In Britain, Prime Minister May has called a General Election because she wants a second vote on Brexit.
In France, one of the most likely Presidential candidates who could get into the second round, Macron, has broken from his traditional party to lead a charge back to Blair and Clinton; reversing at full speed to a fuzzy version of state social-support and a sharp appeal for unregulated capitalism. The right wing Republican, Fillon, wants to destroy labour rights, going further back to Reagan and Thatcher - but he looks stuffed as a result of his corruption. Two other possible candidates for the second round, out of the four whose polling could place them in the Presidential runoff after 23 April, Melenchon and Le Pen, both claim that France needs a fight with globalisation and oppose the role of the EU. They propose a very different sort of fight, opposite in their approach. But all these candidates for the French Presidency at least stand for something. Le Pen's sights are on a failing Macron and the Presidential election of 2022. But even now none of the leading candidates simply wish to rehearse the previous election to make sure that this time it is done properly. Which underlines PM May's worthless exercise in Britain.
May says (at the moment) she will not do TV debates. Nothing really to debate. Her aim is to get the Election done, quick and nasty. Get the Brexit vote out - again. Gather up the 4 million UKIP voters that are currently watching UKIP collapse. Ride the 'leadership' horse as she hides her own mediocre and self serving political persona in the general media and right wing Labour howl against Labour leader Corbyn. Break up Labour in parts of the north (hopefully) and win a couple of seats more than Labour in Scotland and Wales (hopefully) then its all done and dusted. And the British electorate? They get to choose a bigger and better Brexit than the first time round when they voted in the Referendum and the prospect of a 90 plus Tory majority running the government for the next 5 years.
Corbyn has already started to 'go French.' He says the election is not about Brexit, its about the sort of country that Britain should be. He has hit the central weakness of May's campaign. Whatever damage right wing Labour MPs have done to their leadership, 7 weeks is long enough to clarify that while Briton's do not need another vote for Brexit, they do need working hospitals, support for the expanding education system (and not the 11+!) They need a decisive end to May's extension of Cameron's austerity.
But Corbyn must also 'go more British'; internationalist British, just as Melenchon goes internationalist French. No more equivocation on immigration. Say it loud and proud. Every worker and refugee welcome here, and every employer will pay all their workers the new minimum wage. No more hesitation on the right of Scotland to decide its own future whenever it wants. And yes, time for British politicians to support the discussion for a united Ireland in the context of the vote of the Northern Irish people over EU membership.
And Corbyn needs to be 'more political'. Rebuilding a new Labour Party after the assault to smash it up in May's Brexit election will need new alliances and coalitions with others who agree on basic principles (rather than endless concessions to MPs who would rather have the Tories win than see a genuinely radical Labour Party.) May's blows against Labour (enhanced sadly by many Labour MPs) will require a lot of reconstruction, work among the people and building a movement on common ground. That's ok. So long as Labour's left do not go back to sleep they can tear a hole through May's election goals, before and after June 8, building something fresh that can take on the waves of crises that are certainly coming in what remains Europe's weakest link.
Wednesday, 19 April 2017
Tuesday, 18 April 2017
May fights for the right
The next British General Election is 7 weeks away. Prime minister May has dropped her constant insistence that there will be no British Election until 2020. The political commentator with the Sun newspaper (a Tory paper but with biggest circulation in England and Wales) has stated that he was surprised, that Teresa May had promised no election, and that he thought it was a bad idea for May to change her mind. But many others, including the Corbyn leadership of the Labour Party (and this blog) thought an early election was likely.
The obvious reason for May's volte face was that Labour are 20 points in the polls behind the Tories. If May can make it a Presidential election against Corbyn then her victory is apparently sealed. But that has been true for some months. May says the election is necessary because although 'the country is coming together (over Brexit), Westminster is not.' In May's announcement she denounced the carping role of the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP and the House of Lords. Yet when the decisive push came to the critical shove - and article 50 which initiates Brexit was put to the vote - there was no problem and Westminster MPs gave her a huge majority vote. A cynical, party-based move to build up the Tory majority and smash Labour? A problem getting Brexit through Parliament? Both of these reasons to go for an early election have been around since the EU referendum. And political insiders tell us that less than a month ago May was adamant that there would be no early election.
What has tipped the balance for May and made her eat her words are the first encounter with the EU after article 50 and Scotland.
Over the weekend serious indications of the EU's approach to Brexit emerged where it seemed very unlikely that any discussion about trade deals or anything else would take place before the UK agreed its payment for the 'divorce' (those previously agreed liabilities stemming from 40 years of membership and support already given to future plans.) Additionally key EU ministries would be removed from the UK and redistributed to remaining EU members immediately. Whatever the British negotiators would like, this probably meant that May's government would be going into a 2020 General Election having agreed to pay some enormous sum to the EU and without anything substantial to show for their efforts. Indeed, the country would still be subject to many EU rules. That would look like a defeat in anyone's terms.
That is why May is now seriously considering an ultra-hard Brexit split with the EU. This would have the inevitable result of a further run on the currency, the evacuation of big Pharma and large parts of the City of London, coupled with trading within World Trade Organisation rules - the only answer to which would have to be the creation of the World's largest Tax Haven and Europe's most bruising immigration laws. All of this would make a 2020 election nothing short of a car crash!
Both considerations make 2022 a much more pleasant option for a future election.
The Tories and May are also terrified of the prospect of Scottish independence.
SNP leader Sturgeon has already commented on May's decision for an General Election, which she sees as a means to drive the whole country to the right. And that is certainly true for the future - but it has not yet fully flowered in the UK (although the trends, with new huge cuts in spending in Education, Pensions and Health deepening, are emerging fast.) Additionally, both May and Sturgeon believe that Labour has lost its traditional Scottish base. However, there is still no majority for Scottish independence and even the call for another referendum is challenged, a referendum that the Scottish Parliament has already voted for. May believes that the Tories in Scotland now have the opportunity to regroup those who do not want a referendum on independence and / or oppose independence. That can only come about while the Westminster Tories do not appear to have already committed kamikaze in Europe while they drive hard towards a different sort of society in Britain. A big Tory advance in Scotland now, while their UK project is not yet fully unveiled, would at least hold back the momentum for independence.
And Labour?
They are still pulling themselves out from the European morass that all the main Social Democratic Parties experienced at the turn of the century. As the large majority of hostile Labour MPs have been partly subdued by Corbyn's two party leadership victories, so there are signs that his radical policy proposals are gaining a hearing and some support among the electorate. Nevertheless, the traditional Labour electorate know full well that there are two Labour Parties - and an uneasy truce in the Parliamentary Labour Party going into the June election will persuade very few voters that the truce will hold in the event of a new Labour government.
Nevertheless, there is still a great deal to be done, and won, in resistance to this latest rightward swing of the Tory Party. A radical Labour Programme would be a real platform for an alternative view of what a reformed Britain could be. If Labour then maintain a solid bloc in Parliament, the prospect of a progressive alliance in Westminster opens up, and that is very good territory for the expansion of the Labour Left and the beginnings of a genuine political reform programme, including Fair Votes, the Scottish right to Independence and Irish rights to unity of the Island of Ireland. It is this argument, the argument about what sort of Britain do its people want, that will set the proper frame for opposition to globalisation - of an EU or of non EU variety - while defending the living standards and the support needed for all of its people and for all of their chosen futures.
The obvious reason for May's volte face was that Labour are 20 points in the polls behind the Tories. If May can make it a Presidential election against Corbyn then her victory is apparently sealed. But that has been true for some months. May says the election is necessary because although 'the country is coming together (over Brexit), Westminster is not.' In May's announcement she denounced the carping role of the Labour Party, the Liberals, the SNP and the House of Lords. Yet when the decisive push came to the critical shove - and article 50 which initiates Brexit was put to the vote - there was no problem and Westminster MPs gave her a huge majority vote. A cynical, party-based move to build up the Tory majority and smash Labour? A problem getting Brexit through Parliament? Both of these reasons to go for an early election have been around since the EU referendum. And political insiders tell us that less than a month ago May was adamant that there would be no early election.
What has tipped the balance for May and made her eat her words are the first encounter with the EU after article 50 and Scotland.
Over the weekend serious indications of the EU's approach to Brexit emerged where it seemed very unlikely that any discussion about trade deals or anything else would take place before the UK agreed its payment for the 'divorce' (those previously agreed liabilities stemming from 40 years of membership and support already given to future plans.) Additionally key EU ministries would be removed from the UK and redistributed to remaining EU members immediately. Whatever the British negotiators would like, this probably meant that May's government would be going into a 2020 General Election having agreed to pay some enormous sum to the EU and without anything substantial to show for their efforts. Indeed, the country would still be subject to many EU rules. That would look like a defeat in anyone's terms.
That is why May is now seriously considering an ultra-hard Brexit split with the EU. This would have the inevitable result of a further run on the currency, the evacuation of big Pharma and large parts of the City of London, coupled with trading within World Trade Organisation rules - the only answer to which would have to be the creation of the World's largest Tax Haven and Europe's most bruising immigration laws. All of this would make a 2020 election nothing short of a car crash!
Both considerations make 2022 a much more pleasant option for a future election.
The Tories and May are also terrified of the prospect of Scottish independence.
SNP leader Sturgeon has already commented on May's decision for an General Election, which she sees as a means to drive the whole country to the right. And that is certainly true for the future - but it has not yet fully flowered in the UK (although the trends, with new huge cuts in spending in Education, Pensions and Health deepening, are emerging fast.) Additionally, both May and Sturgeon believe that Labour has lost its traditional Scottish base. However, there is still no majority for Scottish independence and even the call for another referendum is challenged, a referendum that the Scottish Parliament has already voted for. May believes that the Tories in Scotland now have the opportunity to regroup those who do not want a referendum on independence and / or oppose independence. That can only come about while the Westminster Tories do not appear to have already committed kamikaze in Europe while they drive hard towards a different sort of society in Britain. A big Tory advance in Scotland now, while their UK project is not yet fully unveiled, would at least hold back the momentum for independence.
And Labour?
They are still pulling themselves out from the European morass that all the main Social Democratic Parties experienced at the turn of the century. As the large majority of hostile Labour MPs have been partly subdued by Corbyn's two party leadership victories, so there are signs that his radical policy proposals are gaining a hearing and some support among the electorate. Nevertheless, the traditional Labour electorate know full well that there are two Labour Parties - and an uneasy truce in the Parliamentary Labour Party going into the June election will persuade very few voters that the truce will hold in the event of a new Labour government.
Nevertheless, there is still a great deal to be done, and won, in resistance to this latest rightward swing of the Tory Party. A radical Labour Programme would be a real platform for an alternative view of what a reformed Britain could be. If Labour then maintain a solid bloc in Parliament, the prospect of a progressive alliance in Westminster opens up, and that is very good territory for the expansion of the Labour Left and the beginnings of a genuine political reform programme, including Fair Votes, the Scottish right to Independence and Irish rights to unity of the Island of Ireland. It is this argument, the argument about what sort of Britain do its people want, that will set the proper frame for opposition to globalisation - of an EU or of non EU variety - while defending the living standards and the support needed for all of its people and for all of their chosen futures.
Saturday, 15 April 2017
The Korean crisis - courtesy of the US political/military class.
The Korean crisis is being stirred up by the US. China has already stated its willingness to organise talks between Washington and Kim Jong-un and has set out the basis of such talks. The US would curtail its enormous military exercises in South Korea and around the Korean peninsular and North Korea would freeze its nuclear program. The US Congress has already ruled out any such talks.
The MOAB bomb and the the Tomahawk missiles were not just a US 'message' to ISIS and Assad, but also to Kim Jong-un and China. If Kim Jong-un goes ahead with his much vaunted sixth nuclear test, its site and any others, would be immediately vulnerable to 'conventional' weapons. And China would face US military action on its border.
The US are using their military belligerence to squeeze the Chinese government. This comes out in most of the Western media as a plaintive wail for China 'to do something.' China's real role including its proposed talks barely register in the mainstream news. Ideally, for Trump, China would be forced to organise regime change in North Korea. He believes that Kim Jong-un is as much China's puppet (perhaps a little out of control) as Assad is when he (mostly) marches to Russia's tune. Time to curb Les Enfants Terribles, the sheriff is back in town.
The world needs to turn the screw on Trump, back the Chinese proposal for talks and stop this deadly game.
The MOAB bomb and the the Tomahawk missiles were not just a US 'message' to ISIS and Assad, but also to Kim Jong-un and China. If Kim Jong-un goes ahead with his much vaunted sixth nuclear test, its site and any others, would be immediately vulnerable to 'conventional' weapons. And China would face US military action on its border.
The US are using their military belligerence to squeeze the Chinese government. This comes out in most of the Western media as a plaintive wail for China 'to do something.' China's real role including its proposed talks barely register in the mainstream news. Ideally, for Trump, China would be forced to organise regime change in North Korea. He believes that Kim Jong-un is as much China's puppet (perhaps a little out of control) as Assad is when he (mostly) marches to Russia's tune. Time to curb Les Enfants Terribles, the sheriff is back in town.
The world needs to turn the screw on Trump, back the Chinese proposal for talks and stop this deadly game.
Friday, 14 April 2017
The US plays with a Korean War
With a United States Navy strike group led by the aircraft carrier Carl Vinson within lethal striking distance of all North Korea's military and political assets, Western commentators are still babbling about whether Trump has now been won over by Washington's traditional military and political leadership and dumped his rabid pre-election councillors - or not. And, even more grotesque, they are speculating about the possible 'value' of Trump's 'go-get'um' approach. Maybe his unpredictability is going to move things forward? Only in the last hours of April 14 are there some different and more sombre items in some Western countries media; see the New York Post for example.
This fatuous media drivel would be funny if it was not so shatteringly naive.
A US carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is generally composed of approximately 7.5 thousand personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. The U.S. Pacific Command said it ordered the USS Carl Vinson group, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and accompanying ships, including guided missile destroyers and aircraft squadrons, to sail towards the Korean Peninsula as a “prudent measure,” citing Pyongyang's “reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing” nuclear and ballistic missile provocations.
Among the various 'messages' that the Trump regime has been dropping in the last few days, in Syria and Afghanistan, is the most serious 'message' of them all, the 'message' to China that it has to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Trump, and his strike force, accompanied by the Japanese, are not just meant to be observers. Meanwhile the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is determined to set off his sixth nuclear test. It is what happens next that will count for everything.
Why is the US suddenly ramping up its military 'messages' most immediately dangerously over Korea (read China)? In 2000 China's Gross Domestic Product - the value in billions of dollars of all the goods and commodities produced by a country - was $3,616 billion. In the US it was $10,285 billion. In 2016 it was $16,158 billion in China and $16,663 billion in the US. (See OECD Library.) The U.S. debt to China is $1.051 trillion, as of January 2017. China is the key problem for the continuing US leadership of the world and the US is already losing the economic race. Welcome to the US's overwhelming, global, military reach.
Is Korea genuinely a threat to the US? Not at all. The US military arsenal could extinguish North Korean military power in 10 minutes with a relatively limited attack and without a single ally responding in force. But the US is deeply concerned about China's growing influence in the Western Pacific and East Asia and most immediately, about who dominates the South China Seas. The US strike group is aimed at China. Trump wants population-starving embargoes over North Korea from China as the price of no military engagement. This is the first episode of the critical international challenge of the Trump age. And millions could lose their lives over it.
This fatuous media drivel would be funny if it was not so shatteringly naive.
A US carrier strike group (CSG) is an operational formation of the United States Navy. It is generally composed of approximately 7.5 thousand personnel, an aircraft carrier, at least one cruiser, a destroyer squadron of at least two destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft. The U.S. Pacific Command said it ordered the USS Carl Vinson group, a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and accompanying ships, including guided missile destroyers and aircraft squadrons, to sail towards the Korean Peninsula as a “prudent measure,” citing Pyongyang's “reckless, irresponsible, and destabilizing” nuclear and ballistic missile provocations.
Among the various 'messages' that the Trump regime has been dropping in the last few days, in Syria and Afghanistan, is the most serious 'message' of them all, the 'message' to China that it has to stop North Korea's nuclear ambitions. Trump, and his strike force, accompanied by the Japanese, are not just meant to be observers. Meanwhile the North Korean leader Kim Jong-un is determined to set off his sixth nuclear test. It is what happens next that will count for everything.
Why is the US suddenly ramping up its military 'messages' most immediately dangerously over Korea (read China)? In 2000 China's Gross Domestic Product - the value in billions of dollars of all the goods and commodities produced by a country - was $3,616 billion. In the US it was $10,285 billion. In 2016 it was $16,158 billion in China and $16,663 billion in the US. (See OECD Library.) The U.S. debt to China is $1.051 trillion, as of January 2017. China is the key problem for the continuing US leadership of the world and the US is already losing the economic race. Welcome to the US's overwhelming, global, military reach.
Is Korea genuinely a threat to the US? Not at all. The US military arsenal could extinguish North Korean military power in 10 minutes with a relatively limited attack and without a single ally responding in force. But the US is deeply concerned about China's growing influence in the Western Pacific and East Asia and most immediately, about who dominates the South China Seas. The US strike group is aimed at China. Trump wants population-starving embargoes over North Korea from China as the price of no military engagement. This is the first episode of the critical international challenge of the Trump age. And millions could lose their lives over it.
Wednesday, 12 April 2017
France in political crisis
Macron is the EU leadership's favourite for the French Presidency. His non-Party, En Marche! (so reminiscent of Berlusconi's slogan, 'Forza Italia!') has the vacuous quality of standing neither to the left or right, promoting Europe's big corporations while 'defending' France's welfare safety net. Something for everyone. Nothing for anyone. His new party is as empty as his programme. It exists to shout 'hurrah' for the new President. Once again History conjures up a spirit from the mists, providing first this shape and then its opposite, like a Wizard of Oz, behind which big capital can continue to grind out its profits, hoping, against hope; against the trend of the times, and against any economic literacy; to arrive at a more socially pliant time to come.
But this plan is faltering. It was supposed to answer what the French media call the 'decomposition of the left', by which they meant the collapse of Francoise Hollande's Social Democratic Party, and turn traditional socialist voters towards the Macron miracle. At the same time Macron's multi-faceted politics would suck up enough of France's traditional right to fight off Le Pen (who remains the main issue in French politics today.) What is happening since the two Presidential TV debates is a political recomposition that no media pundits predicted. Mélenchon is rising in the polls. He has reached 20% on average - just 6 points below Macron and ahead of a failing Fillon, the candidate from France's traditional right.
Mélenchon too has formed his own movement, 'France does not submit!' But unlike Macron, Mélenchon' clearly states he is not against parties as he is in one himself. He is a member of the 'Left Party, a split from the Social Democrats, and his political program is clear to all French voters and the wider world. The French Communist Party (most often mentioned in the international media alongside 'France does not submit!'), does provide some of its organisational strength but as part of a much wider left umbrella. And it is a French CP now shorn of its historic strategy which was to unite in a common front with France's Socialist Party. Mélenchon presents his candidacy as completely distinct from the Socialist Party. His program (and his increasing support in the polls) reaffirms this approach. (See Program.)
Meanwhile France's Social Democratic Candidate Benoît Hamon, despite his break from Hollande and his leftist approach, has an average of 11% in the polls and is declining. Popular understanding of this state of affairs across the left and the right in France is that Hamon's popularity is waining because he is the SP candidate.
The first stage of the struggle for France (and for the political future of Europe including Britain) is becoming clearer. Unlike Macron, who is without any social base, with no substantial resources in either ideas or social support to hold out for any substantial time against the extreme right's political momentum, Mélenchon on the other hand would be force that could resist and repel Le Pen - especially among the youth. Both of France's traditional mass parties are unable to play any such role and the danger is growing.
Next; Corbyn's fate
But this plan is faltering. It was supposed to answer what the French media call the 'decomposition of the left', by which they meant the collapse of Francoise Hollande's Social Democratic Party, and turn traditional socialist voters towards the Macron miracle. At the same time Macron's multi-faceted politics would suck up enough of France's traditional right to fight off Le Pen (who remains the main issue in French politics today.) What is happening since the two Presidential TV debates is a political recomposition that no media pundits predicted. Mélenchon is rising in the polls. He has reached 20% on average - just 6 points below Macron and ahead of a failing Fillon, the candidate from France's traditional right.
Mélenchon too has formed his own movement, 'France does not submit!' But unlike Macron, Mélenchon' clearly states he is not against parties as he is in one himself. He is a member of the 'Left Party, a split from the Social Democrats, and his political program is clear to all French voters and the wider world. The French Communist Party (most often mentioned in the international media alongside 'France does not submit!'), does provide some of its organisational strength but as part of a much wider left umbrella. And it is a French CP now shorn of its historic strategy which was to unite in a common front with France's Socialist Party. Mélenchon presents his candidacy as completely distinct from the Socialist Party. His program (and his increasing support in the polls) reaffirms this approach. (See Program.)
Meanwhile France's Social Democratic Candidate Benoît Hamon, despite his break from Hollande and his leftist approach, has an average of 11% in the polls and is declining. Popular understanding of this state of affairs across the left and the right in France is that Hamon's popularity is waining because he is the SP candidate.
The first stage of the struggle for France (and for the political future of Europe including Britain) is becoming clearer. Unlike Macron, who is without any social base, with no substantial resources in either ideas or social support to hold out for any substantial time against the extreme right's political momentum, Mélenchon on the other hand would be force that could resist and repel Le Pen - especially among the youth. Both of France's traditional mass parties are unable to play any such role and the danger is growing.
Next; Corbyn's fate
Friday, 7 April 2017
God's will for Syria
- Tonight I ordered a targeted military strike on the air field in Syria from where the chemical attack was launched
- No child of god should ever suffer such horror
- End terrorism of all kinds and all types
- We ask for God's wisdom as we face the challenge of our very troubled world. We pray for the lives of the wounded and the souls of those who have passed. America stands for justice.
- God bless America and the entire world.
It is completely understandable when the Western World's media focusses on the terrible deaths of children in war that people want 'something done'. More queasy is the use of this horror by, among others, British Labour MPs like Alison McGovern. She said she now regrets 'every day' voting against taking military action in Syria, in the 2013 Parliamentary vote. Every day! Poor thing. If only she had voted for British missiles as well as American ones, then she too would be sitting at the right hand of .. well, maybe Trump. Politicians making hay from war and death on the basis of their staunch voting record - or lack of one - is not the natural reaction to the insult to humanity of a massacre. It is just another self-important, hand wringing gesture, designed to inflate one's own moral (read political) stature. And is contemptible.
Leaving aside the healthy doubt that Western media, now 'embedded' inside Western and other allied military machines, is able anymore to rinse out the truth from the torrent of tricks and lies that now stand in for 'news'. Accepting that Assad's military did use poison gas (again) to destroy its opposition, what should people in the West do?
In the first instance insist and make clear that Western military action in Syria will only make things worse. Russia, Assad's main military ally, has been bombing and financing on behalf of Assad's war since September 2015. Their goal was to accelerate the peace process they knew will have to come, with Russia as the broker. They were going to 'control' Assad. Now they are further away from both of those objectives than ever. When the West moved in militarily in Afghanistan, in Iraq and in Syria, they increased the power of the reactionary Jihadis, they left civil wars behind them and turned the Middle East into a cauldron of war.
Second, do not accept that the US will limit its 'intervention' to singeing the King of Syria's beard - or even more ridiculous, that Trump's intention is to look after Syrian children. The £40 million that Trump spent on the night of 6 April, is a tiny percentage of the US kit and 'manpower' already 'involved' in the Syrian war. And the 6 April will embolden its military apparatus as they 'discover' more and more of Assad's hideous behaviour that entitles them to send more deadly 'messages'. That £40 million Trump spent on missiles could have built a new UN children's hospital in Khan Sheikhun, something that really would help Syrians. Anti-war political and mass action across the globe could have forced a neutral zone around it.
Third, join the anti-war movements. Stopping wars; opposing wars; especially those that have their roots in Western avarice, are the greatest means by which children and their parents can survive and even prosper today in the Middle east, or in Northern Africa. The horrible fate of the victims of Khan Sheikhun will not vanish from Syrian history as a result of a US global power play. Trump did 'something' right enough. He ratcheted up US military power as a factor in the Syrian disaster. He pushed back the chances of early peace talks. He set a precedent for remote, unchallenged warfare. Together with his anti-Syrian refugee policy, he made Syrian's lives harder and more dangerous.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)