There are *Infinite* Government Funds For Anything we Need. So what’s stopping us?

Quote

Austerity is a political choice, and with political will we can have a fair and just society for the many.

This is why the right wing parties, and the UK media owned by ultra-rich, reviles Jeremy Corbyn and Labour’s superb manifesto. They know it is the truth, that there are infinite funds, and that tax is not required for funds, but as a tool for redistribution and to control inflation. Money can never just ‘run out’.

We can invest and build anything we want, as long we have resources and people to do the work. We have plenty of both, so what are we waiting for? Let’s build a society which prioritises people before privilege.

Most voters accept that the Tories are the party of privilege, and when presented with a manifesto, often refer to it as a ‘wish’ list promised just to achieve power, and feel it is  unaffordable and therefore the Labour Party has unrealistic aspirations. What is true, is that there does need to be a government with the political choice to oppose austerity, and to invest in people’s lives. What is untrue, however, is that we are limited by affordability.

Few people would disagree that we need homes, health, education, a good standard of living, and to protect our planet in a Green New Deal. The Labour Party has the political will to deliver this, but needs to have an overall majority in parliament to oppose those who act in self interest and to challenge those whose politics are designed to benefit for a few ultra wealthy individuals and not the vast majority of ordinary people.

ACCEPTING THE TRUTH:

The first thing in achieving a fair and just society is to realise two shocking facts:

    Firstly, we have been sold the greatest and most effective political lie ever told. It was been repeated relentlessly for as long as most of us can remember and in reality for even longer.
    1. And secondly, the fact that the

UK Government’s supply of  money is **LIMITLESS!**

** NB ** INFINITE  as long as there is a sovereign currency, as we do in the UK. Countries like poor Greece, in the €uroZone do not.

Yes, we have an unlimited supply of funds to achieve our aim, but unbridled spending does depend on adequate resources and inflation control.

1) Resources: Trained personnel, natural resources and energy

There needs to be adequate planning of training and natural resources in order to invest. This is not limited by funds, but still limits what can be achieved. Boris Johnson’s ill fated claim that he would build 40 hospitals may have been affordable, but it would be pointless without sufficiently skilled medical personnel to staff them. In simplistic terms, there is no point in building a diamond mine without any diamonds. Or to promise every citizen a diamond when limited by availability of diamonds.

2) Inflation is caused by too much cash in the system, and allowing those with the cash to bid higher and higher for resources, hence prices rise.  The solution to avoidance of inflation this is either:

a) Austerity- put less cash into the system or

b) To tax more cash out of the system hence it’s called a “tax return”.

Austerity is a political choice. It makes a horrible mess of society. It destroys lives, decimates public services, and the estimated unnecessary deaths from the Tory/Lib austerity programme is 130,000 lives, and most likely is many more.

Austerity is not and never was necessary. It was never designed to ‘fix the economy in the national interest’. After WW2, so many homes were destroyed, yet even when there was a shortage of resources, the Labour government set about building the 750,000 homes needed.

The Tories’ concern is not about the economy, but a cynical diversion of cash in the system to the billionaires in their tax-free-islands who already have more wealth than they can ever use.

Tax

The alternative way of limiting inflation is to reduce the cash in the system by taxation, by retrieving some of it, but not by taxing the poor. So many of the rich and wealthy are avoiding paying any or little tax.

Taxes have three functions:

✅ control inflation

✅ redistribute wealth (progressive/ regressive)

✅ Influence public behaviour (i.e. reduce smoking, fines for speeding etc.)

❌ Taxes ARE NOT required to fund public expenditure. We can print infinite cash.

 

Dispelling the Myth

So we need to break free of this crazy “household budget” analogy; it’s a falsehood. Margaret Thatcher justified her economics by putting government expenditure on the same footing as household budgets. This idea is accessible because it’s something we all need to do if we are to survive. But the idea that governments depend on some kind of biscuit tin full of cash, hidden at the back of some gigantic larder is ludicrous. In the past there was a limiting factor when currency was tied to Gold Reserves. Since the link was broken, ( MMT), cash is infinite and created by fingers on keyboards instantly. So the idea that the government is spending the taxpayers’ money and needs them to pay for it is absurd, and framing language in this way is a deceptive politically device.

It is difficult to accept that truth because of that great effective lie which has kept the obscene wealth owned off-shore by the ultra rich untouchable for generations.

That cynical Tory lie is unravelling as they come unstuck by their own sudden alarming availability of funds for dubious reasons, while denying the affordability for projects which most people would find admirable.

The Tory lie is coming unstuck when they:

  • Bribe DUP £1bn
  • Can’t explain where cash is coming from for spending promises (because it will undermine the lie)
  • Can pay £600m to repatriate Thomas Cook customers but …
  • Won’t pay £450m to save Thomas Cook and save people’s jobs (saving £600m)

We should not think of money being “spent” or “wasted”.  All are  transactions, so money (much like energy in physics) cannot be destroyed, just transferred. It then becomes a simple matter of analysing the transfer:

* from rich to poor people

* or from poor to rich people?

Households have to earn cash and if they spend more than they earn they go bankrupt but governments (with sovereign currency) can never go bankrupt; that is an impossibility.

The unhelpfully named ‘National Debt’ is not a debt owed by Government or by the nation but it is cash lent by Central Bank, to society, to facilitate exchange of resources.

INSTANT MONEY

Ever since August 15th 1971, states have created money out of thin air by typing on keyboards at the Central Banks. Those keystrokes make the balance of accounts in private banks go up when a person or company receives a payment, and they make those balances go down when a person or company pays taxes to the state. Therefore, the state can’t run out of its own money and the idea of it saving its own currency becomes nonsensical. Companies and families do need to save because they are users, not issuers, of money, but the state doesn’t save in its own currency because it can always issue as much as it wants and it can never run out of it. In this way, money stops being a commodity and becomes a mere accounting entry (Wray 2012). Furthermore, the capacity of the state to spend stops being dependent on the collection of taxes or on the issuing of debt (Mosler 2010). However, taxes keep on being necessary, but not to finance the current spending of the state, but to accomplish a double function: they give value to money and they control aggregate demand (consumption capacity). Through the first function, they assure that state money will be accepted as a payment means , and through the second, they control inflation.

IMMIGRATION

In terms of resources, there is a link between economics and current politics  which concerns immigration. It is not an issue about whether immigration is good or bad. There has always been a movement of people since time began; in fact it is necessary in evolutionary terms.

But the issue is how people are being utilised. If wages are undercut and held back, if there is not an investment in training and in education in local populations, then the labour resources are unsustainable, and so is the standard of living.

The government has kept wages low. There is inadequate work for people to enable them to afford homes and food for their families. Short term employment – often of an hour  a week – falsifies employment levels, and people on short-term or zero-hours contracts have little or no employment rights and protection. In reality there is unemployment and underemployment which is intentional, artificial and political,  and so wages become more and more depressed.

In contrast, while there is insufficient well-paid work, skilled staff are in short supply because of a failure of the government to invest in education and training. For example, there has been a cut to bursaries for nursing staff to train, and to provide adequate childcare for workers.

There will be a shortage of staff beneficial to society such as trained nurses and doctors because of under-investment in training and education, and therefore without  further immigration those skills are unavailable.

It is no way anti-immigrant to argue that human resources and skills are underdeveloped and underused in the local population, people who are unable to afford tuition fees for training, and who cannot live and support themselves or a family without maintenance grants. However, it is understandable when people are living in poverty and are paid less than it costs for housing and food become resentful and that  they feel the cause is immigration, when in fact the cause is economics and utilisation of people. It is arguable that there should be greater  investment for training more local people who are otherwise unemployed or underemployed rather than draining skills and labour from other countries.

Objections are not anti-immigrant but anti-exploitation and it is questionable (if all things were equal) whether there would be mass immigration of people from their homelands and whether freedom of movement is a true liberty, or that it is simply driven by economic and sociological conflict factors.

Movement as a choice, rather than movement resulting from having no alternative, is a different issue and separating families as we have seen as result of recent anti immigration policies is appalling and must be rejected.

EUROZONE

** In the UK, we have the ability to turn our economy around to benefit the people, and not the billionaires, because we still have our own currency. Because of the Euro, the Greek government could absolutely go bankrupt, as per the household budget analogy as they had no sovereign currency, i.e.) they couldn’t print the cash to meet obligations to the EU.

It was a false comparison to scaremonger the UK electorate with Greece, and it is false scaremongering in the news that the expectation of the EU is for UK to join the Euro. Those states who signed up to the Eurozone are trapped within it.

Fiat socialism is a name for an open and prosperous society ruled by the principles of the modern monetary theory and functional finance. It is a society without unemployment or poverty, in which everybody has a decent job (either in the private sector, or in the public sector) which allows him or her to fulfil all basic needs and coordinate working and private life because of reasonable time schedules. A society in which public services, education and health access are of the highest quality, and in which the level of prices remains stable.

Further Reading

From Think Left:

Published Books:

  • NHS plc The Privatisation of Our Health Care: Allyson M Pollock
  • The Courageous State: Richard Murphy
  • Treasure Islands Tax Havens and the Men who stole the World:  Nicholas Shaxson
  • Tax Havens How Globalization Really Works:  Palan, Murphy and Chavgneux
  • School Wars The Battle for Britain’s Education : Melissa Benn
  • The Plot Against the NHS:  Colin Leys and Stewart Player
  • Bad Pharma: Ben Goldacre

References

 

@Dave Gillian Twitter https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1178436669789356033.html 

https://braveneweurope.com/carlos-garcia-fiat-socialism

General Election Update #VoteLabour

Quote

Who’d have thought we’d be having a General Election today after Theresa May’s six denials?

Jeremy Corbyn did… and that’s the sort of leadership that’s caused so many to change their minds about him:

John Prescott: “Two years ago I never thought Jeremy could even lead the Labour Party, let alone the country. But he has proved me wrong. Big time,”

So here we are on an election day that we never expected for another three years. They thought Labour were down and out … but it hasn’t happened quite like that. It has given us a platform, an opportunity to show the country what Labour with Jeremy Corbyn as a leader could become… and what Theresa May is really like as prime minister.

As  Emily Thornberry says:

Many public figures have had scales drop from their eyes about the true nature of Jeremy Corbyn and have acknowledged openly that they were wrong … we’ve lost count of former Corbyn-sceptics who have changed their minds.

(A quick read of Conservative Home comments reveals the same about Theresa May .. but not in a good way).

Think Left says:

With the Tories amalgamating with Ukip and the cross-party Brexit mess, Labour are unlikely to win a majority but they may be able to form a minority government.  Frankly, we’ll be happy if instead of the predicted landslide, the Conservatives lose their current majority … but whatever happens, remember that in April, we were facing three more years of this government regardless. In that sense, nothing much will have been changed if the Tories win.

But in another way, everything has changed.

The Labour left have had substantial gains in credibility and they have succeeded in putting before the electorate a different vision of how society could be… the Overton window has widened and a left wing platform no longer sounds ridiculous. We must not lose heart… regardless of winning or losing, the fight must and will go on.  It took 40y to get back to this place and the success we and Corbyn&Co have already achieved is phenomenal.

The Labour Party has changed and can only get stronger now whatever the result of this GE.

By the way .. the Regional Swings according to You Gov’s latest polling:

London – Lab to Con 0.1%
Rest of South – Con to Lab 5.6%
Midlands/Wales – Con to Lab 2.0%
North – Con to Lab 1.3%
Scotland – Lab to Con 7.2%, SNP to Con 11.5%

(Stats by CMJ)

However, one thing is crystal clear …

Labour can’t win unless you go out and VOTE !!!

The #Brexit Plus – That’s what the Election is about.

Quote

From Jenny King

Theresa May wants to make the General Election all about Brexit. And how we manage Brexit IS massively important, as it’s vital that we get a deal which looks after our economy, workers’ rights, the environment and safety. But…

 

  • This is not JUST a Brexit election.

  • This is a: “Can you stomach children going to school hungry?” election

  • It’s a: “Can my adult kids afford somewhere to live” election

  • It’s a: “Are you happy with yet another pay freeze?” election

  • It’s a: “Can you sit by while your small business struggles and another tax break is given to large corporations?” election

  • It’s a: “Do we want to protect our NHS?” election

  • It is a: “Can you live with people being homeless?” election

  • It’s a: “Can we continue to compromise our safety by cutting the police force?” election 

  • It’s an: “Are you happy that hate crime has risen sharply?” election

  • It’s an: “Are you happy with your Prime Minister cosying up to Trump and everything he stands for?” election

  • It’s a: “Do you want libraries, museums, playing fields and public leisure facilities?” election

  • It’s a: “Do we let our doctors, nurses, teachers and police and the rest of our public  be ground into the dust?” election

  • It’s a: “Can you manage on an unreliable zero hours contract?” election

  • It’s a: “Do we want to support British industry?” election

  • It’s a: “Should we let people die while they wait for their welfare entitlements?” election

  • It’s a: “Do we care if school budgets are cut or that they tripled university tuition fees? election 

  • It’s a: “How do we care for our elderly people” election.

Getting a decent Brexit deal is an important part of this election.
But more than anything else: 

  • It’s a: “WAKE UP AND DO THE RIGHT THING” election
  • It’s a: “GET THE TORIES OUT” election!

Please share!

Tom Watson has surfaced…

Quote

Tom Watson has urged voters to back their local Labour MP in order to avoid a “Margaret Thatcher-style” landslide that would make it difficult to hold the Conservatives to account.

Labour’s deputy leader said the party had a “mountain to climb” over the four weeks until the general election and was lagging behind in the polls with all income groups, including working-class voters.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2017/may/12/tom-watson-labour-jeremy-corbyn-determined-to-stop-thatcher-style-tory-landslide

 

The subtext is that Jeremy Corbyn is the reason for the ‘mountain to climb’… and that even if they are put off by Corbyn, voters can and should still vote for their Labour MP knowing that they are not Corbyn-supporters.  The idea is also that because the Labour anti-Corbyn MPs have ‘sat on their hands’ and kept quiet, Corbyn will have to take responsibility for the catastrophic defeat.  (However, I somehow doubt that it’ll work like that…)

To date, Tom Watson has been noticeably absent which is strange for the Deputy Leader of the LP in the middle of a General Election Campaign.   However, a number of other stories have also emerged in the last week.  The LP manifesto was leaked in its draft form, apparently maliciously.  Ben Bradshaw and Frank Field seem to have already rejected it wholesale, and are writing their own.

Chuka Umunna and friends have issued a demand to stay in the single market.  The new pamphlet, whose backers include former frontbenchers Stephen Timms, Stella Creasy, Rushanara Ali, Karen Buck, David Lammy, Seema Malhotra and Andy Slaughter, explicitly opposes leaving the single market because it would mean “lower growth and fewer jobs” 

And who can forget John Woodcock’s bizarre video saying that he would not vote for Jeremy Corbyn to be Prime Minister.

All this is on top of a Telegraph article reporting that 100 Labour MPs will resign the Labour whip and set up as the official opposition, probably led to Yvette Cooper.  There are quite a number of problems with this plan, not least that if that is their intention, they are currently standing under false pretences as Labour candidates.

The respected commentator Squidapedoyt responses to this suggestion are well worth considering in the light of the above:

‘One cannot help wondering just whose side these so-called “Labour” MPs are on. They waffle a lot about “effective opposition to the Tories” but when they are asked to get specific about exactly what that means, they go all vague. This is because it is very difficult to “oppose the Tories” by putting forward exactly the same policies. But hush, we had better be well-mannered and not talk about that.’

‘But hey, let’s take the silly and simplistic way out, blame [Jeremy Corbyn] for everything, and resign ourselves to life under the predators forever, ripped off for everything, with falling living standards and services everyone depends on being shredded, while the wealthy double their wealth at our expense every decade or so. That is what being “realistic” and “moderate” means.’

‘Poor old Corbyn. He has to campaign not only against the Tories but against 85% of the press and many of his own MPs too. This is his punishment for advancing sensible policies which many people long to see. Nobody could win in his place. The task is simply not possible.’

‘Good old PLP,  loyal as ever. Can always be relied on for a destructive intervention at a key point.  They have been effectively “sitting as independents” for months anyway. They refuse to acknowledge the leadership exists. If the Office of the Leader asks them to do something, they may do it, or they may do something else, or they may sit on their hands and do nothing.’

‘This story is just smoke and mirrors. it is a piece of propaganda worked up out of the usual unattributable sources just as Labour began to make serious inroads into the Tory poll lead.’

”On reflection, this story has to be a bit of malicious rumour-mongering and nothing else. Consider the position of a Labour MP who had resigned the whip and joined a new independent group. They would instantly be in serious strife with their local party branch. Many of them may feel confident they can carry the local party with them, but they will be in for a shock, especially with the recent changes in the composition of the membership. They would no longer have the help of the anti-Corbyn faction on the NEC and in the party’s apparat to log-roll for them and keep unruly branch memberships in order, because they would have cut themselves off from the party. They would lose access to funding and to research and administrative facilities. They might get expelled from their local branch offices and have to find new physical premises. If they sat as members of an independent group, they could even be expelled from the party for supporting a political organisation other than the Labour party, like those activists who recently got the push for trying to organise a progressive alliance with other parties. It’s too much for them to risk.’

‘Corbyn’s “crime” is he has put forward policies to try to change the direction of this country; “for the many, not the few”. He has been punished by having to fight not only the Tories but most of the media and many of his own MPs. Question is could anyone else have done any better? His policies are actually very popular, but “play the man, not the ball” is very effective, unfortunately.’

‘The other reason is more fundamental. Labour’s right wing (code-named “moderates”, but actually neither their policies nor their behaviour is really moderate at all) may waffle a lot about the need for effective opposition to the Tories. But when they are pressed for specifics about what exactly this means, they go all vague and start to talk in jargon and buzzwords. This is in order to hide the fact that it is very difficult to effectively oppose the Tories by putting forward basically identical policies.’

”There are two reasons why Labour has not been a more effective opposition. One is that the majority of MPs refuse to acknowledge the existence of the leadership. If the Office of the Leader asks them to do something, they may do it, or perhaps do something else, or perhaps even sit on their hands and do nothing. Then, having made effective opposition impossible, they blame Corbyn.’

 

The Corbyn-supporting membership are not sitting on their hands but are working extremely hard to help anti-Corbyn MPs be re-elected because for us, it is always better to have a Labour MP than a Tory.  It is not asking a great deal to expect that our Labour PPCs should show loyalty (in public at least) to the democratically elected leader.  Many of us had to keep our mouths shut during the New Labour years.  Unfortunately, the impression left by some is that they would rather that the Conservatives are returned to government with all that that means for the NHS, Education, those with disability, social care, the environment, climate change, children growing up in poverty and more.  They should think again about what they are doing.

 

 

 

‘I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to choose the candidates’

Quote

The actual quote is ‘‘I don’t care who does the electing as long as I get to do the nominating’ (Boss Tweed) … which is actually more to the point in the LP.

Think about it and it’s obvious – there is never just one election. There’s the one that we all know about and can vote in … and the one before where the candidates are chosen. The small numbers of people who determine the candidates are the gatekeepers and it doesn’t matter how good the franchise in the total electorate if the candidates are all out of the same box.

This isn’t a new problem. The rioting in Hong Kong 2014 (and since) was because the people were only offered a ‘democratic choice’ between those candidates chosen by the Chinese government.

In the US, they have primaries to choose the Democratic and Republican candidates who will contest the presidential election… but in reality only those candidates who are fantastically rich like Trump or funded by a small number of the mega-rich will make it as far as the primaries (hence Boss Tweeds’ quote). Bernie Sanders was the notable exception in not being beholden to large donors or Wall Street … and not coming from the 0.01%.

With legal limits on donations, there is nothing like the same big money problem in the UK… although there is much to be written about donors making it into the Lords and doubtless a great deal more, shrouded in secrecy. We also know that there are corporate and wealthy individual donors* from outside of the LP who are funding anti-Corbyn groups…

However, the Labour Party has a much more immediate, home grown, internal problem with gatekeepers, which has really come to the fore with the unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn as leader.

Currently, the LP is a bit like a toasted sandwich. The top and the bottom are on the same page… democratic socialists. But the squidgy layers in the middle are the branch/constituency officers, councilors, LP staffers, MEPs and MPs who largely pre-date the Corbyn surge and are various shades of social democrats … the so-called soft left, Labour First and Progress aka the ABCs (the anyone but Corbyn brigade).

But significantly, it is the squidgy bits (and not the grassroots) that constitute the gatekeepers as to who can stand as a candidate.

Unsurprisingly, the ABCs choose candidates who share their social democrat politics and are invariably anti-Corbyn (eg Stoke Central, Oldham, Copeland and so-on)…

In other words, they choose candidates who do not represent the 61% of grassroots members who voted for Jeremy Corbyn… and the result is that the social democratic squidgies maintain their presence in positions of power.

Clearly by so doing, they put the majority of the grassroots in a hugely difficult position. Do they actively campaign for a right wing candidate, unrepresentative of the leadership or the grassroots, because ‘anyone from Labour is better than a Tory’**? Or do they reject the squidgies’ choice and lose a Labour seat? (The election of Sadiq Khan as London Mayor is a perfect example of the conundrum).

Given this state of affairs, anger is mounting to new heights as the ABC gatekeepers try to block democratic socialists from becoming branch/CLP officers or from standing as parliamentary or council candidates.

For many, this is the final straw on top of the last 22 months of coups, expulsions, suspensions, false allegations, tricks and sleights of hand by the ABCs. The stories are legion from packing selection meetings, excluding the full membership from voting, suspensions on spurious grounds and other techniques from the playlist provided by ‘The Hammer of the Left” (John Goulding’s book about ridding the LP of militant and excluding Tony Benn supporters).

It’s no surprise then that formal challenges are beginning to be mounted, and given the lack of support from the squidgy regional and national bodies, these are including legal ones.

For example, last month, eighteen pro-Corbyn members in Ealing LP were given unconvincing reasons as to why they were not considered as suitable to stand in selections for next year’s borough elections. This scale of rejection at this stage in the election cycle is unprecedented. And as a result, left wingers in Ealing CLP have decided to take legal action. (Donations gratefully received).

http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/jeremy-corbyn-supporters-crowdfund-legal-battle-to-challenge-labour-party-selections-a3514421.html

 

In Newham, there is an appeal to the national LP and their MPs to investigate the 2016 Mayoral ballot and the suspension of dissenting members. This is backed up by a 38 degrees petition. https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/justice-for-newham-s-left?bucket&source=facebook-share-button&time=1492379140

Now, it needs to understood that these are not isolated examples of the squidgy bit blocking toasty Corbyn supporters. These are just Corbyn-supporting members (like the majority of the membership) not feeling that they have any other choice. The grassroots left can’t even appeal to the regional or national bodies because those bodies are also overwhelmingly dominated and controlled by the squidgy layer.

Of course, this internal mismatch all started with the unexpected election of Jeremy Corbyn.

Cast your mind back to June 2015. The Left were in despair because there was a choice of three pretty much identikit and non-descript candidates. It was so uniform and uninspiring that non-Corbyn supporting MPs were persuaded to make up the numbers to nominate Jeremy in an attempt to make the whole process look a bit more democratic.

In other words by default, the PLP gatekeeping process broke down… and to the ABC’s horror, Jeremy was elected by an overwhelming majority of the grassroots. (The Right has done nothing but try and depose him ever since – using not so much fair as foul means).

The issue boils down to whether the LP is a democratic organization representing its grassroots membership or whether the LP is actually its elected representatives… and of course, taking note that the LP’s elected MPs and councilors have all been successful in being passed by the gatekeepers.

Why is this particularly relevant now?

It’s because we are in a bit of an impasse. The ABCs say that Jeremy Corbyn is unelectable in 2020. However, this view is hardly convincing when it is clear that they will fight tooth and nail to make it impossible for another more ‘plausible’ but similarly leftwing candidate to replace Corbyn. The most obvious way out of the impasse is for the number of nominations required from sitting MPs to be lowered (although in my view, nominations should be abolished completely)

This is the purpose of the so-called McDonnell proposal scheduled for LP conference in September. The argument is that by lowering the ‘gate’ to 5% of MPs, left wing MPs would not be excluded from standing for the leadership of the LP.

How are they ‘fighting tooth and nail’?

One is by proposing an amendment to reverse the leadership voting away from OMOV and back to the old system in which the MPs, the Trade Unions and the membership each have a third of the vote.

Another is by trying to pack the conference with anti-Corbyn delegates to vote against the McDonnell amendment …

And yet another is to try and make sure that their candidates re-elected onto the Conference Arrangements Committee and the National Constitutional Committee.

So this is but another version of the gatekeeping… by engineering to pack conference with anti-Corbyn delegates, the ABCs hope to ensure that amendments contrary to the views of the Corbyn-supporting majority of the membership are carried.  This can well happen because this is exactly what occurred at last year’s conference.

To be clear these tricks have been used over and over again, reaching their zenith, under the command and control tactics of New Labour. They are profoundly undemocratic in both spirit and structure and the very future of the LP is at stake unless it can be reformed and reconstituted. Needless to say, they also underpin the parachuting of candidates***, like Tristram Hunt, into safe Labour parliamentary seats but that’s a topic for another day.

For now, the imperative is to make sure that we send representative delegates to conference, preferably mandated to vote for the McDonnell resolution and to vote for these grassroots candidates to the CAC and NCC.

Unfortunately, we seem to be fighting for a Labour Party against a core of people such as Blair and Mandelson, who would rather that the LP was dead than red.  In fact, Tony Blair is said to be intending to create a new ‘centre’ SDP2 party and announce it just before the 2020 GE.  I think that says it all.

The LP needs to be less of a toasted sandwich and for the whole membership to gain a proper respect for democracy and fair play.

 

* Gossip is that Lord Sainsbury is transferring his thousands away from Progress to Tony Blair’s new party.

**New Labour managed to lose 5m voters by 2005 but were still returned to gov’t because the blairites relied on there being nowhere else for the Left to go.

***In fact, with Constituency by-elections, there are two sets of gate-keepers, and arguably three. Three members of the NEC draw up a short-list, from which the CLP can choose a PPC (Prospective Parliamentary Candidate) .. So, whoever chooses which NEC members will vet the short-list has a tremendous impact on the final choice of PPC. This is the mechanism by which Blairite candidates like Tristam Hunt were parachuted into safe seats like Stoke Central, regardless of their lack of local roots.

How Blairites rigging 2017 conference delegates – are they doing it to YOUR CLP?

 

That’s why it’s called a ‘struggle!’

Quote

By Theresa Byrne, previously published here
Ok I’ll start in the traditional style, and confess: I pinched the headline from Jeremy Corbyn’s speech to Scottish Labour. But it summed up my feelings and emotions over the last few days. Yes politics is a struggle, yes it is a constant push for progressiveness. And that is why most of us are in it.Change is not easy, whether it is changing a habit or changing a mind set. That is a psychological and emotional given. The Labour party is about change. Change in society, change in economics, change in politics. Many within the party forgot that after 1997, because the changes in society that were introduced were easily done. And were in many ways relatively superficial.

Take an example. The National Minimum Wage was introduced in 1999. It was profound in many ways, as the government said via the Low Pay Commission ‘this is the minimum people can be paid’. Many people on very low wages received a significant increase in their wages, the threatened job losses never materialised in the numbers forecast, the amount of the NMW slowly crept up, and the Tories accepted it as inevitable. But the amount of the NMW was not a significant amount of money, not really enough to live on and still required additional benefits from both government and local councils in order for families and people to survive. The concept was excellent but the execution left much to be desired. The underlying philosophy of poorly paid jobs with poor prospects was not directly challenged by the government, it was accepted. A superficial change to the pay structure was introduced but the two or three tier job market remained. Where was the necessary investment in manufacturing that could have created better jobs? Where was the governmental challenge to repeated outsourcing of work by business which encouraged the minimum level jobs and eventually to zero hours work?

Opportunities to challenge and significantly change the way society operated at an economic level were missed by the Labour Government between 1997 and 2010. We missed the chance to have the arguments and discussions about the links between taxation and public services, preferring to allow PFIs to pay for new hospitals and schools, and to allow the financial services bubble to pay for other investments. We did not regulate the financial markets so the crash that happened in 2008 caused horrendous problems to the economy and to people, as the Government scrambled to save the banking industry. We also then allowed the Tories to set the myth that we overspent, even when they had agreed with our spending plans back in 2007.

If we had made the case for taxation paying for public services, people would have understood that Labour was not overspending. We were providing those services such as the Health Service, social care, education etc in common, as common goods where we share the responsibility and the cost of provision together because we share the goods. We pay for the services, they are not ‘provided’ for us through a vague government spending concept but through taxation paid by everyone and a progressive taxation system where the more income you have the more you pay is the balanced and fair way to tax. But this argument was not made. And by the time we needed to challenge the myth it was too late, our opportunity has passed by. We have to remember that in 1997 the schools, hospitals and local services were in such a dire situation that the people understood that (i) a new government was needed and (ii) that serious investment was demanded. That was our opportunity to make the case for taxation to pay for the services and people were open to us, to our new ideas. We failed to make that case. Again we superficially changed by investing through PFIs but the underlying philosophy of linking taxation to public services as a part of a civilised society to challenge the economic view of taxation as a necessary evil that should be reduced for a small state was not made.

Our struggle now must be to understand, explain and argue for fundamental change in society, in economics and in politics which is what Jeremy Corbyn is about. The policies he has put forward, with John McDonnell, about investment in housing, in education, in the Health Service and local government, in secure jobs are all direct challenges to the neo-liberal free market knows best economics that have been in existence for over 30 years. The struggle is about asking questions about people’s perceptions, talking with them about why we believe that investment in housing is not just good for providing a home but for jobs, for increasing taxation in the economy, allowing people to establish themselves and build a community. Talk with them about the importance of security in work, how it builds community, allows children to feel secure, allows more people to become active and involved in their local community at a volunteer level because they can relax and not worry so much about still having a job tomorrow or next week. Talk with them about a good quality Health Service where having a serious illness is not a cause for money worries but an opportunity to focus on the importance of getting better, or dealing with the psychological consequences of illness. Talk to people are having a good social care system integrated with health, housing, community links so that elderly people, those with disabilities can be part of the community and know that their needs are being dealt with not just adequately but well and with respect.

We are facing a challenge, the challenge to change and more importantly to struggle to get our voices heard. We are being challenged but we must rise to the struggle together. We have a leader who wants us to be with him, to stand alongside him in the fight. If we are to be true to our comradeship, then we stand shoulder to shoulder, in solidarity with Jeremy Corbyn ready for the struggle, for the fight. We are doing it with and for the people, lending our strength and voice to their struggle as all in solidarity. We must not be found wanting, and I am sure we will not be. We will change the world, to a world of peace and justice where no one and no community is left behind step by step by step.