Category Archives: society

The Labour Vote and the Effects of Insecurity and Mass Psychology in UK Politics Today

At present, across the advanced world, there is starting a political ferment. In the UK, attention has been focussed on the EU Referendum, Brexit, mass immigration and the economy. The backdrop for all that has been the decline of popular support for System parties in general and the Labour Party in particular.

There have been two contrasting by-elections recently: Richmond Park; Sleaford and North Hykeham. One, a very pro-Remain constituency which has only ever had Liberal Democrat or (one, Zac Goldsmith) Conservative MPs; in the other, Leave captured 62% of the Referendum vote in a constituency which has never had anything other than Conservative MPs. In both of these by-elections, the Labour vote bombed.

I have blogged about the results of both by-elections: Richmond Park

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/02/thoughts-on-the-richmond-park-by-election/;

Sleaford and North Hykeham

https://ianrmillard.wordpress.com/2016/12/09/the-sleaford-by-election-post-poll-view/.

We hear various reasons put forward as to why the UK Labour Party is not gaining or regaining the support of the people. Some blame Corbyn and his ideology and connections; others make the valid point that Labour support was sliding even before Corbyn became leader. Labour did poorly in both 2010 and 2015 General Elections.

I should like to put forward the following idea: that Labour is sliding in public esteem and support for a more basic reason than ideology or even perceived competence. Labour is sliding because the people generally have no faith in its power or even willingness to protect them.

A primary function of the State, which predates even the State itself as we now know it, is the ability and willingness to protect the people from external danger. This primary function was, over time, added to. The State was expected not only to defend against other states and rampaging bands, but also to keep order within its own borders, to promote justice and fairness; also, eventually and in general, to keep the people fed and housed, their children educated, the national culture protected and promoted. These incidents of State functioning are now basic, even in those states which operate on a more or less laissez-faire ur-ideology.

The protective functions of the State are also transferred to or expected to be carried out by the ruling political parties, both those actually in government and those which aspire to government.

Apply the above to the Liberal Democrat Party. For decades, it had built up a respectable support base. It proclaimed all sorts of virtuous policies, said it would protect people in every way, acquired 62 MPs by 2005, yet was all but wiped out in the 2015 General Election after having engaged for 5 years in the “Con Coalition”. Why? It was because people expected the LibDems to protect their interests against the more savage manifestations of Conservative government: spending cuts, callousness toward the poor, unemployed, disabled etc. The LibDems (despite protests) did not, overall, do that. Their punishment was condign: to be reduced to a rump of 8 MPs (now 9, by reason of the special circumstances of the Richmond Park by-election), with effectively no hope of recovery.

Now we look at Labour.

Welfare State

The Labour reaction to the attack on the Welfare State which an earlier Labour Party had done so much to support was to join in the “me-too” mass media and Conservative Party onslaughts on the disabled, on the unemployed, on all those dependent on State assistance (except the Royal Family, the subsidized farmers and the increasing swamp-floods of immigrants). Time after time, Labour MPs, especially those who had been ministers or who were shadow ministers, supported the most callous “reforms” to the social security system. Many Labour MPs either supported the Conservatives in the Commons (even more so after the 2015 General Election) or failed to oppose measures such as the Bedroom Tax. Indeed, it was Alastair Darling, James Purnell, Stephen Timms etc (all Labour ministers) who brought in the dreaded, hated and incompetent ATOS organization in the first place.

Conclusion: Labour failed, both in Government and in Opposition, to protect those most dependent on the Welfare State. Reaction? Those people deserted Labour in droves, either going to (at first) BNP, then (later) UKIP, or dropping out of voting altogether. They will not vote Labour now, despite Corbyn’s support for them, because they have no faith in his (in effect) being elected as PM and because most Labour MPs are still a rabble of pro-neoliberal, anti-Welfare State me-too-ers and fakes.

Pay and Living Standards

In government, Labour under Tony Blair and Gordon Brown advanced the interests of the wealthy or affluent above those of the rest of the population, in the hope of general improvement of the economy. A pathetic version of trickle-down theory. Income and capital inequality soared. Gordon Brown’s Working Tax Credits and other tax credits ameliorated this to some degree, though at the cost of taxes and taxpayers subsidizing, in effect, low-paying businesses–and on a huge scale. Welfare for Business. Mad.

Pay has continued to decline or stagnate for most people, but Labour has no answer for that problem and is judged on its record. There is no sense that Labour stands with the poor working people (or middling people who are becoming poor).b-cisxdiqaa7qj_-jpg-large

Another factor in this is the continuing rise in rents as against pay. When the cost of rent in the private sector is added in, pay has slumped almost as much as has the Labour vote.

Result? Voters have no confidence either that Labour pay policy works or even that Labour is somehow “on their side”. This belief in the uselessness or untruthfulness of Labour has led many either to prefer Conservative policy on the economy as well as (if, arguably, bizarrely) on pay, or to cease bothering to vote at all.

The proletariat scarcely exists now in the UK and has been replaced by a more volatile “precariat”, without loyalty to the former certainties of class, background, region, or even race and culture.

Mass Immigration

Here Labour has no cards to play.  It deliberately imported millions of immigrants, (mainly non-European, i.e. non-white) under Tony Blair and then Gordon Brown, not only to provide big business with cheap labour and more consumers but also to destroy British (especially English) race and culture [see Tom Bower, Broken Vows: Tony Blair — The Tragedy of Power]. Whistleblowers exposed this treason far too late and, it has to be said, the swamping has continued under the misnamed “Conservatives”, right up to today.

Those behind the Labour Government’s immigrant-importation were and are traitors and include, among many others, these two then ministers:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barbara_Roche

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phil_Woolas

The Jewish Zionist Barbara Roche was particularly culpable. The voters of her once-safe Labour constituency realized (years before Tom Bower’s book came out) that she hated English (and all European) race and culture– they voted her out in 2005 and she has never returned to Parliament, despite lobbying hard for either another Labour candidacy or a peerage. She had inherited a 20,000+ Labour majority in 1992. Straw in the wind?

Labour MPs are still lobbying for more immigration! Even those, such as Yvette Cooper, now belatedly paying lip-service to “having a discussion” about it (as the hordes break down the gates!) are “refugees welcome” dimwits and promoters. Most Labour MPs are not even interested in talking about mass immigration, let alone actually doing anything about it. Corbyn and his absurd or joke “front bench” will never even talk about the swamping of England, except to support it. Angela Rayner and the freeloading moneygrasper Diane Abbott are two names that come to mind.

The cartoonists have hit upon Labour’s immigration madness many times, yet all Labour MPs say is that the people need to have the “benefits” of immigration “explained” to them. Patronizing and wrongheaded.

161214-matt-web_3139193a

ctgqcfywiaa6yvr

The result of Labour’s immigration non-policy and its attacks (both now and in government) on English and British race and culture? Millions of former Labour voters voting for UKIP, for the Conservatives (who at least pay lip-service to slowing the rate of immigration despite doing nothing much in a practical way) or not bothering to vote at all.

Conclusion

On the big issues for most voters, meaning living standards and social protection generally and immigration (bearing on race, culture, identity, NHS, schools transport, crime etc), Labour is not only NOT protecting the British people, but is still actively against most of what is in the popular interest.

The “instant karma” of all that is that the people withdraw their support and withdraw their votes. Richmond Park and Sleaford were just the start, in fact not even that: Scotland is already a Labour Party-free zone, pretty much (Labour is only 4th in the polls there now, on a pathetic 15%).

One has to wonder what sort of people would now vote Labour. Some ethnic minorities, some public sector workers, some traditionally-minded (older? maybe not: older people have seen the devastation caused by mass immigration over decades) Northern voters. Not much of a mass-support base.

On the basis of the latest polls showing 25% support, Labour would have about 180 seats (out of 650) on present boundaries and only 140 (out of 600) on the proposed new ones.

Labour is on the way out. It has betrayed the trust of the people and deserves to be obliterated. The people rightly feel that they are not protected by Labour.

A new social national party must arise, to protect the people and to create and preserve a new form of State in England and Wales.

cqsbrinweaalitk

Advertisements

The Society of Measure

In the mid-20th century, especially in the 1960s, it was commonplace to see articles or features about the supposed coming “age of leisure” which would be facilitated by machines and advanced industrial techniques. Now (since the 1980s), those predictions are often laughed at, as society (eg in the UK) finds itself enmeshed in the “long hours culture”, the workaholic culture, the low pay economy. Was this inevitable?

The fact is, that the predictions of the past about a future “society of leisure” left out one crucial fact in particular: that the benefits of industrial efficiency and the emerging developments in computing, robotics etc would be taken by the owners of capital, by shareholders and others.

Since the 1970s, real pay (whether absolute or per hour) of most employees has stagnated and indeed even declined across the advanced Western world generally. At the same time, the profit accruing to capital and the remuneration of the upper strata of executives, higher managers and their professional counterparts has rocketed.

The above was true to some extent even in the Soviet Union, except that there, the developments in technology and efficiency were not spread equally across all industrial sectors and the benefits were used mainly for State power and prestige: military and naval upbuilding, space programmes and other large-scale projects such as the BAM railway.

The result (focussing on the West and particularly the UK) is that people have to work ever-longer hours for ever-lessening real pay. If public services, amenities and State benefits are taken into account, the contrast between the optimistic promises and predictions of the 1960s and 1970s on the one hand and the realities of 2016 on the other is even more stark.

There is another factor to be taken into consideration: there are three “work/leisure” faces:

  • work as unwelcome and/or repetitive drudgery, with little free time;
  • leisure as mere absence of work, for whatever reason;
  • creative work, balanced with stimulating leisure or free time

Adolf Hitler was referring, by implication, to the above alternative lifestyles when he noted “the Aryan ideal of creative work“, to be contrasted with (as he saw it) uncreative Jewish profit-making, as well as equally-uncreative paid drudgery [see Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf 2:7]. In explaining, for example, the symbolism of the red-white-black NSDAP banner, Hitler wrote:

And indeed a symbol it proved to be. Not only because it incorporated those revered colours expressive of our homage to the glorious past and which once brought so much honour to the German nation, but this symbol was also an eloquent expression of the will behind the movement. We National Socialists regarded our flag as being the embodiment of our party programme. The red expressed the social thought underlying the movement. White the national thought. And the swastika signified the mission allotted to us — the struggle for the victory of Aryan mankind and at the same time the triumph of the ideal of creative work which is in itself and always will be anti-Semitic.

In our contemporary society, we see the temporary victory of uncreative work/leisure modes: on the one hand, soul-less profiteering (whether by manipulations on stock and bond markets or by buy-to-let parasitism etc); on the other hand, everyday work becoming less and less interesting for most people. Soul-less economic serfdom. Creativity and a decent work/life balance become the province of the artist, the maverick off-grid person, the creative writer. Most people are excluded.

At the same time, those without paid work and who are under pensionable age cannot even enjoy the one major benefit of being unemployed: leisure! They are harried and chased around by Department of Work and Pensions drones. In other words, in place of actual paid work, there is a ghastly and ghostly simulacrum of work consisting of the tick-box applying for (often non-existent) job vacancies or the attending of pointless “courses”, in return for which the unemployed claimant is paid a shadow version of a very low real salary: State benefits.

It is estimated that, between now and 2030 or so, developments in robotics alone will mean that 20%-30% of UK jobs will disappear, including some presently “professional” ones (eg in the medical and legal fields). The numbers of unemployed, under-employed and poorly-paid will increase. The “precariat” will include ever-more people.

The solution to all of the above is not a “society of leisure” but a “society of measure”:

  • strict limits on hours worked by employees, perhaps 30 hours per week;
  • strict enforcement of break-times within the working day;
  • strict demarcation between work-time and free-time (leisure time);
  • strict limitations or barring of employees being “on call” when at home;
  • payment to all citizens of “Basic Income”
  • more equitable distribution of the fruits of the economy.

Such a society will have time for those important things which have traditionally been part of “leisure time”: home, family, culture, rest, sleep, entertainment, sport. This must be the way to go and will cure many of the ills of the present society.

 

 

Text reference link:

http://www.angelfire.com/folk/bigbaldbob88/MeinKampf.pdf

The UK Housing Crisis

The housing crisis in the UK is perhaps the most pressing problem the UK, certainly England has, apart from mass immigration. The two are connected, of course. It is idle to imagine that the housing crisis can be solved without stopping mass immigration, yet the System political parties all maintain that the two problems (or facts) are unconnected. In any TV discussion on housing, mass immigration is the elephant in the room, rarely if ever mentioned by the participants. This is remarkable.

The latest statistics [https://www.migrationwatchuk.org/statistics-net-migration-statistics] for immigration show that (official, “legal”) “net immigration” into the UK was 327,000 in a single year (about 700,000 came in, some left, some British people also emigrated). Even if two or three immigrants live in one house, that means that somewhere around 100,000-200,000 houses or flats would be required to house these incomers. In one year. Another 100,000-200,000 houses next year…and so on. In fact, the situation is worse than that, because the immigrants (certainly the non-Europeans) have a far higher birth rate than the British. In parts of London and elsewhere, there are already far more births to immigrant mothers than to British ones.

About 150,000 new houses are being built each year in the UK now, but the House of Lords has said that the UK “needs” (largely because of immigration and births to immigrant mothers) 300,000 more houses each year:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2016/07/14/england-needs-to-build-50pc-more-homes-than-governments-target-s/, while even more conservative estimates say 250,000.

In other words, there is a shortfall each year of at least 100,000 dwellings, yet the System political parties will not address the main reason why British people either cannot get a house (whether to buy or rent, as prices and rents spiral) or pay through the nose to do so. The Labour Party is particularly culpable, because it both promotes mass immigration and yet cries about the “housing crisis”! No wonder its former voters are deserting it in droves.

British people are divided by the crisis: a minority are living as rentier parasites and/or are profiting (on paper) via inflated property values. The majority are paying huge amounts in mortgage payments or excessive rents, simply so as to have a roof overhead. This cannot continue.

The solution to the housing crisis in, particularly, England, is to

  • stop mass immigration;
  • repatriate as many immigrants (and offspring) as possible;
  • prioritize British people for all forms of housing;
  • build decent State housing for rental;
  • change planning rules in large parts of Victorian and interwar London;
  • found beautiful new garden cities and towns without destroying the countryside;
  • decentralize the UK, to prevent the South and South East being ruined.

 

Robotics Might Save the Railways

The rail system in the UK is a mess. Start from basics: rail travel, when it started (in England, in the world) in the 19th century, was a fast expanding private enterprise system of competing lines. These lines (companies) solidified into an efficient cartel by the time of the First World War. During the war itself, the railways were under State control (and until 1921). The Railways Act 1923 put the de facto private cartel on a statutory basis, with four large railway companies running virtually all passenger and freight services. Profitability waned with the coming of cars and road freight so that, by the time of nationalization in 1948, losses threatened. This became reality in 1955, when British Rail recorded its first operating loss.

The “modernization” plans adopted from 1955 culminated in the Beeching Report of 1963 and the subsequent and consequent closures of lines, services and stations. More than a third of passenger services were closed down. The closures of railway stations were even more dramatic: out of 7,000 stations, more than 4,000 were shut.

The 1990s privatization was carried out in a manner so poorly-conceived that only free-market ideologues who knew little of the realities of how to run a railroad could ever have decided upon it. I do not propose to delve into the detail here (and I myself am no expert anyway), except to say that there seems to be a good case for re-nationalization, possibly on a low-compensation or even an expropriation basis.

What of the future? We see that, all over the world, even in the UK, that driverless train transport, indeed driverless transport generally, is becoming common. Many British people will have travelled on limited forms of automated transport such as the Docklands Light Railway or the monorail at Gatwick Airport which connects the main terminal with another. It would be possible to run many more light rail and ultralight rail services on new branch lines, connecting with existing mainline stations and lines. Indeed, computerized and robotized ultralight narrow-gauge trains could run from towns, villages and suburbs not presently connected to rail, such lines terminating at an existing railway station. A whole huge new web of public transport could come into operation in this manner, eventually becoming more dense even than the railway system that existed before the 1960s. At the extremities, such lines could be narrow-gauge and the trains very small, perhaps single carriage. The expense, though considerable, would be worthwhile, knitting together a country which has become dislocated.

Road transport will be the dominant mode for the foreseeable future, but if an enhanced branch line network can take even 10% of passenger journeys off the roads, the cost of the new system will perhaps have been justified on that basis alone.

THE CASE FOR BASIC INCOME

Jesus Christ said that the poor are always with us (part of society). Whether that be accepted or not in absolute terms, the fact remains that, in practice, there is always the necessity to deal with “the submerged tenth”. In Soviet Russia, the solution was make-work jobs and, if that failed, part of the GULAG system. In finance-capitalist “Western” societies, there is the illusion of “aspiration” and “opportunity”: people need not be without (sufficient) income if they work. This theory or ideology leaves aside those who cannot work, whether because sick, disabled or unable to find remunerative or sufficiently remunerative employment.

Robotics and computerization are advancing. Some studies say that a third of present jobs in countries such as the UK will disappear by about 2030 (some say “only” 25%). It may well be that other jobs will not appear to take up the slack. Millions may be left unemployed. At present, lack of income means that unemployed people (as well as the sick and disabled) have to jump through hoops in a degrading and largely pointless bureaucratic exercise in order to receive often very modest State-provided benefit payments. The system is not only expensive because of those payments, but because of the huge bureaucratic machinery that is built in to the process. There is a better way. Basic Income.

The Basic Income idea is that all citizens receive a regular payment, regardless of circumstances. In short, the payment is unconditional, meaning not withheld if the recipient does not have a job, look for a job, can do a job. Basic Income replaces all (or, in some versions, some) existing social welfare payments.

Basic Income is being trialled in some areas of Europe: in parts of Switzerland, Finland, the Netherlands. In Alaska, all permanent residents receive a small Basic Income payment annually (at present, about $2,500), monies routed from oil revenues.

Basic Income could be tweaked, so that persons on incomes above a certain level have an equivalent amount taken via the tax system; another idea would be to give a higher-tier Basic Income to the disabled (though that would mean some form of assessment and judgment). Alternatively, Basic Income could be paid only to those without income or capital, topping up income to a certain or decided level. That is, in fact, more or less what happens now in the UK, but without the present system’s bureaucracy, unpleasantness, snooping, harassing etc (made far worse since the Iain Duncan Smith regime of 2010-2016).

It is objected that Basic Income would mean that people would just be unwilling to work. Is that so? First of all it might depend on the level of Basic Income. Economic realities would probably limit Basic Income to no more than about £15,000 p.a. It might be as little as £10,000 (either per person or per household). Many will, at that level, find plenty of incentive to work if they can. Also, it is rarely heard that people should not receive inheritances or trust incomes because they might be made lazy thereby. Lottery winners in the UK usually start businesses, carry on working for pay or do charity work.

In fact, in the UK, there are already payments somewhat analogous to Basic Income. State Pensions are already paid to all person over a decided age, with extra “State Pension Guarantee Credit” money paid to those whose income and capital is below a certain level. Child Benefit was formerly paid to all persons who have children (regardless of income) and still is paid, though now with a (quite high) income cutoff point.

The cost of Basic Income is lessened by the removal of large numbers of pointless jobs in the (UK) Department of Work and Pensions etc and by the elimination of the need for large numbers of “Jobcentres” and other buildings and their upkeep. Housing Benefit will not exist, so greedy buy-to-let parasites will not be subsidized by taxpayers via taxation revenues). That alone will save billions of pounds.

A person receiving Basic Income will be able to look for work honestly (rather than in order to tick a Jobcentre box) and with confidence, will have money for transport, clothing, food. The disabled will not have to undergo degrading tests in order to receive the “basic level” of Basic Income (medical report from GP should be sufficient anyway). The more fortunate, who have income or capital anyway, will (if receiving Basic Income), will be able to spend more (stimulating the economy) and/or start their own businesses.

In short, it will become clear in time that Basic Income is the way forward in the UK.

A New Civilization For Eurasia

From the defeat of the German Reich in 1945, which destroyed, at least temporarily, the idea of Central Europe (and so split Europe between East and West, symbolically in Berlin itself), an international order comprising such organizations as the IMF, World Bank, United Nations Organization etc has been the skeleton of the “West”.

The “East”, meaning the Marxist-Leninist world of the Soviet Union, China and their offshoots, fell to pieces after 1989. The present necessity for both Europe/Eurasia and the world in general, is for, not the faked-up and largely Zionist-controlled “New World Order” made public by the first President Bush in 1990, but a REAL New Order which will be a synthesis of the best of the former and existing ideologies (National Socialism, “private enterprise” capitalism, socialism/communism), together with and held together by an acceptance of the general principles of Rudolf Steiner’s Threefold Social Order (cf. the works of Valentin Tomberg et al).

This will be a social order which reconciles the superficially conflicting demands of social cohesion (collectivity) and individual human rights (individuality). Spiritually, the new social matrix will accept the right of every individual to his or her own spiritual path, while protecting the right of society as a whole not to be placed under the tyranny of any particular religion.

Geographically, the new social order will be based in, though not limited to, Northern Europe and Russia/Siberia. Ethnically, the new civilization will be based on, but not limited to, those of White Northern European racial background. The important factor will be culture and not race; however, race must, for many centuries, play its important part as foundation for the new society.

I call upon all those interested in the future of Europe and the world to come together in this enterprise.