privatisation

If you clapped for the NHS and key workers, now it’s time to ACT.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/05/2020 - 3:43am in

Chalk board with Together written on it and stick figutes holding handsImage by Gerd Altmann from Pixabay

“Governments stand because people sit; if people stand, governments will sit!”
Mehmet Murat İldan (Turkish writer).

Did you clap for the NHS and key workers? Did you cheer on Captain Tom? Have you been angered by what has happened to some of the most vulnerable in our society both in care homes and in our communities?  If so, then it’s time to take it a step further. Not putting too fine a point on it, clapping and anger are empty gestures without real action and sadly also have acted as a distraction to what is happening under cover of COVID-19.

Before it is too late to reverse the on-going creation of an all-powerful corporatocracy serving the few through government diktat, it’s time to recognise some difficult truths about what has been happening. Not just to our NHS but also to vital national and local public services which have been starved of cash, forced to reduce services and staffing levels and compelled to outsource or privatise those very services upon which we depend for national economic well-being. We are living the destructive consequences of an ideology that claims that private is more efficient, that our public services are dependent the state of the economy for funding and by association the false public assumption that a healthy economy increases tax revenues and enables public services to be paid for.

We are seeing first-hand what happens when the public purpose is subverted to deliver public money into private profit.  As George Monbiot put it in an article this week in his blog: ‘There is a consistent reason for multiple systemic failures the pandemic exposed: the intrusion of corporate power into public policy. Privatisation, commercialisation, outsourcing and offshoring have severely compromised the UK’s ability to respond to a crisis’.

The campaigning organisation WeOwnIT in partnership with the University of Greenwich published a report just over a week ago Privatised and Unprepared: The NHS Supply Chain which suggested our government is ‘asleep at the wheel’ although one might challenge that description for a more accurate one being ‘wide awake’. These are not failures of misdirected policies, they are deliberately constructed market-oriented strategies to favour corporations and serve a revolving door.

In a clear indictment of government actions, it describes a system which has been privatised to supposedly deliver efficiency savings but which in reality has left the country totally unprepared to address the COVID-19 emergency as well as seriously undermining the operation to protect the NHS, care staff and patients. Just in time systems, a fragmented supply structure in the hands of private profit-oriented organisations left the NHS and indeed care homes unable to access sufficient supplies of PPE. Privatisation and outsourcing have proven in the most tragic way that they are not the magic cure-all that was promised.

Worryingly but predictably the government, instead of stopping, is still pressing on with its plans as more and more public contracts are handed out to private companies without any accountability; fragmenting the emergency response even further at a time when it is essential for the government to act in the public interest, not to the advantage of private profit.

However, a privatised supply chain is just one piece of this complicated jigsaw. For decades and almost imperceptibly at least to the public the NHS has been undergoing a radical transformation. Behind its well-recognised public logo now sits a structure which has been infiltrated by private healthcare companies which have been directing the orchestra all with the approval of successive governments towards the creation of a US-style two-tier healthcare service. As our sister organisation, Public Matters, wrote in an article in 2017 ‘the Americanisation of the NHS [is] happening right here, right now.’  It is not a dystopian vision of the future.  Furthermore, this vision goes well beyond the national borders of the UK as Professor Steward Player (co-author of ‘The Plot against the NHS) wrote in an article published in the Socialist Health Association in 2017 in which he indicates that the ‘basic strategy now adopted for the NHS in England has its origins in the business-dominated international circuit of which the WEF (World Economic Forum) is the apex…[and] what is planned for the NHS in England is not a home-grown response…but what the global policy-making elite at Davos sees as a way of avoiding further growth of spending on publicly-provided health care.’

He noted that in early 2012 the WEF had considered that ‘national healthcare systems were increasingly caught between a rock and a hard place as fiscal crises were creating pressures to curb expenditure’. Professor Player also noted that as a result, it had set about the task of helping ‘existing models become sustainable’. The first report, co-authored with McKinsey and Co, looked amongst other things at the financial sustainability of health systems in the context of the level of public debt and declining tax revenues and the second at offering solutions which included ‘rationing, shifting the cost burden onto individuals and raising healthcare ‘productivity’ through delivering more services with fewer resources.’

It is instructive that once again we see the use of a false narrative about public debt and unsustainable spending which has underpinned government policies aimed at delivering a corporate, profit-led world serviced by public spending taps which can be switched on and off at will depending on the political objectives. And again, with the caveat that we’ll need more austerity in the public sector to pay down the debt incurred which in turn will lead to services being sacrificed, yet again, on the altar of efficiency and profit.

And now following Brexit, as if that were not enough, the health service which is already minus the ‘N’ for national’ is also being threatened by a trade treaty with the US. Even if the government has promised that the NHS will not be on the table, given the government’s obfuscation and lies trust in that promise has to be questioned.

COVID-19 is providing the perfect #disastercapitalism opportunity to drive these policies as we remain locked down and fearful for the future and also the daily reminders of the dishonest claim by politicians and their pals in the media who labour the point that someone will have to pay up in the end. Even when that is not true!

The same situation also applies to the Care Sector where, as covered in previous blogs, for the last few decades services have increasingly relied on market provision with tragic consequences, historically and as a result of the current pandemic. David Rowland who is a Director of the Centre for Health and Public Interest noted in a recent article in LSE Blogs that ‘using the market to deliver social care on a low-cost basis had manifestly failed even before the current pandemic’ pointing out that ‘one in five care homes are rated as inadequate or needing improvement, personal care is provided to people in their own homes in 15-minute slots, with the sector as a whole suffering from a 30% turnover rate – a fact which might explain why there are currently over 120,000 vacancies.’  

Like healthcare, the social care system is dominated by private residential and home care all competing for a share of the market, thus creating pressures on wages and quality of care. The workforce has become casualised with increasing reliance on zero-hour contracts.  As David Rowland points out ‘because the state has driven the cost of delivering care down to a bare minimum and because off-shore investors have sought to extract the maximum short-term profit out of the residential care sector, many care providers were teetering on the brink of collapse even before COVID-19 hit. He notes that this has ‘left the financial structure of the industry in such a fragile state that it is not able to withstand even a minor downturn in income or increase in costs’.

Austerity driven from the top has percolated into every aspect of our lives, leaving our local governmental structures unable to provide the necessary expert and logistical support. Privatisation equally has proved to be a killer. In short, whether it’s the NHS or the care sector as TJ Coles notes in his book ‘The Privatised Planet’ ‘the less care you give the more money you make’. And that is the crux of the threat that faces not just us but our fellow planetary citizens

Never has there been a more important time to challenge this ideology that the needs of the ‘market’ should trump public purpose and the creation of a healthy, educated, purposeful nation.

One million people have signed a petition calling for the resignation of Dominic Cummings and tens of thousands have written to their MP. His actions have stirred a wave of disgust at a time of national emergency and solidarity in a way that the loss of our public services has not.  Campaigns and demonstrations organised by committed individuals over the last 10 years have done little to raise real awareness amongst the general public about what has been happening with little or no public accountability.  When you are struggling to pay your bills, rent or mortgage, working for poor wages and in insecure employment, living in bad housing or unable to access good healthcare and education there is little time left to be concerned about the future when the here and now is all-consuming. A rotting economic system has deprived many of the will and energy to stand up.

With a media that has also reinforced the perception that our public services are either unaffordable or reliant on a healthy economy and taxes being paid, the public has not stood a chance to make its voice known. Until now perhaps?

The public has had a full-on very personal encounter with the vital nature of our public and social infrastructure and if change is to happen then it now needs to stand up and demand that our vital public services are not only funded properly but also restored to public provision. As part of that demand and with the knowledge that a sovereign currency-issuing government is not short of cash but more accurately short on political will, it must also challenge politicians and media pundits who are already talking about how it will be paid for.

The message is simple.  The government has the power of the public purse and the power to serve the public purpose if it chooses to do so. As the currency issuer, it neither needs tax or to borrow before it can spend, and that spending will not be a financial burden on future generations. Britain’s national debt which is predicted to hit £2 trillion for the first time will not be ‘the grim milestone’ it is claimed to be by a media pundit yesterday.

The real burden will be a government that has failed to spend sufficiently on delivering public purpose aims for today in the light of the damaging effects of COVID-19 on the economy which will continue for some time to come, and for future generations who will benefit or not as the case may be from government spending policies.

The political institutions, corporations and wealthy elites have gamed the system for their own purpose through domestic legislative means, trade deals and by subverting public funds into private profit. They are still gaming the system.  As Arundhati Roy put it in the Progressive International Our Task is to Disable the Engine’.  

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post If you clapped for the NHS and key workers, now it’s time to ACT. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Bristol’s Elected Mayor Supports Schools That Refuse to Open

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 31/05/2020 - 2:31am in

Boris Johnson is desperate to get the children back to school as quickly as possible if he can, and has decided that schools will reopen next week for children of specific ages. Parents and teachers are naturally worried about this, especially as the public schools won’t reopen until September. It seems to be once again one law for the plebs and another for the entitled rich. And once again, Boris is utterly complacent about the health and welfare of ordinary people in his desire to get the economy moving once again. So long as the elite don’t get it, he’s not worried.

Mike has published a series of pieces about this, including the very strict regulations governing the movement of young children when they return to the classroom. Mike has commented that this seems less like schooling and more like a prison. The Tories have tried to justify this by pointing to Denmark, which has already allowed its children to return to school. This is not the first time the Tories have embarked on a disastrous policy and tried to justify it as just following the Danes. And that makes me wonder what else they aren’t telling us about our friends across the North Sea. Way back in the 1990s the Tories laid off a vast number of civil servants. This, they declared, would cut bureaucracy and reinvigorate the economy. The Danes had done it, and so boosted theirs. But they didn’t follow the Danish policy absolutely. It had worked in Denmark, I was told by a Danish friend, because their government had given its departing state bureaucrats very handsome final payments of about £40,000 or more, and encouraged them to set up their own businesses. The Tories didn’t do any of this. They just laid people off. This also had a knock on effect on the economy. I’ve heard that for every civil service job, there’s 1 1/2 jobs supported by it in the wider economy, as those employed by the state purchase goods and services. Which meant that when our civil servants were kicked out, they took an awful lot of other people in private industry with them. Now that the Tories are telling us that the Danes are sending their children back to school, I do wonder what it is that the Danes are doing right, which our benighted government isn’t and won’t tell us about.

Mike has also put up a piece on his blog examining the question of parental responsibility if a child contracts the Coronavirus or the Kawasaki disease from school. It seems very clear – in British law parents are held accountable if they send their child to a hazardous environment and as a result they become ill or injured. This is regardless whether they have been urged or told to do so by the government. Parents therefore have a very strong case for refusing to allow their children to go to school if they are afraid for their safety.

Civil disobedience: would parents be irresponsible to send their children back to school now?

These concerns are also shared by Bristol’s elected mayor, Marvin Rees, and his cabinent. Like many Bristolians I received an email last Wednesday from Rees discussing what he and his team were doing about the coronavirus. Rees particularly mentioned schools and stated that he supported those schools that would remain closed. Rees said

Our city’s teachers and school staff have been working even harder than ever to keep schools open for children who are vulnerable and whose parents are key workers. Rather than accepting the 1 June date from the Government, Councillor Anna Keen, a local schoolteacher and our cabinet member for education, and our education team have met regularly with head teachers. The government made the schools opening a binary debate by not discussing their announcement with unions but I am afraid this has been consistent with their continuing failure to engage with cities on decisions, throughout the crisis. 

We have also met with school leaders representing teaching and children across Bristol throughout the pandemic, listening carefully to their views and concerns. It was very clear that they did not want a blanket approach across Bristol – and the teaching unions in Bristol support this too.

Like other councils, our position is clear:  schools should stay closed until they can begin to reopen safely. We are 100% backing teachers to work with parents and communities to make decisions on how their schools return, as Anna’s blog set out on Wednesday.

We also backed the unions’ calls for scientific advice on child transmission to be published. From the start of last week, all parents and carers have begun receiving a letter from the council, via schools, to remind them that they do not have to send their children in and that they should not expect their school to open on a particular date, in a particular way.

The Tories and their pet press and media have done their best to portray those teachers and unions objecting to schools reopening as selfish and unconcerned with the welfare of their pupils. This is the opposite of the truth. I realise that there are bad, sometimes terribly bad teachers, but most teachers are very concerned about the performance and wellbeing of their charges. But the Tories have always hated teachers and demonised them as part of their campaign to break the unions, privatise education and indoctrinate them with approved Tory values. This latest attack on teachers worried for the health of their students is just more of this same rubbish.

I’m not a great fan of Rees. He’s made some decisions for Bristol that have been very foolish, and has alienated many people in south Bristol with his refusal to accept residents’ plans for housing development in Hengrove Park in favour of his own scheme, which was rejected by the regulator. But this time Rees is right.

He and Bristol’s school heads and teacher are worried about schoolchildren’s health and protection against the Coronavirus. Boris isn’t, and shouldn’t be believed whatever comes out of his mouth.

Plans for post Covid NHS hatched behind the lockdown

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 21/05/2020 - 12:00am in

Tags 

NHS, privatisation, UK

John Lister Debates over relaxing the lockdown and whether or not the peak of the Covid-19 crisis may now be behind us have run alongside fleeting glimpses of the surreptitious plans being laid to exploit the continued lockdown on NHS public meetings and spring a succession of unpleasant surprises on the NHS as soon as …

We don’t have to accept a corporate blueprint for a future world. The alternative is to forge a collective vision based on solid values and publicly provided foundations to enable human and planetary flourishing.

Image by Alexas_Fotos from Pixabay

‘We hope this pandemic will teach us that in normal times we must build up our supplies, our infrastructure, and our institutions to be able to deal with crises. We should not wait for the next national crisis to live up to our means’.

Yeva Nersisyan and L Randall Wray

Austerity and cuts to public spending have taken a wrecking ball to our public infrastructure, not least local government. As central government funding was cut as a deliberate austerity policy, councils have spent the last 10 years trying to balance their books by cutting services and increasing local taxes and other charges to make ends meet. In 2019 council leaders said that government funding cuts would leave a £25bn black hole – leaving some councils having to consider bankruptcy as an option. The COVID-19 crisis is revealing the scale of the damage which has been done to the vital public infrastructure, particularly that which serves our local communities.

Despite the government’s COVID-19 crisis bailouts amounting to £3.2bn last month and additional money for social care, the writing is on the wall. Windsor and Maidenhead District Council said it was ready to file for bankruptcy as a result of its predicted £14m shortfall with only £6m in reserves. Many other councils face similar dilemmas. What options are left when they have already cut their spending to the bone to keep delivering their statutory duties which include social care? Already, there have been huge cuts to local services.

Hundreds of libraries closed, children’s and adult social services cut, a public health budget which has faced hundreds of millions of pounds in cuts since 2014/15, fewer waste collections, cuts to parks, sports, arts and leisure services not to mention increased outsourcing of public services including social care to private contractors to cut costs. While the focus has been rightly on how rundown the NHS has become as a result of a decade of austerity, council services which have also borne the brunt of cuts have left the UK totally unprepared with insufficient staffing and a degraded infrastructure to cope.

And now the situation has become so dire that even statutory duties are no longer sacred. Last month it was reported that a number of councils had taken advantage of the government’s COVID-19 emergency measures which allow them to suspend their duties to provide elements of adult social care so that resources can be redirected towards coronavirus support.

While government ministers claim, from their ivory towers, that they stand behind councils and that they are giving them the funding they need, the evidence is to the contrary. The horse has already bolted from the stable and did so the day George Osborne imposed austerity on the nation. Ten years of cuts cannot be remedied quickly and easily; you cannot rebuild overnight that infrastructure that has been lost. Without adequate central government funding now, local government will remain a shadow of its former self or indeed may not survive in its current form. With social care budgets making up over half of what councils spend then it is clear that something will have to give. It is likely that the axe will fall not just on remaining services but also on social care; the review of which has yet to take place having been kicked down the road endless times by successive governments.

We are facing the demise of local government and local democracy for more centralised decision making which can only be to the detriment of our local communities who are served best by those that know them best. Local government needs a massive injection of funds to allow it to implement both central and local initiatives, not just to manage this emergency but to ensure that the economy can rebuild itself and flourish in the future. It needs to rebuild the infrastructure that currently sits in tatters as a result of deliberate government policies to dismantle it. All it lacks is real political will.

Some deride local government, but without the services that it provides our lives have become poorer. We are beginning to recognise that, along with our NHS and other public services, they form the bedrock of our local communities. COVID-19 has revealed their vital nature in this time of national emergency. As the spotlight falls on our public infrastructure which has been so cruelly stripped down, it highlights the terrible cost of austerity. Not just in deaths from COVID-19, the scale of which was preventable had the government acted sooner, but also deaths caused by government policies and reforms to the social security system which have dehumanised people, left them impoverished, hungry, homeless and sometimes suicidal.

While we witness the very real consequences of the economic ideologies pursued by successive governments, which have denied the value of our public infrastructure except in profit terms for private corporations serviced with public money, we are now also witnessing another battle. The battle about the affordability of the current round of government spending and the perennial question about where the money will come from to pay for it.

This week, two articles appeared in the Telegraph which is not known for its progressive stance. The first suggested that according to a leaked Treasury document the country could face a ‘sovereign debt crisis’ and it set out a package of tax rises and spending cuts which would be aimed at ‘enhancing credibility and boosting investor confidence.’ It proposed an end to the triple lock on state pension increases and a two-year public sector pay freeze (so much for all that clapping on the steps of No.10). In effect, it suggested that higher debt now will have to be paid for in the future to stabilise the debt-to-GDP ratio and ‘prevent debt from growing on an unsustainable trajectory’.

Then, in the same week, another more surprising article entitled ‘The Treasury is wrong’: we don’t need hair-shirt austerity’ contradicted that proposition and said that ‘it was a sure-fire formula for structural damage and an economic depression.’ It also suggested that ‘we should be cutting taxes to support the economy’ and said that ‘the idea that we need significant spending cuts or tax rises is completely wrong.’ The author ended by commenting that it was ‘extraordinary that a sovereign country with all levers of economic policy under its own control should contemplate such self-harm’’. Whilst it is true that the article is still couched in the orthodox household budget narrative that austerity would lower future tax take and thus would be counterproductive for the public finances, it does nevertheless point out that such a course of action would be tantamount to a ‘scorched earth policy’.

However, confusion seems to reign in Tory-supporting circles as on Friday Boris Johnson, rejecting the Treasury floated proposal for more austerity to cover the cost of the coronavirus crisis, said that there was no question of freezing public sector workers’ pay and that the government were intending to spend heavily on infrastructure as the country exited lockdown. On the other hand, whether one can trust Johnson’s promises is another matter, given his track record on truth-telling both before the crisis and through it. Whilst he has a very short memory it is also possible that it will be a short career as Prime Minister. Clearly, it reveals potential tensions between No 10 and the current occupant of No 11, but it also demonstrates that the standard household budget orthodoxy still takes precedence even if it is purely a mechanism to deliver a political agenda rather than a recognition of how governments really spend.

We should remember whose pockets have benefited these last couple of months from public money. Only this week, it was revealed that the government had awarded £1bn worth of contracts to private companies bypassing the tendering process and thus any accountability. It had also failed to use NHS Laboratory capacity for testing, preferring to give the work to private companies. The lie of the land is easy to see. There is never a shortage of public money for corporations, but when it comes to public services the magic money tree goes into hibernation.

That we are seeing challenges to the economic orthodoxy of the past few decades is a positive step forward. Less positive is that it is still being seen in terms of productive economy meaning more taxes and less debt as if the national debt were the single most harmful issue that the nation faces. The suggestion that the government could face a sovereign debt crisis is the same as David Cameron deceitfully suggested in 2010; that we were like Greece and could go bankrupt if we didn’t get our public finances under control.

However, as many more people are beginning to realise, the UK government as the currency issuer can never run out of money and cannot become insolvent. When it issues bonds, which are portrayed erroneously as borrowing, it can always meet those liabilities upon maturity including any interest accrued. In fact, it doesn’t even have to issue debt to cover its deficit.

The bottom line is that the national debt represents our assets – our savings – not a burden on the nation, either now or for future generations. In 1945, when our debt to GDP ratio was around 240%, we built our NHS and put in place a social security system to protect people from cradle to grave. That spending represented a real investment in the future of the nation and the economy and in doing it we didn’t go bankrupt then, any more than we can now.

It is vital to turn this damaging narrative on its head. Deficits do matter, but not in the way we tend to think they do. They are normal and necessary, representing as they do our savings and the money circulating in the economy. Rather than focusing on the size of the national debt, it would be better to ask questions about what that debt represents. What was it spent on and why and who benefited or lost out? The answers to those questions will vary depending on the economic conditions of the day and the political agenda of the government in power.

The record of any government, which includes a range of factors from social to economic including full employment, is the real measure of success. Not whether it was fiscally disciplined and achieved a balanced budget. Damaging a nation’s health and prosperity cannot in any way be defined as success. The Conservatives spent ten years destroying it and regardless of how much money is promised now or in the future, it will take time to rebuild that lost public infrastructure if indeed they choose to do so.

In these difficult times, we are seeing the consequences of austerity on everything that we have hitherto valued but have maybe taken for granted. We have allowed successive governments to whittle away at those public structures upon which the foundations of a fairer society were built in the post-war period. We have accepted, not just the lie of unaffordability because we understandably compared the state finances to our own household budgets, but also that the market provided better outcomes for publicly paid-for services as if the government could be compared to a profit and loss business. This, in turn, has given corporations huge influence and power in Westminster and has lined their pockets, at the expense of good quality publicly funded and managed provision.

Those lies are now unravelling. Let’s make sure they unravel to a conclusion which invites a re-examination of our values and a commitment to creating a collective vision of the future which is both environmentally sustainable and fairer for all. Failure to challenge the rapid transformation of our society into a corporate free-for-all will leave us impoverished automatons in its service.

 

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post We don’t have to accept a corporate blueprint for a future world. The alternative is to forge a collective vision based on solid values and publicly provided foundations to enable human and planetary flourishing. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Shaw’s Classic Defence of Socialism for Women Part Three

George Bernard Shaw, The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism, Capitalism, Sovietism and Fascism, foreword by Polly Toynbee (London: Alma Classics 2012).

Socialism and Marriage, Children, Liberty and Religion

Shaw also discusses what socialism would mean for marriage, liberty, children and the churches, and these are the most problematic sections of the book. He looks forward to marriage being a purely voluntary commitment, where people people can marry for love instead of financial advancement. This will produce biologically better children, because people will be able to choose the best partners, rather than be limited to only those from their class. At the same time incompatible partners will be able to divorce each other free of stigma.

He defines liberty in terms of personal freedom. Under socialism, people will be freer because the amount of time they will have for their personal amusement and recreation will be greater. Legislation might go down, because the laws currently needed to protect people will become unnecessary as socialism is established and society advances. Shaw also believes that greater free time would be enough to attract the top brains to management positions in the absence of the usual inducement of greater pay. Shaw realised that not everyone could run industries, and that it was necessary to hire the very best people, who would be a small minority. Giving them greater leisure time was the best way to do this, and he later criticises the Soviet government for not equalising incomes.

But this is sheer utopianism. The Bolsheviks had tried to equalise incomes, and it didn’t work, which is why they went back to higher rates of pay for managers and so on. And as we’ve seen, socialism doesn’t necessarily lead to greater free time and certainly not less legislation. The better argument is that socialism leads to greater liberty because under socialism people have better opportunities available to them for careers, sport, entertainment and personal improvement than they would if they were mere capitalist wage slaves.

Religious people will also object to his views on religion and the churches. While earlier in the book Shaw addressed the reader as a fellow Christian, his attitude in this section is one of a religious sceptic. The reader will have already been warned of this through the foreword by Toynbee. The Groaniad columnist is a high-ranking member of the both the Secular and Humanist Societies, and her columns and articles in just about every magazine or newspaper she wrote for contained sneers at religion. Shaw considers the various Christian denominations irreconcilable in their theologies, and pour scorn on orthodox Christian doctrines such as the Atonement, that Christ died for our sins. Religion should not be taught in school, because of the incompatibility of the account of the Creation in Genesis with modern science. Children should not be taught about religion at all under they are of the age of consent. If their parents do teach them, the children are to be removed from their care. This is the attitude of very aggressive secularists and atheists. Richard Dawkins had the same attitude, but eventually reversed it. It’s far too authoritarian for most people. Mike and I went to a church school, and received a very good education from teachers that did believe in evolution. Religion deals with ultimate questions of existence and morality that go far beyond science. I therefore strongly believe that parents have the right to bring their children up in their religion, as long as they are aware of the existence of other views and that those who hold them are not wicked simply for doing so. He also believed that instead of children having information pumped into them, the business should be to educate children to the basic level they need to be able to live and work in modern society, and then allow the child to choose for itself what it wants to study.

Communism and Fascism

This last section of the book includes Shaw’s observations on Russian Communism and Fascism. Shaw had visited the USSR in the early ’30s, and like the other Fabians had been duped by Stalin. He praised it as the new socialist society that was eradicating poverty and class differences. He also thought that its early history vindicated the Fabian approach of cautious nationalisation. Lenin had first nationalised everything, and then had to go back on it and restore capitalism and the capitalist managers under the New Economic Policy. But Russia was to be admired because it had done this reversal quite openly, while such changes were kept very quiet in capitalism. If there were problems in the country’s industrialisation, it was due to mass sabotage by the kulaks – the wealthy peasants – and the industrialists. He also recognised that the previous capitalist elite were disenfranchised, forced into manual labour, and their children denied education until the working class children had been served. At the same time, the Soviet leaders had been members of the upper classes themselves, and in order to present themselves as working class leaders had claimed working class parentage. These issues were, however, gradually working themselves out. The Soviet leaders no longer had need of such personal propaganda, and the former capitalists could reconcile themselves to the regime as members of the intellectual proletariat. And some of the industrialisation was being performed by criminals, but this was less arduous than the labour in our prisons.

Shaw is right about the NEP showing that nationalisation needs to be preceded by careful preparation. But he was obviously kept ignorant of the famine that was raging in the USSR through forced collectivisation and the mass murder of the kulaks. And rather than a few criminals in the gulags, the real figures were millions of forced labourers. They were innocent of any crime except Stalin’s paranoia and the need of his managers for cheap slave labour. It’s believed that about 30 millions died in Stalin’s purges, while 7 million died in the famine in the Ukraine.

Shaw’s treatment of Fascism seems to be based mostly on the career of Mussolini. He considers Fascism just a revival of the craze for absolute monarchy and military leadership, of the kind that had produced Henry VIII in England, Napoleon, and now Mussolini, Adolf Hitler, the Shah of Iran and Ataturk in Turkey. These new absolute rulers had started out as working class radicals, before find out that the changes they wanted would not come from the working class. They had therefore appealed to the respectable middle class, swept away democracy and the old municipal councils, which were really talking shops for elderly tradesmen which accomplished little. They had then embarked on a campaign against liberalism and the left, smashing those organisations and imprisoning their members. Some form of parliament had been retained in order to reassure the people. At the same time, wars were started to divert the population and stop them criticising the new generalissimo. Industry was approaching socialism by combining into trusts. However, the government would not introduce socialism or truly effective government because of middle class opposition. Fascist regimes wouldn’t last, because their leaders were, like the rest of us, only mortal. In fact Mussolini was overthrown by the other Fascists, who then surrendered to the Allies, partly because of his failing health. That, and his utter military incompetence which meant that Italy was very definitely losing the War and the Allies were steadily advancing up the peninsula. While this potted biography of the typical Fascist is true of Mussolini, it doesn’t really fit some of the others. The Shah, for example, was an Indian prince.

Anarchism and Syndicalism

Shaw is much less informed about anarchism. He really only discusses it in terms of ‘Communist Anarchism’, which he dismisses as a silly contradiction in terms. Communism meant more legislation, while anarchism clearly meant less. He should have the articles and books on Anarcho-communism by Peter Kropotkin. Kropotkin believed that goods and services should be taken over by the whole community. However, rather than a complete absence of government and legislation, society would be managed instead by individual communities and federations.

He also dismisses syndicalism, in which industry would be taken over and run by the trade unions. He considers this just another form of capitalism, with the place of the managers being taken by the workers. These would still fleece the consumer, while at the same time leave the problem of the great inequality in the distribution of wealth untouched, as some industries would obviously be poorer than others. But the Guild Socialists did believe that there should be a kind of central authority to represent the interests of the consumer. And one of the reasons why nationalisation, in the view of some socialists, failed to gain the popular support needed to defend it against the privatisations of the Tories is because the workers in the nationalised industries after the War were disappointed in their hopes for a great role in their management. The Labour party merely wanted nationalisation to be a simple exchange of public for private management, with no profound changes to the management structure. In some cases the same personnel were left in place. Unions were to be given a role in management through the various planning bodies. But this was far less than many workers and trade unionists hoped. If nationalisation is to have any meaning, it must allow for a proper, expanded role of the workers themselves in the business of managing their companies and industries.

The book ends with a peroration and a discussion of the works that have influenced and interest Shaw. In the peroration Shaw exhorts the readers not to be upset by the mass poverty and misery of the time, but to deplore the waste of opportunities for health, prosperity and happiness of the time, and to look forward and work for a better, socialist future.

His ‘Instead of a Bibliography’ is a kind of potted history of books critical of capitalism and advocating socialism from David Ricardo’s formulation of capitalism in the 19th century. These also include literary figures like Ruskin, Carlyle and Dickens. He states that he has replaced Marx’s theory of surplus value with Jevons‘ treatment of rent, in order to show how capitalism deprives workers of their rightful share of the profits.

 

 

Will Keir Starmer Be the 21st Century Ramsay McDonald?

This occurred to me a few days ago, thinking about Starmer’s strange decision to offer only constructive criticism of the government and his agreement to serve in a coalition with Johnson if asked. It was a bizarre decision, that either showed Starmer as naive, or far more closely aligned with the Tories at the expense of the left in the Labour party.

In fact there’s plenty of evidence to suggest that Starmer, as a man of the Labour right, is basically a Tory in the wrong party. The leaked Labour report shows the Blairites in the party bureaucracy – Iain McNicol, John Stolliday, Emilie Oldknow and the other scum – actively working to make sure that Labour lost the 2017 election. One of them described feeling sick that Corbyn was actually high in the polls, and the intriguers exchanged emails in that the wished that Labour would lose to the Lib Dems or the Tories. One of them was even a moderator on a Tory discussion site, and had such a hatred for his own party that people wondered why he was still in it. Of course, when someone in the Labour party actually raised that question they found it was verboten and they were purged on some trumped up charge. And in at least one of the constituency Labour parties the right-wing leadership actually appealed for Lib Dems and Tories to join when the rank and file started to get Bolshie and demand change and the election of genuine Labour officials. Blair himself was described over and again as a man in the wrong party. He was a Thatcherite neoliberal. He stood for private enterprise and the privatisation of the NHS, although with the caveat that he still believed in free universal healthcare paid for by the state. And Thatcher herself claimed him as her greatest achievement. The first thing that the Blair did when he entered No. 10 was invite her round for a visit.

Blair claimed that politics had changed, as the fall of Communism meant that we were living in a post-ideological age. All that stuff by Francis Fukuyama about ‘the end of history’. Blair also packed his administration with Tories, arguing that in this new political era he wanted to reach across party lines and form a government of all the talents.

But neoliberalism itself has not triumphed, except as a zombie ideology kept walking by the political, social and economic elites long after it should have been interred. It keeps the 1 per cent massively rich at the expense of everyone else. And under Corbyn people started to wake up to it. Which is why the establishment were frantic to demonise him, first as a Communist or Trotskyite, and then, in a grotesque reversal of the truth, an anti-Semite. Starmer’s victory in the leadership elections is basically the Blairites returning to power and attempting to restore their previous domination.

It’s perfectly possible that Starmer is also simply being naive. After all, Germany’s equivalent party, the SPD, went into coalition with Angela Merkel’s Christian Democrats, the German Conservatives. It was a disastrous mistake, as Merkel’s gang stole the credit for their reforms strengthening Germany’s welfare state, while making sure that the SPD took the blame for their mistakes and the negative part of the coalition programme. The result was that the SPD lost the next election heavily to Merkel. 

There’s also the object lesson of what happened to the Lib Dems in this country when Nick Clegg threw in his lot with Cameron. Despite the rhetoric of dragging the Tories further left or rather to the centre, Clegg immediately abandoned any real centrism and backed Cameron’s vile, murderous austerity programme to the hilt. Indeed, he went even further. Cameron was willing to concede to Clegg that university tuition fees shouldn’t be raised. But Clegg decided that they should. And so they were, and British students naturally turned against the man who betrayed them. And at the next election, the Lib Dems were devastated as their supporters chose instead either to vote Tory or Labour.

And there’s an important lesson for Starmer from the Labour party’s own 20th century history. Right at the end of the 1920s or the beginning of the 1930s, the Labour Party entered a coalition with the Conservatives under its leader, Ramsay McDonald. This was a response to the Wall Street Crash and the global recession that followed. The party’s members wanted their government to act in the interests of the workers, who were being laid off in droves, or had their wages and what unemployment relief there was cut. Instead the party followed orthodox economic policy and cut government spending, following the Tory programme of welfare cuts, mass unemployment and lower wages. This split the party, with the rump under McDonald losing popular support and dying. McDonald himself was hated and reviled as a traitor.

Something similar could easily occur if Starmer’s Labour went into coalition with the Tories. They’d back the programme of further austerity, an end to the welfare state and the privatisation of the NHS, and would lose members as a result. Just as the party did under Blair. However, I can see Starmer and the Blairites seeing this as a success. They despise traditional Labour members and supporters, whom they really do view as Communist infiltrators. They did everything they could to purge the party of Corbyn supporters, using the accusation of Communism and then anti-Semitism as the pretext for doing so. And they seemed determined to split the party if they could not unseat him. There were the series of attempted coups, in one of which Starmer himself was a member. It also seemed that they intended to split the party, but hold on to its name, bureaucracy and finances in order to present themselves as the real Labour party, even though they’re nothing of the sort.

My guess is that this would happen if Starmer does accept an invitation from Boris to join him in government. And the question is whether Starmer realised this when he made his agreement with the blonde clown. Is he so desperate for power that he sees it as a risk he should take?

Or does he say it as a way of joining the party to which he really feels allegiance, and a useful way of purging Labour of all the awkward lefties?

 

The question is not how we will pay for the pandemic, but how government can use its currency-issuing capacity to deal with the most pressing issues of our time.

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Sat, 02/05/2020 - 9:38pm in

Rainbow window sign with the slogan "Miss you" during the COVID-19 pandemicImage by Sara Holland

‘Care homes have been top priority for the government’ so said the health secretary in a COVID-19 briefing earlier this week. Daily the evidence grows that this is yet more political rhetoric aiming to create a purposeful narrative of a government that has acted in the best interests of citizens. However, the growing dissonance between politicians’ words and day-to-day realities for NHS and social care workers and many others across the country continues to stand out in sharp relief.

Whether it’s health workers or social care workers, still lacking adequate PPE or working in unsafe conditions risking their own lives and the lives of their patients as a result of hitherto inadequate testing capacity, we are witnessing the dire consequences of 10 years of ideologically driven austerity, cuts to public sector services, the whittling down of Public Health and local government services, unforgivable planning failures and government inaction early on, despite the World Health Organisation’s advice.

COVID-19 has revealed the extent to which our social care system has been hollowed out as a result of ideological cuts to funding for public services dressed up as financial necessity. It has highlighted, in the most tragic way, what happens when governments fail to serve the public purpose. Whether we are talking about nursing and residential care or help in the home, social care is in a state of collapse.

At a local level, social care amounts to almost 40% of council budgets and as a result of local government funding cuts, authorities (having lost 60p out of every £1 in central government funding since 2010) are likely to face a £3.6bn funding gap in adult social care by 2025. The UKHomeCare Association estimated in its 2018 report that almost one third of councils in England had seen homecare providers closing or ceasing to trade during that year. In 2018 more than 100 private care home operators collapsed, bringing the total over five years to more than 400.

The government’s promised review of social care has been on the back burner for many months but the delays in addressing the issue go back years. Jeremy Hunt, the former Conservative Secretary of State for Health admitted in a speech in early 2018 ‘In the past 20 years there have been five Green or White papers, numerous policy papers and 4 Independent Reviews into Social Care’ And yet nothing happened.  

Although the government is promising additional funds to deal with the immediate impact of COVID-19, the damage already caused by cuts to public sector spending on social care will not be quickly remedied.  The fact is that just promising more money does not necessarily translate into the capacity to provide the necessary resources immediately whether that’s PPE, which is still in short supply, or indeed, trained care workers.

Figures show that currently in the care sector there are over 120,000 unfilled vacancies with a growing reliance on agency staff to fill in the gaps (with all the health risks that that entails) which is particularly the case now as staff fall sick to COVID-19 and cannot work. Unless the government deals with the systemic problems caused by austerity and its belief in market solutions for public service provision, where profits are the driver and the focus quantitative rather than qualitative, the long term the future looks bleak for anyone who needs support as a result of sickness, disability or growing older.

The Resolution Foundation’s report ‘What happens after the clapping finishes? The pay, terms and conditions we choose for our care workers’ highlights the plight of many frontline care workers whether in public or private care environments.  It noted that around half of care workers, some 1 million people, were being paid less than the real living wage. In private care settings where the majority of care workers are employed as many as two-in-three earn below the Living Wage threshold. According to the report, many experience significant job insecurity and are four times more likely than average to be employed on a zero-hours contract. The Foundation stated that ‘Insecurity has become a structural feature of working life in social care. Zero-hour contracts have not been used sparingly, but instead have become the new normal in many settings. Blunt in its analysis it said ‘’Clapping is welcome, but care workers will value better pay and conditions even more’ and that ‘better pay in care should have long been a priority given the vital role care workers play in protecting the vulnerable’

Those hitherto labelled by politicians as ‘low-skilled’ workers are suddenly being propelled into the limelight and being lauded, quite rightly, as vital. Not just to meeting the challenges that COVID-19 is presenting, but also to the good functioning of society. And yet for decades, their contribution to the economy and to the wellbeing of society has gone unrecognised. The nation is learning this lesson the hard way as it watches the tragedy being played out daily as their friends, neighbours and family succumb to COVID-19 – people, not statistics.

Boris Johnson standing outside No 10 clapping for care workers is a clever distraction being cynically appropriated by a government whose political decisions over a decade caused the decay of vital public infrastructure, the provision of which does not depend on the healthy economy they claimed was necessary. Quite the reverse. Over 26,000 deaths already from COVID-19 can be added to the likely death toll of those who will have died at home or found themselves unable to present for worrying symptoms during the lockdown and the 120,000 which occurred as a result of harsh austerity measures which cut health services and welfare for vulnerable people. So, when the government says that their strategy in dealing with COVID-19 has been to ‘put their arms around every single worker’ we should see it for what it is. An attempt to create a caring narrative and expunge their austerity record.

But what if the country’s appreciation for its vital workers were to be rewarded in better pay and conditions? How could this be achieved?

Firstly, the care sector should be restored to publicly funded and delivered provision, rather than the profit-driven model which has dominated for decades as part of the neoliberal notion that the market delivers better outcomes.

The CHPI’s (Centre for Health and Public Interest) 2016 report noted that around £14bn is spent on adult social care annually in England, both for residential and home care delivered through local authorities. Authorities whose budgets have been cut over the past decade, leading to a decline in the numbers of older people receiving state-funded care services and who have no alternative but to fund their own care from their own financial resources.

It also noted that a significant number of care home providers are large chains which are backed by private equity – leaving them reliant on risky financial structures and exposed to collapse (as discussed earlier). It observes that over the past two decades, as a direct result of privatisation both the quality of care and the terms and conditions of the workforce have declined. Yet private providers have still managed to achieve significant rates of return on their capital investment.

The FT reported in February this year that there are growing concerns about public accountability of some of the larger private equity-owned care homes, particularly as failures increase. It quoted Nick Hood from Opus Restructuring who said ‘what has happened is that care homes have become financialised. Their owners are playing with debt and expecting returns of 12-14% and that is simply unsuitable for businesses with huge social responsibilities.

In those final few words stands the crux of the problem and at the same time the solution. Bring back health and social care as a publicly owned, publicly funded, publicly delivered and managed service.

Of course, the next pressing question is how will it be paid for? As a former Chancellor and initiator of the first round of austerity in 2010 George Osborne, clapped on by others, has warned that further severe cutbacks may be needed in the future to ‘pay for’ pandemic relief. Not content with having overseen the dismantlement of public and social infrastructure on the basis of its supposed unaffordability, he is recommending yet more pain which no doubt will be ‘paid for’ by yet more cuts or tax rises (except for the rich). Bringing yet more suffering to the most vulnerable, as the last foundational posts of a functioning society are kicked away in the belief that the rich are the wealth creators and we have to give them free rein to create it.

Despite the huge sums of public money being created to address the pandemic, the narrative that there will be a price to pay in the future continues to be pushed by those with an agenda. This extraordinary event is an opportunity to challenge the predominant descriptions of how money works in the real world. If the public genuinely comes to value those services which lie at the heart of a functioning economy, which after all is us, then it has a responsibility to get informed. An economics degree is not necessary to understand in simple terms how money works, what really constrains government spending and how we can build a better society to serve all.

In the Resolution Foundation’s report referred to above, it said ‘…we have to recognise that we can’t just wish that social care workers were paid more and leave it at that. This is a large sector heavily reliant on public funding, that has been through an era of sustained austerity and operates on extremely tight margins. […] If pay is to go up, taxpayers or those receiving care will need to meet the cost’.

In short, we need to challenge the perception that there are financial limits to government spending and that if pay is increased for essential workers then there will be a price to pay in higher taxes. We need to get with the facts. The finances of a currency-issuing nation such as the UK are nothing like a household or business and there can never be any excuse for essential public services such as health and social care not to be properly funded. Quite simply, the UK is the monopoly issuer of its own fiat currency and neither needs to tax or borrow in order to spend. Social care does indeed operate on ‘tight margins’ but it does so as a centrally decided political choice. Local authorities as users of the currency have no alternative when their central funding is reduced – they either have to cut services or increase local taxes thus imposing even more economic difficulties for working people.

The real questions are about resources. In an article entitled ‘Can coronavirus bring Economics back down to reality’ in The Week, Jeff Spross wrote: ‘The coronavirus is going to teach – or, to be more precise, reteach – some hard economic lessons. One of them is probably going to be for policymakers to focus on money a bit less and real resources more. […] the coronavirus has forced us to grapple with the most concrete, flesh-and-blood questions: Do we have the equipment we need to protect the public and care for the sick? Do we have enough food to feed everyone? And if we do, how do we actually get the equipment and the food to the people who need it?

If a lesson is to be learned this is it, not how are we going to pay for it.

 

In February, we were delighted to have Professor Bill Mitchell and Professor Steve Hall speak at our events in London and Manchester. We recorded the events and decided that the quality of the Manchester recording was the better of the two.

Slides for Professor Michell’s talk are available here

 

Join our mailing list

If you would like GIMMS to let you know about news and events, please click to sign up here

Support us

The Gower Initiative for Money Studies is run by volunteers and relies on donations to continue its work. If you would like to donate, please see our donations page here

 

Share

Tweet

Whatsapp

Messenger

Share

Email

reddit

Viber icon
Viber

The post The question is not how we will pay for the pandemic, but how government can use its currency-issuing capacity to deal with the most pressing issues of our time. appeared first on The Gower Initiative for Modern Money Studies.

Starmer’s and Rayner’s Zoom Discussion with Labour Members

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Mon, 27/04/2020 - 11:56pm in

Last Monday, 20th April 2020, I got an email update from the local constituency party here in south Bristol letting me and the other members know what was happening with the party. This included nationally as well as locally. This included the news that the previous Wednesday the new leader and deputy leader, Keir Starmer and Angela Rayner, had held a meeting over Zoom with 10,000 party members, answering their questions. Those discussed included

• How do we hold the Tories to account – related to the deaths of frontline workers

• How do we unite the Party in the light of the leaked report

• Can the green new deal be used to help rebuild the post pandemic economy

• How can we encourage more women in leadership

• A question about schools, keyworkers, PPE and tracing/testing

• Asked if Labour Party could push on the gaps for support for workers e.g. recently formed small business

• What about nationalisation post pandemic

• How to we stop the frontline workers being relegated after the crisis

• How will we oppose austerity

I am no fan of Starmer. He’s a right-winger, and the indications are that he will attempt to undo the gains for the left made under Corbyn and return to the party to the Conservative policies of privatisation and dismantling the welfare state under Blair. But the questions indicate that many members are still serious about nationalisation, the Green New Deal and opposing austerity, as well as placing more women in positions of leadership, alongside immediate, life and death issues such as holding the Tories to account for the deaths of front line workers.

Unfortunately, Starmer’s and Rayner’s answers aren’t recorded, so I don’t know what they were or how they intended to tackle these issues. But at least those issues are still live.

Haulage Industry Considers Nationalisation May Be Necessary

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Fri, 10/04/2020 - 7:54pm in

I found this very interesting piece in Wednesday’s edition of the I, for 8th April 2020. It reports that the head of the haulage industry believes that it might have to be nationalised in order to preserve it. The article, ‘Nationalisation may be needed, says chief’, runs

The haulage industry may need to be nationalised unless firms are given cash to avoid going bust, a trade association claims. Richard Burnett, chief executive of the Road Haulage Association, said around 20,000 companies have completely stopped operating, which is around 30 per cent of the sector.

Obviously, Burnett would almost certainly prefer those firms to be given cash by the government rather than nationalised. But this ties in with a comment on the BBC 10 O’clock news that evening, which is that there were some radical voices suggesting that the assistance given to industry must go further than the government’s present policy. According to the Beeb, they have suggested handing firms over to the banks, or part-nationalising them with the government as a partner.

I’ve also heard that some other countries are nationalising important industries in order to keep them running during the present crisis, a prospect that must surely terrify the Tories and their corporate backers over here.

Of the two options, I am massively in favour of nationalisation. The banks are too large, too powerful and too greedy and self-interested. Giving any industry to them will not guarantee that they will keep them running. Rather, I can see them doing to firms what the hedge funds have done to those they own – keep them starved of funds and running at a technical loss as a legal tax dodge. This works well until the company faces serious financial trouble, when the whole house of cards comes crashing down. As it has disastrously and scandalously with many care homes. Either that or the banks will simply use them as a cash cow, and the minute the companies experience trouble, will stop investing in them and try to sell them off or close them.

I’m massively in favour of the second option, partial nationalisation. The Oxford economist, Ha-Joon Chang, has pointed out in his book, 21 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, that those continental firms that are part owned by the state are more stable and long-lasting that those run for shareholders. It’s because the government has a vested interest in keeping them running. Unfortunately, with this lot in charge or the Blairites in the Labour party, I can see them selling the firms off at the earliest opportunity, and at a knockdown price below their market value the moment they decided that it’s safe to do so.

But for the moment, it seems that nationalisation is back on the agenda, if only at the fringes of the debate. And that means something else: Corbyn was right about the economy, as this crisis has shown.

Because, contrary to Thatcherite dogma, the free market isn’t going to preserve industry, and creates jobs and wealth. It never has, except for the rich. And this is shown very starkly in the present crisis.

 

Starmer Snubs Scotland by Appointing Nandy Shadow Foreign Secretary

Published by Anonymous (not verified) on Thu, 09/04/2020 - 4:10am in

More bad new for traditional, old Labour centrists like myself – the real Labour centrists, not the neoliberal, Thatcherites that came in with Blair. Keir Starmer has appointed Lisa Nandy his shadow Foreign Secretary. She’s another Blairite like him, but her appointment also means that he’s given up any hope of winning back Scotland for Labour. Nandy once offered her opinion on how to deal with Scottish independence by saying that we should look to Spain on how they dealt with separatism. Mike in his article stated that Scots would regard her as violent and offensive.

She was referring, of course, to the Spanish government sending in troops and militarised police into Catalonia after the head of the regional government there declared independence. I realise that the issue isn’t quite as black and white as it might appear, and that not all Catalans were behind their president’s decision to secede. But many people were appalled by this use of force on a democratically elected regional government, and the authoritarian brutality with which it was suppressed and its members and activists arrested. Tony Greenstein was one of those, for example, who decried it on his blog, and the refusal of the EU government to intervene in the Catalans’ favour.

Which raises the question of what Nandy believes a British government should do if something similar happens in the UK. If Nicola Sturgeon unilaterally held another independence referendum, and the majority of Scots voted in favour so that Sturgeon began formal moves to secede, would Nandy really support sending the troops in? That would turn even more Scots against Britain, and would create a situation north of the border very similar to Northern Ireland after we sent troops in there. It would create resentment and disaffection, which would in turn lead to violence in the shape of protests and terrorism.

I can’t really see this scenario happening. Sturgeon definitely wants a second referendum, but I’ve seen no indication yet that she means to break the law and hold one without the support of the UK government. But she was, however, determined to press for one. Nandy’s comment may well have been no more than a thoughtless remark given on the spur of the moment, rather than a genuine, deeply held opinion. But even so, it won’t endear her to the Scots or anyone else who believes in the democratic process of debate, elections and negotiations, rather than the use of the mailed fist.

And away from Scotland, it also doesn’t say much for her suitability as Foreign Secretary. Her stupid remark about Spain, with its implicit approval of the Spanish government’s actions, isn’t just offensive to Scots and Catalans. The Basques also have a very strong independence movement, which included a terrorist wing, ETA. Nandy obviously should not condone or support terrorism, but her comment also bodes ill for a peaceful Basque government, should they declare independence. As it does for any independence movement, anywhere. She has shown that she will support the dominant national government against separatists, and that has very serious implications for those movements in countries, whose government is definitely brutal and oppressive. One of the great iniquities of the late 20th century was that no government raised a protest against Indonesia’s invasion of East Timor in 1971 or thereabouts. Yet during the following thirty years the Indonesian government and its troops massacred about a third or a half of the island nation’s people.

The case of Catalonia is also disturbing, because for many people across Spain and Europe the government’s actions were reminiscent of Spain’s former dictator, General Franco, and his brutal regime. Franco seized power by overthrowing the democratically elected Republican government. This included a range of political parties, from Liberals to Socialists and Communists, and so was not a Communist regime, as its opponents tried to paint it. However, the Anarchists had seized power in Catalonia, and so Franco made a deliberate point of retaking that region before taking Madrid and formally ending the war. His regime then embarked on a reign of terror, massacring their former opponents. Their mass graves are being excavated by archaeologists, as people demand that the memories of the brave men and women, who died fighting Franco, be commemorated and their sacrifice recognised and celebrated. It’s controversial, because there are figures on the right, who would rather this did not happen. And the squalid dictator’s own mausoleum is the focus of particular rancour and controversy. Franco claimed it commemorated all the victims of the war, but in reality it’s just a monument to Franco and his goons, the Fascists and Falangists. Modern Spain’s suppression of Catalan independence may well carry overtones of Franco’s brutal suppression of the province. This might be a superficial impression, but if it’s there, it’ll be a powerful feeling of renewed historical grievances. And Nandy definitely should not say anything to stoke them.

Domestically, her appointment also shows that Starmer and the Blairites aren’t interested in appointing someone more suitable, who would stand a chance of reviving Labour up there. And without Scotland, there’s no chance of Labour winning a general election, which means we’re going to be faced with more years of Tory rule.

And that show you in turn how malicious the Blairites are. They would rather Labour lost elections and the Tories continued their campaign of privatisation, including the selling off of the NHS, and the dismantlement of the welfare state, rather than have a socialist in charge of the Labour party and in power at No. 10.

I hope I’m wrong, and that Nandy turns out to be a better shadow minister than she appears and that Starmer at least tries to win back Scotland. But for now the omens aren’t good.

See: https://voxpoliticalonline.com/2020/04/06/nandy-appointed-shadow-foreign-secretary-labour-has-no-plans-to-regain-scottish-seats/

Pages