The British Empire - David Cameron drawing lines under history

In a state visit to Jamaica yesterday, David Cameron urged the country, along with other former British colonies in the Caribbean to 'move on' and forget about receiving reparations for slavery. These words were brushed off by the media as acceptable, and in the eyes of the British public they appear to be; with a YouGov survey conducted by this blog claiming 57% of Brits would oppose the principle of reparations being paid to former colonies.

The issue of paying for the past however does remain and has reared its head closer to home in recent months, with the news that the German debt to Greece from World War II exceeded the Greek debt to the European Central Bank by no less than 38 billion Euro. The Greeks however have since been coerced into accepting a structural adjustment package in order to receive a loan from the same people who owe them money, confusing to say the least.

The impact of colonialism upon Africa and the Caribbean is almost impossible to quantify. The human and physical capital extracted by Britain and others has done much to create the unequal global system which exists today, but David Cameron believes that bygones should be bygones in this instance and requesting reparations would be unjustifiable.

However, Jamaica is still crippled by its national debt. In the last decade, interest payments on this debt have exceeded the total tax revenue of the country and 45 percent of this package belongs to foreign creditors, including those in the UK. This debt, Mr Cameron believes, is not something which can be part of a forgotten past.

Since the election in 2015, Tory austerity has stepped up a gear, and policies like the sell off of the public stake in RBS for below its market value reflect the issue Jamaica faces. In the global political economy, there is one rule for the capitalist oligarchy of Western corporates, and another for those who built these places, be they workers in Britain, or the citizens of colonies in the Caribbean and Africa.


The economic policies of austerity; bailouts, quantitative easing and public sector cuts are a scam. They are a scam based upon the idea that money owed must be paid, and debt cannot simply be written off. As logical as this may seem, in practice debt is written off all the time, in 2008 when the banking system crashed, the debts of corporate banks were never collected, and Greece never received the debt it was owed from Germany.

Cameron's claim that Britain has repayed its debt by freeing the Jamaican people it enslaved in the first place is as ridiculous as it sounds. The reduction in national deficit at the cost of public services, while the rich are handed valuable assets (which the public paid to save) for pittance is as woeful a gift. The simple fact is that some don't have to play by the rules which have enforced suffering on the people, and simply draw a line under history and begin again after this point. So surely we can draw a line under debt and begin again now? Whether this happens in Jamaica or in the UK, or both, wouldn't that be the best solution?

Jeremy Corbyn: Not just the moral winner

Since Jeremy Corbyn rushed to a massive 22 point lead in the polls (according to a Labour Party internal poll reviewed by the Mirror) the right wing media and Blairite contingent within Labour have come out in force to explain how Corbyn would ‘destroy Labour’s electoral chances.’ His policy portfolio, bringing back the social democratic ideology which Labour was founded upon and reversing the party’s slide to the right since 1997 is seen as unrealistic by his critics and fatal to the political discourse which the Tories and his leadership opponents have adhered to.

Criticism of Corbyn has focussed upon two arguments. The first is that his policies will not work; the second that he will not be electable as leader in 2020. Concerns about his electability raised by his opponents centre around his refusal to follow the Conservative agenda on policy and accept the transition to the right which political discourse has taken since Blair.

The first argument, suggesting that his policies will not work, is an argument which must be tested relative to the functionality of the alternatives which his opponents propose. The suggestion for example that removing benefit caps and ensuring minimum provision for the poor, unemployed or ill will damage the economy too greatly to be seen as a valuable option presupposes that the 60 confirmed deaths due to Iain Duncan Smith’s reform of the welfare state are an acceptable cost against the benefit of economic growth. It supposes that the rapid growth of food bank dependence (41,000 people in 2010 to upwards of 1 million in 2015) is acceptable wastage from the pseudo capitalist system which both Corbyn’s Labour opponents and the Tories propose.

Furthermore, the supposition that rail renationalisation would fail asserts that a system with rising prices and poor service quality; due to the oligopoly of private providers which has developed since the 1980s is a functional model – and that Britain could not provide a service which Germany and Japan do perfectly well, and in the interests of the taxpayer.

Abandonment of Trident is also a sticking point for many, who believe that a nuclear deterrent is necessary in the modern world regardless of the moral arguments involved. One must question however, the logic of an independent missile system which cannot be discharged without USconsent. Particularly when it exists in a country which is so economically and tactically significant to the US that were they to abandon the system they would still enjoy the benefits of perpetual nuclear protection from a threat which continues to exist only in fiction, even were it to become fact.

Evidently, the argument that Corbyn’s policies could or would not work better than the current system is incredibly flawed. However this reality does not necessarily win elections and Labour supporters believe that having their party in power is necessary in order to provide a successful alternative to the Tories. As such the question of whether Corbyn is electable in the current climate is a significant one.

This argument can be dissected by understanding how his policies correlate with public opinion; and by understanding the main motivators behind which box the public cross on Election Day.

A YouGov study prior to the election found that the public overwhelmingly support renationalisation, or the continued nationalisation of hospitals; schools; rail; roads; prisons and the postal service. Crucially the survey offered the option for respondents to choose the option ‘whichever (national or private) maintains standards.’ Regardless of this option, the majority of the British public still want nationalisation for nationalisations sake. Therefore, far from being unelectable, Corbyn stands as the only Labour leadership contender with a populist policy on public services and utilities.

In addition to the objective popularity of the policy, Corbyn is the only candidate who directly opposes Cameron’s programme of NHS privatisation; increased use of academies and the sell off of Royal Mail. This is crucial when Labour placed fourth of the six main parties in an Ashcroft poll after the election on conveying genuine values and believable promises in what they would seek to do if elected. Corbyn offers a chance to put clear daylight between the two main parties and rediscover an identity which was clearly absent in the last election and saw rapid growth of other opposition parties who fared better in the poll.

Nationalisation and a removal of welfare state sanctions under Corbyn also offer solutions to the three main voter concerns in the last election – the NHS, job provision and the cost of living. By taking services under public control, utilities and infrastructure can be returned to the public good, both providing employment and controlling the cost of living. Reluctance to act drastically in this way has previously led Labour down the path of the Tory agenda despite the CLEAR POPULARITY of alternatives which the party traditionally identified with, to the detriment of the party. With 54% of the British public taking an anti-austerity stance after the election, this popularity is likely to grow.

Clearly Corbyn is a positive candidate, but the evidence shows he is also a functional and electable proposition. A break from the Westminster consensus would create clear, much needed daylight between Labour and Conservative and would break the steady slide to the right since Blair. The degree to which this is realistic can be seen in the furore created by a single poll, the right are running scared. Ultimately, regardless of the feasibility of Corbyn, voting against austerity and for equality is simply morally valuable, but there is no doubt that as well as being morally laudable, he is electorally significant. 

Redefining the Twelfth

After the events of this weekend again highlighted the vast shortcomings of the parades commission response, it is undoubtedly time to rethink the strategy which has dealt with parades, flags and the political situation created by the 'two communities' agenda which those in Stormont proliferate.

Restrictions on the materials burnt on bonfires across the North have not seen enough of a reduction in the danger created by the blazes, with towering infernos across the province collapsing onto revellers. This idiocy is shrugged off as DRD are sent out yet again to repair roads and assess the damage caused to local properties which the preventative efforts of the public purse have failed to protect in East and North Belfast. Stepping back from the adversarial debates of what one side gets over the other, the environmental and health impact of widespread celebratory arson seem blindingly obvious but cannot be dealt with in the blinkered world of orange vs green.

Squinting through the blurred lens that social media presents, where BBC photos of riot walls across the city and armies of riot police preparing for the same as last year are looked at as normal; it is obvious that something serious needs to change. The process towards peace which we're told we're doing so great at, as austerity is shoved down our throats from Westminster, seems to have reached a sticking point. A point which can only be moved on from by excavating the real definitions of normality, definitions which have been lost for a long time.

The first of these definitions is that of a festival. A period of celebration, and many do cling on to the culture and community which they believe the Twelfth celebrates, however those many would agree - when this belief inspires someone to drive a car into a crowd, maybe the celebrations have gotten out of hand. It has clearly become time to immediately redefine what the Twelfth celebrates, if those who celebrate it have any level of pride or respect for the culture it represents then they must show leadership and redefine that culture as something positive, not as something aggressive. Violent images of toppling fireballs and black gable walls, or riot vans and children dragged into ambulances do not gain respect for a celebration of culture.

It is time for both sides at Stormont to show leadership, to sacrifice the negative, aggressive and confrontational elements within both cultures and look for policy solutions which can allow these cultures to exist as positive commemorations of a troubled but vibrant past.

A blanket and enforced ban on political flags and symbols on public land would both show respect for the flags and emblems both sides claim to hold dear and reduce the sociological and environmental impact of regalia plastered over lampposts and kerbstones.

Vast restrictions on parades held on public highways, curtailing festivals and celebrations into an area in which they can be properly funded, properly policed and encouraged, and kept away from those who would seek to corrupt a celebration into something malicious. If a festival brings a community together then let it to that, in a contained place where those who wish to can celebrate their traditions without fear of encroachment or abusive elements, and without provoking others by forcing their message, rather than presenting it as something to be proud of and letting others learn in their own time.

There are clear answers if those who can take responsibility. If they understand that there will need to be sacrifices from all parties, if any are to gain an understanding of the traditions and cultures of the others. Unfortunately those who currently hold this power stand more to gain from the public purse by keeping cultures divided and corrupt than from bringing them together as pure forms of themselves. That can change before this festival comes around again if enough people stand up and say it should. There is always an alternative.

---------

This time last year this blog looked at the Orange Order and their impact upon maintaining the major division in our society, and how it hopes to continue to keep the working class divided to the detriment of both the Unionist and Nationalist worker. Read it here:

http://thetache.blogspot.co.uk/2014/07/the-12th-man-orange-order-vs-people.html

Welfare Reform at Stormont. Sinn Fein play acting and the need for answers.

As the debate over the Stormont budget rages on, and the threat of a return to direct rule looms closer, what is the future for anti austerity politics under the current system in Northern Ireland?

This week saw yet another apparent U turn from Sinn Fein on the Stormont budget. Having agreed in principle to a deal at the end of 2014, the now infamous Stormont House Agreement, the party then decided they would not support a budget on these terms as it did not guarantee current levels of welfare provision indefinitely. However, speaking at a meeting of his party's Ard Chomhairle at the weekend the Deputy First Minister said that, 

'in the context of the present situation in relation to the Budget Bill that we will be giving conditional support to this Budget Bill today.'

So Sinn Fein don't agree with the budget, but they'll support it, and then apparently renegotiate it at some later stage? It seems that the party's PR game has gotten quite muddled now that the thing that they present as their primary success - Stormont - looks to be under threat due to its consistent malfunctioning. The simple fact is that the Assembly has not successfully governed or significantly improved the North since its inception, and its weaknesses are becoming increasingly apparent as being 'better than the bad old days' is no longer seen as good enough. 

The Sinn Fein/DUP modus operandi of making a big show of the debate between themselves in the knowledge that they won't affect each other at the ballot box, while cooperating up on the hill in their carve up of budgets, protection of party interests and expenses gravy train has been a direct result of the mandatory coalition system. Flip flopping over welfare reform is simply a reflection of Sinn Fein's need to keep the Assembly gravy train on the tracks, while not being seen to openly cooperate with the Tories or DUP. 

With the unionist benches and Alliance all openly accepting of welfare reform and the austerity line; and the SDLP continuing their tactic of saying nothing radical or interesting on the big issues in the hope that they don't become any less relevant than they already are, it seems that collapsing Stormont and opening the North up to the pain of direct Tory rule might be the best case scenario. The political play acting on the hill which the current system provides won't offer solutions, and a rethink is clearly necessary if genuine opposition to austerity can exist the way it does in Scotland.

16 Conclusions on the Leaders' Debate

Having watched arguably the biggest fixture in the run up to the general election - the leader's debate amongst the seven major parties. I thought a post game analysis would be appropriate, so to steal an idea from the people who do it best, here are 16 conclusions on the leaders debates:

The leaders' debate, available on itv.com

1 - As much as you can hate Nigel Farage for his abhorrent policies and sliminess, his style works with those who are likely to vote for him. He knows where he's good and where he can make gains and the sort of people who don't care about AIDS victims will love that 'someone has said what we're all thinking': you can't argue with his 21% leading performance polling.

2 - Equally, as well as Farage faired, it must be nearing the end for Bennett unless there is a huge turnaround on election day. This added to a long line of poor media appearances over the last few months and she really missed an opportunity to voice the Green alternative on a big stage.

3 - Miliband said an awful lot yet managed to say very little. Labour continue to bottom feed off other parties as they have in the past and battle for marginal policy differences so as to attempt to occupy the middle ground, unconvincing and lacking in principle.

4 - Tactical challenges between the Westminster neoliberal consensus was boring. None of the three major leaders said much about their parties' own policies, yet challenged the other two constantly in order to appear the alpha male on TV.

5 - In this playground battle of the supposed alpha males, Nicola Sturgeon wrecked the place. Stood back from pettiness in order to express genuine values and a proven record of governance and was the clear winner of the debate.

6 - Sturgeon's success was attributed to the female presence so absent from the Westminster political debate (May doesn't classify as human never mind female). Whilst this is a hugely valid point, another inference which can be made from the SNP leader's success is that people want a genuine left alternative, Labour have abandoned their post long ago and the SNP are more than happy to fill it.

7 - The positive response to the female leaders was somewhat misplaced however, Bennett's performance was patchy at best and Leanne Wood appeared to ride on the coat tails of Sturgeon, falling into the trap of complaining about austerity without posing genuine alternatives.

8 - Nick Clegg performed better than many would have predicted, however his ridiculous assertion that he 'did the best he could' on tuition fees; by totally reversing his initial policy and supporting the ridiculous and destructive Tory policy through parliament was bordering on comedy.

9 - Towards the end of the debate, a member of the audience confronted Cameron during his point in support of the armed services regarding his government's less than humane support of veterans. This election is increasingly becoming a Tory standoff against the rest of society.

10 - Principles are in short supply amongst the major parties. This is what makes people like Sturgeon and Farage stand out, and what gives Cameron his lead in the polls. Despite the divisive nature of some of their policies on nuclear arms, immigration and welfare respectively, standing for something stands you apart. Labour would do well to follow suit.

11 - Fear is the currency of this election, scare tactics have replaced principle among the 'Big Three' and Cameron's hope is that people can be scared off alternatives such as the nationalist parties, Greens and UKIP enough to give him a majority, his own popularity won't achieve this so he'll try and scare people about the break up of the Union or rise of some new fascism.

12 - Should the Tories fail to convince masses of idiots and wealthy scumbags that they're 'the only party who can govern' it will likely be some form of coalition rule. Maybe Nick hasn't done too badly, his party could end up providing the only returning government ministers, but if he carries on like this none of the nice girls are going to dance with him for much longer.

13 - To paraphrase Butch Coolidge, there is an incredibly high chance that Ed's dead.

14 - As predicted by this blog, (http://thetache.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/the-green-debate-more-harm-than-good.html) Cameron will be very happy with how the 7 person format played out, there was a lack of proper grilling and this will always benefit the incumbent.

15 - Voting really doesn't help that much. There has been huge criticism of Russell Brand and his advocacy for voter apathy along with activism outside the mainstream political narrative. There was little to be convinced by on this showing by the establishment, and other options are at least worth looking at.

16 - Julie Etchingham was a let down as host, similarly to Kay Burley's horrendous bias on Channel 4's town hall debate last week the broadcasters have not performed to a high level. Etchingham allowed various speakers out of time and did not scrutinise the participants effectively.

Things We Won't Say About Race: The Tory War on Multiculturalism

Last night Channel Four premiered Trevor Phillip's documentary 'Things we won't say about race that are true.' In the documentary, the former equality advisor to the New Labour administration looked at various trends regarding race related crime, academic performance and social issues and exposed some important truths. The interesting thing about these truths are the government's plans to universally ignore them and proceed with a policy agenda which seeks to maintain the class and racial barriers to a better UK.

Trevor Phillips

The promotion of 'free schools' under this government has been part of the core message of the ultra free market manifesto pushed by the current Tory leadership and brings yet another public service out of direct government control. The key factor within this policy which affects race is the allowance for 'faith schools' - government funded religious schools managed not by local authorities, but by church and parent leaders. In his documentary last night, Mr Phillips showed clear empirical evidence that as humans, we welcome what is familiar and simple and that this leads to a propensity for voluntary segregation. Whilst governments cannot holistically legislate against this in terms of housing, where private housing areas will naturally allow communities to congregate - education offers a means to change attitudes and break down racial barriers.

Allowance for faith schools, as opposed to comprehensive education amounts to allowance for segregation and the damage this does to communities. Look, for example, at the accusations of muslim faith schools radicalising teenagers, this question does not need to be asked in a country which forces communication and shared learning in its schools. Cultural issues such as racism and otherness are naturally weakened if schools are designed in such a way as to include a broad racial mix. This has been tried and tested in some schools in the UK - again highlighted by the documentary, where the needs of different groups are monitored and acted upon in order to maximise both assimilation and performance.

Nicky Morgan: Tory education secretary,
better future for whom?

There are clear and observable examples of racial discrimination in jobs (those with anglo saxon names get more callbacks from CV submissions), and the lack of certain social groups - including women, in top jobs. These factors can clearly be combatted by eliminating schools which discriminate on the basis of sex or religion. Those in private education have a statistically better chance of reaching university as compared to others, and there is a growing trend amongst ethnic minority groups to do better academically than white British working class people. The introduction of free schools, promoting segregation into these groups, will only squeeze those at the bottom more and create greater inequality and tension within society.

Look, for example,
at Northern Ireland. In the only sector in the United Kingdom which still widely uses faith and grammar schools, we see the lowest performing social group in the country - working class Protestant boys. The selection system in Northern Ireland has statistically been shown to help middle class children succeed at a higher rate and the Catholic maintained sector - with its extra funding and selective process - to outperform the state sector. This leaves those who enter the state sector, namely non Catholic working class people at a blatant disadvantage.

Reluctance to change the education system in Northern Ireland is a whole separate issue based on a whole separate set of political biases and a whole different lack of values. However looking at the clear evidence of the results such a system produces, a regression to a similar divisive and corruptive system in the UK is a road which will only serve to entrench David Cameron's friends in power and worsen the state of the nation. Fight free schools, fight private schools, fight racism and inequality.

Comments in the section below.

What they want you to think. Chapel Hill.

Last night three muslim students were shot dead in Chapel Hill, North Carolina. The killings were carried out by a white, American, atheist male who claimed on twitter that, 'When it comes to insults, your religion started this, not me. If your religion kept its big mouth shut, so would I.'

You may not be aware of these events at such an early stage, although I hope that they will be well reported on the news across the UK and Europe, and the actions of this man scrutinised as seriously as the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers who carried out the Charlie Hebdo attacks. Unfortunately so far this has not been the case.

It appears abundantly clear that this killer has acted upon anti Islamic feeling to carry out such a heinous act against three individuals who appear to have done nothing to him. There are clear parallels with the hate crimes of the Kouachi brothers, although arguably these victims are more innocent than the Hebdo cartoonists. These parallels have not however been covered by the Western media to nearly the same degree. 

When Hebdo happened, rolling news broadcasts focussed on footage of the shooting of a policeman. They speculated over connections to ISIS which didn't exist and then followed the obvious demand for increased securitisation leading Cameron to indicate he may ban or drastically increase monitoring of some forms of communication. When Chapel Hill happened (today), the story did not appear on the BBC News homepage, however a story discussing how Belgium have jailed Islamists did appear. Why is this?

The reasons for this are simple, fear of Islamism makes sense for Western governments; when these events happen, it helps to connect them to events in the middle east and promote fear of muslim culture among our communities. When events like the Charlie Hebdo killings happen, widespread news coverage helps to promote an anti extremist fervour and allow arms companies to make money from escalating war. Arms companies which ex government ministers, and government donors have stakes in. This propaganda, and that is what it is, allows the capitalist class to gain from war in the middle east and the subsequent securing of assets. It allows the political class to capitalise on our fear and increase security - as this blog correctly predicted following the Hebdo shootings.


The complete disparity in coverage in two very similar atrocities, which both happened in the West and both included multiple civilian casualties is a clear indication of the agenda driven corporate media. This man stands for atheists and the West as little as the Kouachi brothers stand for Islam or the muslim world. Making connections between the actions of ISIS in the middle east and the actions of a few lunatics in Paris is the same as making connections between the actions of a lunatic in North Carolina and you.

Many laugh at and ridicule the pantomime that is Fox News in America, their propaganda is transparent and easy to observe and ignore, but Fox is not the only organisation which puts across this message. It isn't even the only news organisation with that particular owner (a few of his papers in the UK declined to report on this incident today, it appeared low down on his news website's homepage). Observe this disparity in all of the mainstream media, understand why it happens. Capitalists in the UK have an agenda, it isn't one which benefits normal people either here or in the middle east. Until power is taken away from these people by turning your support away from the people in power (including the ones who aren't in government this minute) and forcibly taking power away from those who control these institutions our society will continue to make these same mistakes and hold onto this same hypocrisy.