different place for one thing, but in response one could use all the examples above and the Hebrides are inhabited by peoples other than those of the hegemonic state of the UK. They might become independent soon, determined by them and their mainland cousins.

What if the Faroe Islands were controlled by another state? What if Ireland….. No, the Argentinians ruling and populating, because that would the equivalent, the Hebrides, is a ridiculous example; the course of history has led us to this point.

Proximity in itself should almost be irrelevant when you look at all of the different situations in the world. And many of the possible examples have had an indigenous or ancient populations, the Falklands didn’t. But it seems in the righteous world of Sean Penn and Argentine politics this is overlooked.

They talk about the use of force, but what happened to the indigenous populations of the Americas? What are their rights now under international convention..?

What happened to the aboriginal people of the Americas happened for hundreds of years, before and after whatever exactly happened to the tiny colonising population of Las Malvinas.

Again the double-think becomes apparent. It seems to be some belief that as this is an independent former colony wanting to takeover the land of a colony still ruled by the Mother country, under an ‘archaic’ system; then it is a righteous cause.

If the people of the Falklands had gained independence, would that change the situation? Of course, if it had happened some time before 1982 and the UK had not intervened, then we wouldn’t have ended up talking about UN conventions for actions taken well over 100 years ago, in 2012.

On a much smaller scale the situation of the two nations is in some way similar to that of the US and Canada; the US became independent and Canada remained as a dominion. Canada was on their doorstep, not fully independent until 1982, an affront to their freedom and sovereignty, they should have invaded..! Maybe gone into cohorts with the French, again…

Invade Canada..?

Oh they did...

None of it is as clear cut as some believe. And again how far could you go back with the principles of the Argentinian arguments?

The US, Australia, the original tribes of Britain, most of the world outside Africa… Even in Japan, though few would think about such a case. Land often taken by force, territory annexed, etc, and now things have changed.

Despite the many examples throughout history, in the present day the Falkland Islands do remain an oddity, something of an anomaly. Although there are notable ongoing disputes throughout the world; between Russia and Japan over the Kuril islands, Kashmir and it’s not even worth going into the Arab/Israeli dispute here… There’s Tibet and the Tamils in Sri Lanka, how’s international law working out in those areas???

None of them quite have the characteristics and profile of the territorial disagreement in the South Atlantic.

The presence of oil and the accompanying propaganda have certainly inflamed what must seem such an insignificant dispute to many around the world; the population is after-all very small.

(There has been some scoffing from Americans about the reaction to Penn's involvement, the comparison to the former Mexican territory must seem ridiculous…)

It can seem a clear-cut issue to many, with the colonial history and geographical set up, but it is more complicated. Nowhere near as simplistic as the Argentinian government claims; citing the relevant aspects of history that suit their argument.

It is developing into the same patriotic fervour and clamour for territory that an extreme Right wing government whipped up into a war. Now it’s a Left Wing government, it’s fine? To Sean Penn at least…

It’s not a black and white issue and it is clear the British Left are unsure where to stand; many are not drawn on it. The Guardian the main mouth piece of the Left in the UK did not set out a clear opinion on the dispute itself but commented on Sean Penn and his freedom of speech - Sean Penn has every right to wade in on the Falklands

But there is an uncertainty in the Left, the lack of opinion made this clear. They can see the factors I’ve laid out, this not a simple anti-colonial issue.

Probably more importantly though, whatever their specific opinion is, they know it’s a vote loser. Sure fire. It was a vote winner for Thatcher in 1983 and don’t Labour know it.

Michael Foot and Margaret Thatcher

No contest...

I think a lot of ‘principled’ Leftists, in and out of Labour, would rather the Falklands were handed to Argentina, if only to stop the nagging conscience, but few would utter it out of their circles…

Some Left wing and anti-British commentators will use the standard simplistic view of history; British Empire = bad, everything opposed = good! Except America; was good, independence from Britain an’ all that, but now bad… America boo!!!

As I say there has been limited opposing opinion in Britain, but it’s there and for a moment I thought it would be clearly exposed on BBC Question Time (16/2/12). However, I didn’t see the programme and can find no further reference than this remark on Twitter. John Prescott in un-spun mode, no advice, no stage management, possibly letting his anti-Tory, Leftist apologist conscience get the better of him..? Til they shut him up???

Labour out of touch with the public opinion..? Never let it be said…

Lord Prescott

Always in touch...

Sean Penn’s politics are perhaps a little different to those of the British Labour party and the Liberal Left in the UK, but his background is different and he’s not afraid to speak his mind on topics that in the US can adversely affect his image.

He’s clearly an idealistic man, who knows perhaps in his mind there is no contradiction; if he could bring it about maybe he’d happily give California back to the Mexicans? Handing the whole of the United States back to the Native Americans might be a step too far and into clear contradiction…

Though there is indeed a lot of hyperbole surrounding the issue, propaganda and passion on both sides of the debate, we all have to hope there can be some resolution without permanent and damaging division, worst of all conflict. No-one can want another war.

The fact is the world is changing and there are huge power shifts occurring. The South American continent, particularly the big three of Argentina, Brazil and Chile will be able to wield more influence. There is also a power issue underlying it as well as the oil and I think as time goes on, with the road Britain is on (as many gleefully indicate; ‘in decline’) it’s hard to see what will happen to the Falkland Islands, especially with such a hard existence surrounded by relatively hostile neighbours. Although as things stand, oil money can be a real game changer either way…

And it’s only a small population, the balance could be tipped perhaps (I haven't look into those technical details) and there you go Argentina..!

(The issue of immigration is raised in his article in the Guardian "The legalisation of Argentinian immigration to the Malvinas/Falkland Islands is one that it seems might have been addressed, but for the speculative discovery of booming offshore oil in the surrounding seas this past year". As it stands the Islanders and the authorities are holding the right to maintain the islands as they see fit)

It’s also true that in this changing world with territorial disputes in the subcontinent and China, two of the new power houses in the world, I’m not sure about Sean Penn’s patronising ‘the world today’ statement. That’s the world he sees, the world the Left imagine outside of the hegemonic and imperialistic American dominated West.

I used to like his films… He does try to raise important issues and perhaps his heart is in the right place, he has apparently done a lot of good work in Haiti, but in this case he’s taken a side assuming the opposing arguments are based along the same lines as his usual perspective and his firmly held assumptions.

He sidles up to the relevant politicians using his position and high profile, but how many people does he help and does he further his fundamental causes?

Hard life Sean?


And I didn't mention Team America once!

The Falklands issue will continue of course and will reach a peak this year around the various anniversaries of the war. There is certainly more to write, this post was meant to be brief…

I wonder what the Occupy Movement think of the Falklands/Malvinas issue..?

The Occupy Movement and Public Sector Unions united will never be defeated…

Various Left wing activists, anti-capitalists, communists, anarchists, Trade Unionists, Labour party supporters, former Liberal supporters; all united against common enemies - Western Capitalism, the Coalition and Jeremy Clarkson…

Clarkson at Number 10

Nightmare for many, actually a dream for some...

The BBC gave the results of a poll that indicated there was ‘strong support’ for the recent public sector strikes over pension reform and certainly the Occupy movement in the UK have stated their support for the action that occurred on November 30th.

Occupy out and about on 'N30'


Occupy and Trade Unionists claim ‘solidarity’ with one another, stated clearly by the Occupy London movement and Unions have at different times claimed to support the Occupy Movement. Although it hasn't been as clear and definite as in the US with Occupy Wall Street, but the situation is much different there.

The Occupy London movement announced their support early on and some Unions have been clear in showing their support - Unite gives ‘sanctuary’ to the Occupy Cardiff Action Group

Occupy Cardiff outside Unite

Does this even count?

As an 'Occupation', as a protest, as anything..?

Certainly many in the Left, supporters of the Unions, support Occupy and some see there being the possibility of something similar to an overall Leftist movement with the help of the Unions.

The criticism of the multitude of objectives and political perspectives within the Occupy movement has been answered at different times by saying that it doesn’t matter as long as groups work together to bring about change and in truth the underlying aim for the majority of activists and supporters is to make the banks and the rich, pay for the financial crisis. And that is all fair enough, there does need to be change and they are more likely to create momentum and affect reform together, rather than as disparate movements, whether or not their ultimate aims differ.

It still seems that some of these desires for a future society may actually differ wildly and for the majority of supporters, really it’s not ‘capitalism’ per se that is the problem, but more corporatism and the current structure of the system, but they still want change.

This is precisely why there is no ‘solidarity’ between the Unions representing the Public Sector and their action against pension reform and the Occupy movement and their desire for change.

Public Sector workers striking

'What do we want..?!'

Occupy want to change the ‘system’ and the Unions want to maintain it.

At least a significant part of it, Occupy want to change the world economic system and the system in the UK that developed over many years, but particularly under Thatcher’s Tories and most recently under New Labour. Whereas the Unions want to maintain a significant part of the system Labour created, particularly the levels of public spending. Spending that as I have previously highlighted was funded by the boom in the financial sector.

If Labour had managed to stay in power and maintained a higher level of spending and public sector employment, the UK Occupy movement may still have been motivated (particularly as the movement began in the US), but the Unions and their members would not have been as apparent in their support.

There were some dissenting voices from the Unions and action taken when the Labour government tried to reform pensions and redundancy conditions, but without a doubt there wasn’t the ‘anger’ against the injustice of the system, when the Labour government maintained relatively good public sector conditions while moulding and facilitating an economic system that would ultimately come crashing down.

Nice one Gordon

He knows the truth...

There were anti-capitalist protests long before the crash, but we didn’t get much from the Unions about the ‘system’ and globalisation in those days.

Times have changed

There are seven billion people now…

Trade Union leaders and activists might well want change more akin to the core of the Occupy movement; from taxing the rich and re-nationalisation to some Trade Unionists that would profess to communist leanings (they certainly have in the past, from Scargill to Gilchrist). However, there is more a pervading desire to just a return to the conditions developed in the post-war years to the 60s and 70s; pre-Thatcher/deregulation days, with nationalised industries and high-unionisation.

Andy Gilchrist - former leader of the FBU

Based out of his student house...

Since the privatisation of productive industries, the Trade Union movement has changed and represents a different spectrum of society (identified by Twitter contributors, amongst others, in the build up to the #N30 strikes), many more middle class workers. It’s no longer an ‘us and them’ class struggle; the average modern union member simply wants representation and protection. Not about fighting for the workers, just about protecting their lot.

The pensions they are fighting for are relics of an economy and economic conditions that no longer exist, final salary pensions and other such benefits became commonplace during the stability that followed the Second World War. Britain was still a major industrial power and retained the remains of an empire, the developing world had barely had a chance to develop, let alone compete.

These pensions are intrinsically tied to the old system and surely the Occupy movement are not advocating a return to the 60s or 70s?

But maybe they are..?

The 1970s

When they knew how to strike...

The public sector pensions issue is obviously contentious in both sectors, as provision in the private sector is far worse, especially for low paid workers. So if Occupy support ‘fair pensions for all’ then they must want at least movement to similar provision for the private sector as well? Perhaps not, but I’m presuming they do, otherwise they won’t really be getting very close to representing the ‘99%’.

Of course the rich pay and everyone retires at 60 on a final salary pension. Fair pensions for all, too right! We’d all like a decent defined benefits deal and have things wrapped up by 60, if not before, but is it in any way feasible?

And in the fair world we’re looking for (surely they can’t just be thinking the developing world should remain without such comfortable benefits?), we should then roll this out to the whole 99%, almost everyone in the world… The 1% can pick up the tab. Sound reasonable?

It certainly sounds like a great world to live in…

And if there is going to be radical change, I mean the kind of anti-capitalist change that many in Occupy advocate, radically different to the current system and with much greater equality, it will have to affect the whole world and everyone will have to go with it (or at least a considerable majority). Otherwise it won’t work. There will be an alternative and opposition, and you just have to look at all the examples of communism in the relatively recent past to see which way it goes.

Lithuania

Lenin had his day

Chechnya

The struggle never ends

The world has changed beyond recognition since final salary pensions became widespread. The global economy has transformed and competition has intensified, living standards have risen and people everywhere are living much longer.

If you look simplistically at a hypothetical average public sector career and retirement (civil servant or council workers):

Working from 21, assuming it’s a graduate (it’s a right not a privilege…), and retiring at 60, then with good health living beyond 80, as so many now do, possibly even to 100, and more and more people will do that.

So 99% of the population able to work only do so for half, or perhaps as little as two-fifths, of their lives? How could that be supported?

That wasn’t a consideration for the utopian world they believed they were creating after World War Two, for people in the West... Most people were dropping dead soon after drawing their pension.

Times have changed, there’s no need to detail it and everyone should accept it. Maybe in the future the robots will do all the work, but we’re not there just yet.

The future..?

More complicated than it looks

The support for each other from Occupy and the Public Sector Unions exists simply because both groups are anti-government. They are of use to each other in many ways, but what use would the collapse of the system be to public sector workers? Who could guarantee their pension then…?

In terms of British workers their deal is still good. Lord Hutton has even said now that the reform needs to go further, due to the poor economic outlook.

And people have to think about the long term situation, in a world where Britain will face tougher global competition and we can’t be certain how we will fair; higher public spending or not.

The Labour Party know there needs to be reform, but they’re just sitting on the fence at the moment. The strikers are their support, yet they can’t condone the strikes, they will have to do something similar in Government and they can’t alienate the centre ground and centre-right. Not very ‘Blue Labour’…

Ed knows every vote counts

‘What would Gordon do…?’

There are calls for solidarity from workers in the private sector, but it doesn’t appear reciprocal, the Left claim the Coalition is creating division between sectors, but we heard little from public sector and their unions as Labour created the division over 13 years and during the first two years of the downturn. I have looked at these issues in previous posts and the specific issues of pensions in a post following the strikes in June.

Public Sector Pickets call for Solidarity


The message to Egypt

It must mean a lot to them...

Many of the voices from the Left of Twitter do not give a sense of solidarity, though they scream about it…

Fingers are pointed at the private sector as the cause of the crisis, consistently questioning why public servants should pay for the mistakes of the private sector (not specifically the financial sector) and one Twitter contributor repeats bizarre sweeping statements about the private sector workers (all of them…) being at fault for their own poor pension provision and there are many more. The Left accuse the Right of generalising and divisive politics, but both sides are pretty good at it, that’s why they’re on different sides…

Many Leftists will say those in the private sector only have to join a union to have a voice, which is true but only to an extent. Most changes in the private sector are to the point of inevitable, due to economic pressures not felt in the public sector and this is particularly so in the current climate. And the current state of affairs in both sectors came after 13 years of the Government most on the Left yearn to return.

The Unions are exerting their power and influence, and they are getting a relatively good deal. Considering their members represent ‘only’ 20-25% of the workforce, their voice seems disproportionately loud and so aligned with the Occupy Movement, it can give a distorted picture for the extent of support.

However, if Labour were to return and back the public sector, the Occupy Movement might then find themselves out in the cold (for want of a better phrase…).

Protesting students have solidarity with both Occupy and the striking Public Sector. There’s a natural connection with Occupy but as I’ve mentioned before I’m not sure they’re thinking through the support for the pensions strikes. They will be working until they die to pay for them. Unless they’re all hoping to find jobs in the public sector…

This issue has got a long way to go, considering the nature of what’s involved, we’re talking generations.

But before that apparently Occupy are trying to crank their protests up a notch, at least for a day. Occupy Everywhere will be with us on December 15th.



Not sure what sort of ‘workplaces’ they’re talking about occupying? Maybe they’ll just hole up in some public sector offices, or outside. Or Union offices as in Cardiff. Solidarity.

But let me bring it back to the fundamental issue of this blog, and the reason we’re all here (in the UK) - New Labour’s Brave New World.

Amongst the news and views on the weekend about pensions and the continuing economic turmoil, Labour’s Yvette Cooper, wife of Ed Balls said that the Government’s pessimism on the economy could be “self-fulfilling prophecy” or words to that effect.

There is a point in terms of talking down markets and consumer spending, but under Labour all we had was optimism, spin and little else.

The facade fell and here we are…

The last 30 years in Number 10

'Thank you and goodnight...'

Sympathy for the Occupy Movement – Welsh ‘Business’ Minister Edwina Hart’s capitalist “regret”

Judging by Edwina Hart’s recent statement she’d be there, outside St Paul’s with the Occupy London Stock Exchange movement, protesting against the ‘system’.

Occupy London - Open invite


But she’s not there. She probably doesn’t like camping, I’m sure she could claim a tent on expenses…

Instead she’s in the ‘Senedd’ in Cardiff and apparently she’s the Welsh Assembly government’s minister for ‘business’, and I’m not sure that the people of Wales should be happy about it.

Edwina Hart is as surprised as anyone she’s business minister

They don’t know why you’re there either Edwina…

Last week she was quoted as saying she has “regret" about the capitalist system, in her response to a Plaid Cymru tabled motion stating their party “regrets” Labour’s failure to respond to the economic crisis.

Edwina Hart said:

"Can I say that I was disappointed when I read the motion, but in view of the fact that it said 'regret' perhaps I should say 'regret' because in life we all regret many things.

"I regret about the capitalist system, if you want to go to history lessons perhaps I need to go back to Karl Marx and Engels and we could have a discussion about those issues."

This is the ‘BUSINESS' minister for Wales. She is a former trade union official and it is quite clear where her political sentiments lie. She feels it might be appropriate to discuss Marxism instead of discussing the failure of the Welsh assembly to develop the Welsh economy.

The Welsh economy is backward. The Labour government in Westminster and the Welsh Assembly government did little or nothing to fundamentally develop and improve it, during the many years of economic growth when they had the chance to act.

There is a massive over-reliance on the public sector and it has long been held that there is more public money spent in Wales than is raised from Welsh tax payers. This was mentioned recently by Peter Hain:

“The Holtham commission calculated that approximately £17.1bn of tax revenue is raised in Wales every year. Total public spending in Wales is around £33.5bn – almost twice the amount raised”

Unemployment in Wales tracked the UK rate for a few of the boom years up to the economic crisis, but this was with the high percentage employed in the public sector and significantly, a larger economically inactive population.



The unemployment rate also jumps quickly to a level higher than the UK average, soon after the crisis and before the cuts have even started, which does not indicate a robust economic structure.

When the focus is on Welsh development, Cardiff is held up as an example of success, but it has benefitted from being the base of devolved power and development has been focussed there, to the neglect of other areas.



This map shows the concentrations of public sector jobs in South Wales, with high percentages in the valleys, Newport and Swansea. But the same situation can be seen throughout the UK after 13 years of Labour rule, with higher concentrations in Scotland and the North.

The Welsh Assembly Government and DWP championed moving towards full employment in the heady days of 2007, while admitting to problems in the valleys.

I have already highlighted the failure of local authorities and the Welsh assembly with regards to development in Newport and the huge sums of money wasted on a ridiculous and pointless new railway station.

Newport's "futuristic" new station


The old station is now being converted for use, as a council office, including job centre services…

Newport's old station, just down the road


No need for comment on that 'development'… Except that the location is perfect, there's a Wetherspoons off to the right of this photo.

There was an outcry when the possibility of Newport’s passport office closing was suggested, because the already suffering city centre would effectively die. The outcry was justified because the decision seemed unnecessary, however, a greater outcry should have come from the clear illustration of the failure to develop a major city, in an essentially prime economic location and when the Ryder Cup had just been held in the area.

How could a major shopping centre apparently be so dependent on one public sector office?

Now it seem the office is just been being downsized. Newport city centre still has many problems.

Labour used to simply blame the Tories but now they’ve held power so long and had so much opportunity, they are blaming ‘capitalism’ (that’s still the Tories to them…).

What hope for business and enterprise in Wales in this environment?

They blame Westminster and the Tories for cutting them off, but they have had years of net investment to create a functioning economy.

Maybe Edwina Hart hopes the English will support a Marxist experiment in Wales? And what would Edwina Hart do in a socialist/Marxist society? Exactly the same f**king thing…!

English tax payers paid for Labour's 13 year experiment and it failed spectacularly. They can blame who they like; the economy is firmly dependent, in no way self-sufficient.

In 2010 Plaid Cymru’s Ieuan Wyn Jones claimed he wanted to see independence from the UK initially of course, but also that he wanted to see an end to Welsh economic dependence, ultimately from European aid. Wales is a long, long way from that.

Earlier this year Plaid released the details of a study that compared how an independent Wales might have fared to the experience of small European countries such as Austria, Denmark, Finland and Luxembourg.

They shied away from using the obvious comparison of Ireland, for obvious reasons, and used the examples of long established and well developed, functioning small economies. There is no comparison… Again, Wales is a long, long way from any of that.

Peter Hain is not keen on the idea of the Assembly having tax and fiscal powers, but he does seem want to take the ‘progressive’ step of changing the Welsh electoral system to base it entirely on First Past the Post… Clearly wanting to consolidate Labour’s power in Wales and even claiming that it is the will of the people following the AV referendum earlier this year.

This is from Hain one of the original advocates of AV and the Welsh system is not even based on the alternative vote, it is far more proportional and fair.

Progressive?

Only when it suits Peter

Little progress when the likes of Hain have power.

There are a lot of problems in Wales and the politicians have been more concerned with building employment reliant on public spending, scrapping prescription charges for people that can afford them and ultimately consolidating their own power.

Who said these people know what they’re doing and what’s good for the people of Wales?

Edwina Hart regrets capitalism; she should certainly regret her party’s attempts at managing a capitalist system.

They throw a lot of money around, money that over the last 13 years was raised in no small part from the financial sector, they are incompetent big government. I’m not sure how well they actually sit with many elements of the Occupy Movement.

A selection of the '99%' at Occupy London


Rage at Occupy London

Is the Welsh Assembly Government a capitalist regime..?

There are apparent sympathies with the anti-capitalist protests and the Occupy movement in the Welsh Assembly; I have sympathy for the people of Wales.

Good luck with this shower, getting more and more power…


But then the Welsh electorate do keep voting for them…