Danny Dyer Nails It

Danny Dyer nailed it over the unfolding disaster that is Brexit.  Cameron launched into the EU referendum simply to deal with problems inside the Tory Party.  Having caused all of this chaos, he has now buggered off.  That isn't as bad as some though.  One of the chief Brextremists is Nigel Lawson.  Lawson regularly appears on TV to spout a load of incoherent shit over Brexit, or denying climate change and so on, but at the same time, he can't help himself in pointing out that while he still sits in the House of Lords, making law on all this crap, he actually lives the life of Riley over in France!!!!  These are people who oppose the EU on the basis of lies about EU laws being made by unelected, and remote bureaucrats!

Meanwhile, according to Bloomberg some of those spouting opposition to the EU, and calling for Brexit, connected to the financial markets, were able to make a killing by betting against the Pound, on the basis of private polls, whilst leading the markets ahead of the referendum result to think that the Remain Camp had won.

But, this is no different to the way capitalism itself runs.  We are told that capitalists make big profits because they take big risks.  Crap.  Its workers that take all the risk.  Since the passing of the Limited Liability Act, in 1855, shareholders liability for the losses of any company is limited only to the what they have paid for their shares.  So, a big company like Carillion can go bust owing billions, but the shareholders, who have often got the money they paid for their shares back in dividends many times over, only lose what they paid for the shares.  All the other creditors of the company just fail to get paid, and as we've seen in lots of cases that includes all the workers, who not only might not get any outstanding wages, but who also may lose tens of thousands of pounds of their pension they have paid into for years.

In the meantime the capitalists big or small, when the firm goes bust, have usually made sure they have pocketed loads of dosh beforehand.  They make sure to keep their private wealth separate from that of the firm, so when they declare the firm bankrupt, it doesn't affect their private wealth.  They have enough money left to simply start another business, or retire.  But, the workers who had no opportunity to have any say in the stupid or reckless decisions the capitalists made that led to the firm going bust, lose their jobs, and their livelihoods.  They are the ones taking the real risk, and the ones left with all the shit that results from it.

The chaos and iniquity of Brexit, is really just a reflection of the chaos and iniquity of capitalism itself.

Jihadi John Was British Not Syrian

According to David Cameron and Hillary Benn, and the gaggle of warmongers and liberal interventionists that stand behind them, we have to bomb Syria, because the jihadists of Daesh there represent a threat to us. Really? A sober assessment would rather say that it is the tens of thousands of jihadists, like Jihadi John, who was born, brought up, and educated in Britain, and many others, from across Europe, who represent a threat to Syria! It is Syria that has a problem with western born, educated and based jihadists, going to cause death and destruction there that is the problem, not vice versa. Syria has a British jihadi problem, not Britain a Syrian jihadi problem. If bombing is the answer, then Cameron and Benn should be advocating targeted bombing by the RAF of London, Paris, Brussels and so on, which have been the breeding grounds for all these terrorists!

But, of course, if the question were put that way, Cameron, Benn, the warmongers and liberal interventionists, would run a million miles away from such a solution, just as they would if the logical conclusion of their arguments were implemented by others, or even consistently by themselves. If its perfectly fine to chase your enemy across borders, then Russia has a perfect right to bomb Turkey, which has been financing, arming, and giving safe haven to the terrorists, as well as buying their oil. Yet, Britain and NATO were quick to defend Turkey when it shot down a Russian jet for even getting close to the Turkish border. By contrast, Turkey has breached the border of Greece 1200 times in the last year alone!

Indeed, it would be fine for Russia, Syria or Iran to chase Daesh terrorists into Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and other gulf states, where they are also given safe haven, trained, financed and armed. Or should Assad, and his Russian and Iranian backers themselves bomb London, and other British cities which are the breeding ground of the terrorists like Jihadi John, who have been swarming across to Turkey, often taking their families and young children with them, to provide the fighting forces of Daesh? Should Russia, bomb Saudi Arabia, and the other gulf states, which have provided the financing, and arming of the terrorists, and whose own vile ideology lies behind the spread of jihadism across the globe! It would seem to make more sense as a response, on the basis of the arguments that have been put forward by Cameron and Benn. More sense certainly than Britain's current policy of feting the vile reactionary leaders of those gulf states, supplying them with weapons to hand on to the terrorists, and offering to run their prisons for them, where they behead people simply for expressing an opinion!

If Britain really wants to deal with Daesh and jihadism in general, it needs to take the mote from its own eye. It needs to deal with the root of that jihadism, not the manifestation of it. That root is not in Syria, or other, previously largely secular societies, such as Libya or Iraq, it is in Saudi Arabia and the other gulf states. Its from there that the ideology has been spewed forth across the globe. Its from there that the funding and training has been provided, along with the latest weapons, themselves obtained from governments in Britain, the US and Western Europe. Indeed, part of the reason for that is that the US, in particular, has used these third parties to channel these funds, ideas, and weapons to the jihadists, so that they could act as mercenaries in its own cause, against the allies of its global strategic opponents.

Just as the US, used Pakistan to channel funds, fighters and weapons to Bin Laden in the 1980's, to fight the USSR in Afghanistan, so it is now doing the same thing, using the gulf states to channel all of this support to jihadists fighting Assad, and before that Gaddafi. It is doing the same thing, and Saudi Arabia is even acting openly itself in Yemen. It was the same with the way the US used Bin Laden to develop the Kosovan Liberation Army, in Albania. The US, as its Ambassador Nulands admitted, it has done the same thing effectively in Ukraine, and elsewhere.

The idiocy of conservative EU politicians, is that they cannot even see that in all of this, the US has also screwed them, just as much as they have attempted to screw Russia and its allies. It is the EU that has suffered from the instability on its Eastern and Southern borders, not the US. It is the EU that has suffered economic costs from the sanctions imposed on Russia, not the US. It is the EU that has millions of refugees streaming into its southern borders, as a result of the chaos caused in the Middle East, not the US.

The starting point to a solution is not to demand more military action, by yet more ineffective bombing, but for all external powers, including Russia to get out of the Middle East. Only the people of the region themselves can provide a solution to their problems, and only the people of the region themselves should provide a solution to their own problems. The involvement of Russia, the US, the EU in the Middle East, is not driven by some great moral crusade and humanitarianism, but purely by a desire for strategic advantage. It is not even driven by something as crude as oil – excuse the pun. A concern to be able to control and cut off your enemies oil supply, however, is important in an actual war, as was seen in WWII.

The starting point should not be inside Syria, but immediate political action to stop the flow of funds, weapons and fighters going into Syria. Part of that involves an ideological challenge to the continued importance of religion itself. We had the furore over the refusal of cinemas to show an advert by the Church of England last week, but the real issue here should be why we have free publicity for the Church on TV, with programmes like “Songs of Praise”, and all the other religious programmes that hide under the cover of morality. It is a question of why the Church has automatic seats in the House of Lords and so on. If we want to deal with religious fanaticism, its necessary to drain the religious swamp itself.

If Cameron and Been really wanted to deal with the problem of jihadism, and other forms of religious fanaticism and terrorism, like the attacks on abortion clinics and so on, they have more than enough work to do at home here, before they start picking on others, and dropping bombs on them, simply because its the easy thing to do, to be seen to have acted.

Cameron and Benn Will Own The Consequences of This War

As I and others have pointed out, David Cameron's excuses, for bombing Syria, are even more lame than those that have been put up by Prime Ministers in the past, to justify the disastrous wars launched against Iraq, and Libya. Not only has that been pointed out on the left, but Julian Lewis, the Tory chair of the Defence Select Committee, has pointed it out, and so has Tory David Davies. So, if its so apparent that this war will be a disaster, why is it that not just Cameron is pushing for it, but also Hillary Benn, and an assorted gang of Blair-rights and soft-lefts?

The reason for Cameron to support the war is clear. He is the leader of an imperialist country, whose huge military spending, to pay for vast amounts of very expensive hardware, can only be justified if that hardware is seen to be used every so often. And what better way for an imperialist power to be seen to be using that expensive equipment than to be exerting its military muscle, across the globe, to thereby maintain its status within the global hierarchy of states?

Cameron, of course, has another reason for wanting a war, which is, at present, it plays into the narrative about an existential threat to the country, at a time when he wants to waste even more money on a replacement for Trident. Of course, all of the vast expense replacing Trident will provide not one bit of additional security for British people against terrorism. On the contrary, by diverting resources away from the kind of financing of day to day security, and national defence, that would be required, in favour of a system that is designed as an offensive weapon, that could only be used against another country, it undermines real security. But, that logic does not matter under these conditions. The national dialogue, framed by the conservative media, is simply that there is a threat, and so there is a need to do something, and the bigger the stick the better.

Of course, that logic is completely bogus. The actual terror threats to British citizens do not come from Syria, but from Britain. The main actual flow of terrorists has, indeed not been from Syria, or Libya to Britain, but the other way around. Nearly all of the foreign fighters in Iraq, in Libya, in Afghanistan, and in Syria were precisely that, foreign! The reason there were tens of thousands of foreign fighters in Libya and Syria, was that many of them came from Britain! They have flowed out in their droves, via a range of routes, but particularly through NATO member Turkey, and into Syria, just as in the past, they went to Iraq, and Libya. In fact, where was it that “Jihadi John” came from again?

He was British, grew up in Britain, was highly educated in Britain, and then went to kill scores of people in Syria. So, on that basis that it is actually Britain, that is shipping off thousands of its young people to commit acts of terror in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and elsewhere, should Assad, and his Russian backers have every right to come and bomb Britain, from where those jihadists have been originating?

And as Ipointed out the other day, whatever the Tories, and Benn, and the liberal interventionists might want to claim, there is a clear link between the imperialist actions of Britain and others, and the effect that has in generating support for the jihadists. If we take Switzerland, it should be at least as much a target for jihadists, on the basis of its democracy and modernism, and yet the facts show that it has suffered no attacks, itself, from jihadists, but moreover, it has had very few of its own citizens going to Syria, and elsewhere, to take part in such activities!

Cameron and Benn themselves admit that bombing will not resolve anything. They argue that boots on the ground will be required, but neither of them can even begin to suggest whose boots these will be, other than to insist that they will not be British boots – though in reality, as in Libya, its probably pretty certain that British special forces boots already are on the ground, in Syria, you just will not here about the body bags being sent back.

Cameron has flounced about with his claim that there is some mystical 70,000 “moderate” forces just waiting to take ground from ISIS once provided with air cover. Not even his own MP's believe that, and nor does any serious independent analyst. To the extent any such forces exist, they are far from “moderate”, but, in the case of the most effective fighters, are comprised of other factions of jihadists, such as Al Nusra, and engaged in the kind of sectarian, warlord conflict with ISIS that will spread throughout the country, as it has in Libya, if what passes for any central state currently, is itself removed. But, in any case, those forces have little reason to effectively make an alliance with Assad, who they see as their main enemy.

That leaves the Kurds, who have no reason to move out of their own territory, and who if they did would come under attack from the Turkomen in Syria, who are connected to the Islamist regime in Turkey, which shot down the Russian plane, and which provides assistance to ISIS, along with the West's other allies in the region, the gulf monarchies. Yet Benn, as the Jacobite Prince across the water, who is now the hope of the Blair-rights, seems, despite all of his supposed expertise in this field, to have simply failed to notice any of this!

The argument that has also been put is that Britain is bombing in Iraq, and so it makes no sense to stop at the border with Syria. That is quite clearly wrong on several counts. Firstly, the Iraqi government invited support from Britain and others., the Syrian government has only invited support from Russia. Its the reason, even during World War II, that Britain did not chase German troops across the border into Switzerland, and vice versa. Has Cameron or Benn watched “Von Ryan's Express", or "Battle of The River Plate", or "The Great Escape"? If its okay to chase ISIS across the border into Syria, then what about chasing them across into Iran, or even further into Russia? Why are they not chasing them across the border to their main source, and crossing point, in Turkey? Why have they supported Turkey, when the Islamist regime there shot down a Russian plane that was attempting to cut off ISIS supply lines, and oil routes into Turkey?

But, the obvious response, also, is that Britain should not be bombing in Iraq either! The government claims that there has been no civilian casualties in Iraq from British bombing there, because of the smart weapons it uses. It is of course, nonsense. Some, reliable, independent estimates of civilian casualties already put the number into several hundred, just in the first year of bombing in Iraq.

The reality is that Cameron will push through this war, for his own political reasons, and Benn will join him, for his own political reasons too. Both of them will then own this war, and the consequences, which all past experience shows will not be long in manifesting themselves. Both are engaging in this war for short term political advantage, that will result in longer term political ignominy, just as happened with Blair himself. Benn has the advantage for the Blair-rights, and soft left of his family name. But anyone, fooled into believing that means anything, has no business in political analysis to start with. Just think about Ralph Miliband and his offspring.

Those Blair-rights, and the soft-left, need a figurehead around which they can rally, just as in the past, reactionary forces rallied around former monarchs, or claimants to the throne. Benn as a career politician with a view on the future, is clearly glad to oblige in fulfilling that role. Either that, or his willingness to absorb, and swallow whole, all of the incredible guff that Cameron is pumping out, itself makes him not credible for the job. Indeed, if he believes what Cameron has said, I've got an Eiffel Tower I could sell him.

Of course, these career politicians are not that put off by the potential for such disasters, because Blair himself is living proof, that no matter how big a political mistake you have made, there are always lots of newspapers, TV stations, publishers, Universities and others with lots of money available to make your life comfortable, when you have to withdraw. Its like the multi-million pound pensions and golden handshakes given to bankers, and other chief executives when they have screwed the company, and get moved on to other pastures.

In that sense, Corbyn has at least isolated himself, and the Labour Party from the inevitable disaster that will flow from this war. It will now clearly be owned by Cameron and Benn and those that line up behind them, and as Chilcott shows, it will be another decade before yet another Inquiry gets around to demonstrating their culpability for misleading the British public, and for the deaths of thousands of people. For now, they are only concerned with their own political fortunes over the next few months.

But, Corbyn's decision to allow a free vote was a mistake. It allows Benn and the Blair-rights to claim the cover of legitimacy for their abandonment of a clearly set out, and massively supported Labour Party position on Syria. Unfortunately too, it is just the latest of a series of retreats made by Corbyn and McDonnell, such as over their support for Republicanism, their past opposition to British imperialism in Ireland and so on. Retreat is a tactic that can be used, in order to regroup and move forward again, when it is wise to do so. But, Corbyn and McDonnell are turning it into a strategy!

In reality, what we have is a Labour Party and a sect. That has frequently been the case in the past. The difference here is that the usual situation has been reversed. In the past, the sect, or sects have been tiny groups of Trotskyists, or in the case of Militant, a slightly larger group of left reformists, as against the mass of the Labour Party. Today, the situation is that it is a couple of hundred people in the PLP, along with a small minority of party members that represent the sect, whereas it is Corbyn and the near 500,000 Labour Party members, that stand behind him, that represent the real Labour Party.

What happens, when the sect splits away from the real party, has been seen, on many occasions, in the past. The sect quickly disappears into obscurity, and the party continues on its way. Corbyn and McDonnell, and their supporters have to stop acting as though they were still part of the sect, and start acting as what they are, the real Labour Party, leaders of half a million members who stand behind them, and their supporters in the PLP.

If this is to be new politics, it should be so. Stop worrying about the politics as normal in Parliament, and start to build the Labour Party as a movement out in the country. Last weekend, Corbyn and McDonnell, and others, should have been out leading mass demonstrations against bombing Syria. They should start organising such demonstrations now. Stop worrying about the need for a balanced Shadow Cabinet, and all those parliamentary niceties, like having a Shadow Cabinet at all. The role of Corbyn and his supporters is now to give voice to the vast majority of party members, in the country, to use Parliament as nothing more than a tribune from which to speak.

The PLP should be made to act as the representative of the party, and of party policy, and those that are not prepared to do that should walk away, and find some other party, or other profession, to pursue. If the issue of Trident is raised, then that is easy to deal with. The policy was set long ago, and the party has changed qualitatively since then. The vote of the Scottish conference is an indication of that. If a special conference, to set policy on Trident, cannot be organised in time, then the example of just polling each party member can be followed, as Corbyn did over the weekend, with Syria. Then that will remove the argument of the Blair-rights on that too.

Its time to clean the Augean stables.

Cameron's Dodgy Dossier

Yesterday, David Cameron gave one of the lamest arguments for taking the country to war there has probably been seen in Parliament. This is the man who only two years ago wanted to bomb Assad, which would have resulted in ISIS now being in charge in Damascus, and who now wants to bomb ISIS instead. Even more ridiculously, he believes that there is no reason for the UK or the US to put boots on the ground, in Syria, because those boots will miraculously appear from somewhere else. He wants us to believe that there are 70,000 “moderate” rebels, ready and able to fulfil that function. No serious analyst, in fact, no one with a brain can, or does, believe this rubbish. It is Cameron's equivalent of Blair's “dodgy dossier”.

Not even many backbench Tories believe any of this boloney, including the Tory Chair of the defence Select Committee, Julian Lewis. Many of the Tories who opposed the bombing of Syria two years ago, if truth be told, are only backing Cameron now, because they don't want him to lose a second vote on the issue, and are more concerned to drive to maximise divisions in the Labour Party, and to embarrass Corbyn, than they are about the lives of the soldiers and airmen that will be lost, as a result of their decisions.

The idea that there are 70,000 “moderate” forces in Syria waiting to provide the basis not just for defeating ISIS, but of providing the basis for a stable democratic government in Syria, is just more of the same chaff that has been thrown out in the past, in such situations. For example, we were told prior to the invasion of Afghanistan that such forces would be able to establish a stable democracy, if given the necessary backing. Even, when billions of dollars of military backing for the government in Afghanistan was provided, it did not result in a stable democratic government, but only in an unstable government, that even the US admitted was thoroughly corrupt, and which as we speak is being gradually undermined and replaced, as the Taliban prepare to take over once more.

The same thing was said in Iraq, where we were told that moderate bourgeois politicians like Chalabi, were ready to establish a stable democratic government. In fact, he was a non-starter, as were all the others put up as alternatives, because they actually lacked any real social support within the country. So, we have again a corrupt, sectarian Shia government in Baghdad, which in part has provided the basis for the growth of ISIS amongst disenfranchised and oppressed Sunnis, in the country.

Then we were told that such forces were there in Libya to do the same job. That never even got started, because it was obvious once more that democracy requires more than just holding elections. The so called Libyan National Council was a mirage, that had no real existence outside the imagination of the liberal interventionists. Having removed the only sort of secular, sort of modernising power in society, that of Gaddafi's regime, the door was thrown wide open to all sorts of reactionary forces to be unleashed, which as could have been, and indeed I did predict, at the time, would lead to a descent into chaos.

Einstein said that the definition of madness was doing the same thing over and over again, and each time expecting a different result. That sums up the madness of the position of the liberal interventionists, and of Cameron in once again proposing such an intervention in Syria. The Blair-rights, who seem incapable of having any independent thought processes whatsoever, appear set to make the same mistakes they made in Serbia, in Afghanistan, in Iraq, and in Libya. Corbyn, and the rest of the Labour Party must make it absolutely clear that we have nothing to do with their decisions, which are clearly against the Labour Party conference decision of just a couple of months ago, and against the views of more than 60% of party members, according to recent polls.

If those Blair-right MP's, see the party, and the party members in their constituencies, who are the reason they are in parliament in the first place, as irrelevant to their decisions, if they think they have an obligation to all the voters in their constituency, be they Tories, Liberals, or whatever, rather than to the party and its members, then they should do the decent thing and go. They should leave the Labour Party and stand as independents able to act freely as merely mouthpieces of the electorate. Then they would see how little their position is down to them, and how much is down to all those party members they currently seek to ignore! They should remember how all those who went before them in that venture fared.

Turkey, Cameron and More Hypocrisy

Turkey claims to have shot down a Russian fighter, which it says infringed its airspace.  Russia says its plane was still in Syrian airspace, and that it was shot down, from the ground by rebel forces operating from inside Turkey.  Whatever the truth of the matter, it poses difficult questions for the arguments that Cameron has been putting forward in recent days, and which have been supported by various Blair-right MP's.

Let us assume that the Russian plane actually had infringed Turkish airspace in its pursuit of rebel fighters.  How is that different to Cameron, and the Blair-rights argument that NATO planes should have the right to cross into Syrian airspace in pursuit of jihadists, rather than remaining only over Iraqi territory?  If Turkey has a right to shoot down Russian planes that may or may not have infringed its airspace in pursuit of jihadists, then presumably that means that Syria, or the Russians backing Syria, have a right to shoot down other planes infringing Syrian airspace.  If the Kurds looked to Russia to defend them against bombing by Turkey, then presumably that would give Russia the right to shoot down any Turkish warplanes bombing in Kurdish areas.

Similarly, Cameron, supported by some Blair-right MP's has argued that it is perfectly fine for Britain to bomb other sovereign states that have not attacked them, and with which they are not at war.  In this case, Britain's use of drones to kill people like Jihadi John, in Syria.  I have covered all of the ways that this shoot to kill policy, and Britain's abandonment of all the principles of war and neutrality that existed, even during World War II, has been introduced, elsewhere, and that discussion has been taken up by others.

Every time they abandon all concepts of principle, in a reckless belief that they can do whatever they choose, in the immediate instance, they create the arguments for others, like Putin, to follow suit, when it meets their interests, and in so doing they create a far more dangerous and uncertain world for all of us.  Labour MP's should remember that when they come to vote on these issues, and Cameron's drive for war.  Labour Party members should ensure that it is impressed upon Labour MP's too.

The Tom Brown Conundrum

Tom Brown or Flashman?

Yesterday, I heard a Daily Telegraph journalist, on TV, describe Ed Miliband's problem as follows:  "He looks like the kid who at school we all wanted to bully.  He's the kid who's lunch box we wanted to steal."   I'd like to say that this comment tells us more about the nature of Torygraph journalists than it does about Ed Miliband, but unfortunately, there is an element of truth in his comment, and it was not immediately challenged by any of the other journalists at the time.  The reason is that, this is precisely the way the media have presented Ed Miliband, and his problem, as they see it, in becoming Prime Minister.

I for one, never saw any kids at school, I wanted to bully, or whose lunch boxes I wanted to steal. Quite the contrary.  Perhaps that is what differentiates a socialist from a conservative.  Whenever I have read Tom Brown's Schooldays, or watched the film, I have always associated with the bravery and the values represented by the self-effacing Tom Brown, rather than the rich, arrogant, bullying Flashman.  Perhaps, that is why Jeremy Paxman's question to Cameron, last night, about his natural affinity with Jeremy Clarkson, and a string of other establishment figures, who have been found to have broken or bent the law, in one way or another, was particularly relevant.

As a society, Britain continually tells itself this story about being a peaceful, tolerant and sympathetic country.  Yet, the reality is that it has always been a country that has thrown its weight around across the globe; it is a country that spread racist and supremacist views, right out of its Public School system, across its Empire, partly to justify its enslavement of millions of people; it is a country where despite all of the anti-discrimination laws, bigotry abounds.  Whether you are black, Jewish, Muslim, a woman, gay, or disabled, or, just like Ed Miliband, portrayed as a geek, you are likely to find yourself under attack - both physical and verbal - as a result of that bigotry.

So, its no wonder that a comment from a journalist, that presents us all as a nation of Flashmans, who could never relate to Ed Miliband as a Tom Brown, as the kid who had to simply put up with such bullying, provoked no response.  Its the same establishment mindset that has no problem with the idea that any ordinary worker, who assaulted someone, should be sacked on the spot, but which rallied around their own posh boy, Jeremy Clarkson, to demand that he be let off, and instead blamed the BBC, with apparently no concern whatsoever for the poor bloke who was assaulted, and who still had to go into work with the bully who had attacked him.

This is the hypocrisy of the British establishment and its media.  It runs news stories about kids who have committed suicide because of bullying at school or on social media, and opines at what a sad state of affairs that is.  Yet, it then has spent the last few years doing exactly the same thing to Ed Miliband, and, by extension, every other person in the country who is a bit of a geek, who is the kid who reads books, and so on.  The reason Miliband shows so badly in polls, as against Cameron, is not just because incumbent Prime Ministers always have an advantage over challengers, in that respect, its because the media have continually told us that Miliband is the kid at school who always gets bullied, and Cameron is the posh, popular kid, whose friend we all want to be.  Its politics, reduced by the media to the level of Beverley Hills 90210.

Unfortunately, the TV Leaders debates only emphasise that idea that politics is all about presentation, which is why I've always thought that they are a bad idea for democracy.  In the end, Miliband did well in the programme, and it was obvious why Cameron did not want to debate with him directly, because for the last five years, he has not been able to give a straight answer to any question put to him at Prime Minister's Question Time.  The only time he has come up with anything approaching a straight answer, is in the last week, as part of an obvious political game over VAT.  But, given the Tories' record on VAT, Miliband was quite right to say nobody could believe Cameron's answer.  The Tories would be likely to get round the issue, for example, by just extending the scope of VAT to food - as they tried with the pasty tax - or to children's clothing, books and so on.

The decision Britain faces in the Election then, as presented by the media, over the Leaders' Debates, is do its people see themselves reflected in the mirror of a self-effacing Tom Brown, with basic decent values, and a commitment to fairness and principles, or do they see themselves reflected in the mirror of a rich, Public School, Posh Boy and arrogant bully like Flashman?

Cameron Just Doesn't Get It

Almost every time he speaks, David Cameron shows just how far removed from ordinary people he really is.  Yesterday, during Prime Minister's Questions, Ed Miliband understandably asked Cameron to explain the links between the Tory Party, and HSBC, after it was revealed that the bank had helped some of its private clients in Switzerland not just to avoid tax, but to evade it, which is a criminal act. The former head of the private banking section of HSBC, Stephen Green, was made a peer, and a Tory Trade Minister, by Cameron, several months after the facts about HSBC had been passed to the HMRC.  Cameron's refusal to answer any question put to him during PMQ's has become a sick joke, but his refusal to answer the questions about his links with Lord Green, reached a new low.

Over the last few days, the Tories have tried ludicrously, but in accordance with their attempt on any question you might ask to simply blame Labour, to shift the focus on to the fact that the tax avoidance and evasion brought to light, was uncovered back in 2007.  That is ludicrous, because the information itself was not passed to HMRC until 2010, when the Liberal-Tories took over the government.  A government could hardly be held responsible for not taking action in response to activity that had not yet been uncovered!  The real question is why, after 2010 when the information had been passed to HMRC, the Liberal-Tories did nothing about it, and why, in fact, the Tories made Stephen Green a peer and a Minister in their government!  This has all the hallmarks of Cameron's appointment of Andy Coulson.

But, what was worse in Cameron's response, was that rather than answering the question he revealed the true nature of how he and the Tories see the world.  Firstly, he tried to tell us that the fact that some very rich people donate millions of pounds to the Tory Party has nothing to do with the kinds of policies the Tories pursue, or the fact that some of those people become peers and Ministers.  He then tried to contrast this with the fact that the Trades Unions donate money to the Labour Party, and the Trades Unions, are also affiliated to the Labour Party, and thereby have a vote in determining its policies, and its MP's, and leader.

What Cameron cannot seem to grasp is that there is a world of difference here.  When he looks at businesses - as set out recently  - all he sees are those same fat cat bureaucrats, who represent the interests of the money lending capitalists that sit on company boards.  He does not see businesses as actually being comprised of millions of workers who actually produce the goods and services, and make the profits, that are appropriated as interest payments (dividends, bond yields) by those money lending capitalists, or even as the day to managers of those businesses (the people who Marx termed the "functioning capitalists") who organise the work of those workers, undertake the supervision and planning of production and so on, and who are themselves likely to be members of trades unions as any other worker.

Yet, in fact, when the decisions are made to make donations to the Tory Party by businesses, all of these millions of workers, who produce the commodities, and create the profits, along with the day to day managers of those businesses, are given no say whatsoever in the decision.  Those decisions are preserved as the function of those top level boards of bureaucrats who look after the interests of the shareholders.

Similarly, therefore, when Cameron looks at the trades unions, and the donations made by them to the Labour Party, he again does not see millions of workers, who make up those trades unions, he only sees the leaders of those unions, who unlike the top Directors, have actually been democratically elected.  For Cameron, the millions of ordinary people do not exist.  Whether it is as the actual components of businesses - the people who make the goods and services, and create the profits - or whether it is as members of trades unions, who voluntarily give their time, and vote to elect their leaders, to donate to the Labour Party, and to actively take part in democratically determining its policies, its MP's and its leaders, they are invisible to Cameron and the Tories.  They do not exist, for him.

In his Public School, elitist mentality, the only people who exist are the few at the top, whether it is the bureaucrats at the top of businesses, or the bureaucrats at the top of the trades unions.  In respect of the latter, the situation is far from perfect from the perspective of a Marxist, but it is far, far better than the situation in respect of the select few who control the board rooms of companies.  It is our small, individual contributions that makes up the money that is donated to our Labour Party, it is our voluntary action in attending union meetings to take part in electing our officials, in determining union policy, and in determining Labour party policy, and choosing our LP officials that he is attacking.  When cameron attacks the role of the Trades Unions in donating to the Labour Party, and in helping to determine its direction, he is again attacking millions of ordinary working people.

He can't see that, because for him, those millions of people do not exist.  He just doesn't get it, because he lives in a different world from the rest of us.

Cameron Shows Just How Out Of Touch He Is

During Wednesday's Prime Minister's Questions, David Cameron showed again just how removed he and the people of his class are from the reality of the vast majority of people. Besides the fact, that Cameron has shown over a long period that he cannot answer even the questions put to him by other parliamentarians, his performance has become that of the court jester, rather than a serious politician. Its just one indication of what contempt people like Cameron have for the democratic process, or for the electorate. But, the most telling comment was one of the usual throw away remarks he cast in the direction of Ed Miliband.

According to Cameron, in a clash, between Miliband and Myleene Klass, earlier in the week, “Klass wiped the floor with him”. How exactly had she done this? The clash occurred on a TV programme, where Klass had attacked Miliband for Labour's proposal to introduce a mansion tax, on properties priced over £2 million. According to Klass, and given that Cameron believes that she “wiped the floor” with Miliband, we must assume he agrees with these sentiments, in many parts of London, £2 million would be only enough to buy a property “like a garage”.

Now, I have myself pointed out just how ridiculously over priced properties are in London, but anyone who believes that the kind of property you can buy, even in London, with £2 million, is only “like a garage”, is telling you more about themselves, than they are telling you about the London property market. There is no case of a garage being sold, even in the most expensive parts of London, for £2 million. Having said that, there was a case of a garage, with planning permission, in Chelsea, selling recently for £550,000. 

The average price of a detached house in Greater London is £400,000, only a fifth of the £2 million threshold for the tax. Moreover, its estimated that, in the whole of the UK, the total number of properties that would fall within the £2 million limit comes to between 58,000 to 110,000 properties, out of the total 25 million properties in the UK. Put another way, it comes to around 0.5% of the total number of UK properties. If Myleene thinks that £2 million can only buy you what she would consider a garage, its quite clear what Klass perspective she is representing! That Cameron agrees with her, just confirms that he lives the life of a toff.

According to Klass, the tax would hit a load of grannies who have lived in these garage mansions for decades. Not true. According to a number of surveys, two-thirds of the people, who live in the affected properties, have lived there for less than ten years! But, even were it true that some of the people living in these mansions were grannies, who had lived there for years, so what? This is not some equivalent situation to say the bedroom tax, which Cameron is happy to inflict on poor people, and about which his Klass ally seems to be less concerned.

The bedroom tax is imposed on people who start with no money, and who are being taxed because the housing policies of successive governments over the last 30 years has failed to provide sufficient social housing, leaving a shortage of adequate provision. They are being taxed, because, even if they could manage with fewer bedrooms – and many can't for various reasons – councils simply have no smaller properties to move them to! Many of the people being penalised with the bedroom tax, are people who are suffering from the low wage economy created by Thatcher in the 1980's, and perpetuated by her heirs, that leaves millions of workers dependent upon in work benefits, like Housing Benefit, to make up the totally inadequate wages paid to them, by cheapskate employers.

But, those with £2 million properties are in no such position. Even in London, £2 million would buy you four average priced detached houses, thereby avoiding the need to pay the tax. Or just buy one of those properties, leaving you in the rather enviable position of having £1.6 million left over to spend as you like. How many people facing having to pay the bedroom tax would love to be in that position? In fact, in many parts of the country, the £400,000 for a detached house in London, would indeed buy you something approaching a mansion. Again, how many of those facing the bedroom tax would love to have the dilemma of whether to buy an average detached house in London, or a £400,000 mansion in Staffordshire? Again, it shows how removed Cameron and his Klass are from the lives of ordinary people.

Cameron Fatally Wounded

British Imperialism was damaged last night. The vote against another imperialist war in the Middle East was in the end a result of the opposition to such adventures that is now prevalent amongst the British working-class after Iraq. That opposition made itself felt as pressure on MP's of all parties. The fact that British Imperialism was weakened also weakened to an extent US Imperialism that has used British support as cover in the past. That is good news for the global working-class, because a weakened Imperialism means a weakened global capitalist class. But, if British Imperialism was damaged, David Cameron himself was fatally wounded.

In recent months, it has been clear that Cameron has no control over his party. The right-wing of the Tories have pushed increasingly for a more narrowly nationalistic policy over Europe, and policies even more attuned to the interests of the small capitalist base they represent. The success of UKIP in drawing votes away from that base has pressured them even more, and forced Cameron into increasing moves to the Right. In part, that same narrow-nationalist focus was partly behind the attitude of some Tory right wingers in opposing another war. That small-capital base they represent is more concerned with keeping taxes down than with fitting in with the global strategic ambitions of Imperialism.

Cameron is only likely to see increasing challenges to his leadership on such issues from those same backbenchers who were unhappy with his leadership. But, also one of his only lines of attack against Ed Miliband over recent months has been to claim that he was a weak leader. Having become the first Prime Minister to fail to get the backing of Parliament to fight a war in 200 years, having failed largely because of the fact that large numbers of his own party voted against him, he can hardly throw those stones from the position of the glass house he now occupies.

Not only Cameron was damaged. Nick Clegg and the Liberal leadership have become indistinguishable from the Tories. Some of them, like Danny Alexander, are if anything more Tory than the Tories. They have been branded with the mark of Cain now as much as Cameron. The kudos they previously had in opposing the Iraq War was lost when they supported the war against Libya, but yesterday was worse for them, because they stood shoulder to shoulder with Cameron and the other warmongers, and lost. As with every other aspect of Government policy the liberals will suffer for it at the next election.

It is not as though the position adopted by Ed Miliband and labour was particularly radical anti-imperialism – though it was a far better position than the usual pro-imperialist, pro-jihadist position adopted by the AWL. As usual, the AWL refused to oppose the war plans of imperialism, even bragging about the failure to adopt that basic position for socialists, and thereby put themselves again on the side of the imperialists by default, and the side of the vile jihadists who will be the ones to benefit from the bombs raining down on the people of Syria, just as they have done in Iraq, and Libya. In fact, watching the debate yesterday, many of the Tory backbenchers had a better stance than that adopted by the AWL, which is an indication of just what a pathetic gang they have become.

In fact, Labour's amendment also fell. Some Labour MP's refused to support it because they rightly believed it left the door open to Labour supporting intervention at some point in the future. Tories undoubtedly voted against it, because although they were prepared to vote against Cameron, they were not prepared to vote for Labour. But, it also appears that Miliband changed his original position because he faced opposition from within the party for a position that seemed too friendly to Cameron.

The weakening of Cameron and British Imperialism, and the fact that Miliband was forced to stiffen his position should give heart to the British working-class. We should utilise it to oppose other aspects of Liberal-Tory policy, and demand that Miliband stiffen his position of opposition to austerity and other attacks on British workers.

For Cameron Is A Honourable Man

Boris Johnson arrived yesterday in Birmingham to be greeted by the throngs of supporters and media. His arrival had been well prepared and announced via social media, and invitations to the press. It reminded me of Mark Anthony's return to Rome to bury Caesar. In his famous speech from Shakespeare, beginning “Friends, Romans countrymen.....” Mark Anthony sets out his “support” for Brutus who had been one of the conspirators that had murdered Caesar. In that speech Mark Anthony repeatedly states that “Brutus is an honourable man.” Each repetition is yet another barb directed at him. As everyone suspects that Boris Johnson is setting himself up as a replacement for David Cameron, in his speech at a packed fringe meeting last night, and in his Conference speech today, he set out at length all those things he has achieved as mayor of London, whilst declaring his support for Cameron. And why wouldn't he – “for Cameron is a honourable man”.

 The reality is that the Tories, like the Liberal wing of the Liberal-Tory party have serious problems. They have shown themselves peculiarly incompetent. By talking down the state of the economy in 2010, describing it ridiculously as being in the same condition as Greece, by frightening everyone with their threats of swingeing cuts in spending, and tax rises, they stopped the economic recovery of the time dead in its tracks, and sent it into a downward tail spin, even before they had even begun implementing those illiterate economic policies. At the same time, they began attacking the very elements of the Capitalist State apparatus they need to co-operate with them in carrying through their policies. Its not surprising that at every stage they have found themselves being set up by that State apparatus. The centre piece of their economic and political agenda was to reduce the deficit and the debt, and promote growth.

No doubt, because they knew the economy was not as bad as they were painting it, they hoped this would indeed happen. It hasn't precisely because of their own incompetence! That means their economic agenda is screwed, and their political narrative now has them trapped. The economy continues to deteriorate even though they have only implemented 6% of their austerity programme! That also means their political agenda is screwed too. Liberal members know that come the election they will go the way of the Dodo, and their Tory brethren now, also know they too will lose. Increasingly, Liberal and Tory leaders are having to resort to simply shoring up their core support within the electorate, and even within their own parties.

The Liberals have a particular problem with that as I set out recently. Their left of centre support has gone forever. The Centre Right belongs to the Tories, and any attempt to position themselves to the Right of the Tories as some kind of traditional Libertarian Party, is doomed. Unlike the US, where such groups even so have difficulty, there has been no such Libertarian tradition since the 18^th Century, or at best the time of Bentham. The Liberals cannot take up any other position to the right of the Tories, because that ground is taken by the BNP and UKIP, and its core membership would not wear that kind of position anyway. The only future for the Liberal is sunk inside the Tory Party.

That will not be acceptable to many of the remaining Liberal members, as the Tories are themselves forced to move increasingly rightwards. Cameron has already come under pressure from his Party base, because of being seen as too soft on the Liberals. So, any attempt by the Tories to shift Left to pick up Centre-Left votes from Labour is out of the question. Its no wonder that ideologue of “Red Toryism”, Phillip Blond, has abandoned Cameron in favour of Miliband.

Rather like the Republicans in the US, the Tories under pressure from UKIP, who have now replaced the Liberals as the third party, will and are having to move to the right to assuage its core support and membership. That is why they have ramped up the right-wing populism in their attacks on Benefits, its why Osborne came out to strongly oppose Clegg and Cable's proposals for a Wealth Tax or Mansion Tax, its why they have come out with the traditional hang 'em and flog 'em response on crime in relation to shooting burglars and so on.

It was noticeable that in Osborne's speech he referred to the example of the Heath Government of 1970, and compared it unfavourably with that of Thatcher in the 1980's, which set out to slash spending, and attack workers. Yet, as I pointed out several months ago - History Repeating As Farce – today is not the 1980's. The attempt to simply place themselves in the garb of Thatcher from that time is reminiscent of what Marx describes in relation to the coming to power Louis Bonaparte compared to the rise of the first Bonaparte. It is indeed history repeating as farce, not only because this present incarnation are marked by their total incompetence, whereas Thatcher and her cohort, whatever else might be said about them, were ruthless and effective in pursuing their agenda.

But, in that series, I compared the current events with what Marx says about the rise of Louis Bonaparte, and his coup. It was made possible because the bourgeois parties continually were forced to move to the Right, each time undermining and narrowing their own base. In the end the polity had been hollowed out, allowing Louis Bonaparte as the representative of the petit-bourgeoisie, but based upon all of the rootless, and lumpen elements, to simply march into power.

During the June days all classes and parties had united in the party of Order against the proletarian class as the party of anarchy, of socialism, of communism. They had “saved” society from “the enemies of society.” They had given out the watchwords of the old society, “property, family, religion, order,” to their army as passwords and had proclaimed to the counterrevolutionary crusaders: “In this sign thou shalt conquer!” From that moment, as soon as one of the numerous parties which gathered under this sign against the June insurgents seeks to hold the revolutionary battlefield in its own class interest, it goes down before the cry: “property, family, religion, order.” Society is saved just as often as the circle of its rulers contracts, as a more exclusive interest is maintained against a wider one. Every demand of the simplest bourgeois financial reform, of the most ordinary liberalism, of the most formal republicanism, of the most shallow democracy, is simultaneously castigated as an “attempt on society” and stigmatized as “socialism.” And finally the high priests of “religion and order” themselves are driven with kicks from their Pythian tripods, hauled out of their beds in the darkness of night, put in prison vans, thrown into dungeons or sent into exile; their temple is razed to the ground, their mouths are sealed, their pens broken, their law torn to pieces in the name of religion, of property, of the family, of order. Bourgeois fanatics for order are shot down on their balconies by mobs of drunken soldiers, their domestic sanctuaries profaned, their houses bombarded for amusement – in the name of property, of the family, of religion, and of order. Finally, the scum of bourgeois society forms the holy phalanx of order and the hero Crapulinski [a character from Heine’s poem “The Two Knights,” a dissolute aristocrat.] installs himself in the Tuileries as the “savior of society.””

As the Tories move further to their Right to avoid losses to UKIP, and to shore up their base, they likewise, narrow that political base, and enhance those alternative forces. At some point they will seek out a standard bearer, their own Crapulinsky, and it will not be Nick Griffin, and it will not be Nigel Farage. But, it could be Boris Johnson.

Boris is not likely to hand over his position of mayor, precisely because it provides him with a power base. Why would he give that away, in order to become an MP, at a time when the Tories are likely to lose the election? On the contrary, Boris will wait until Cameron loses the election, when the Tory and extra Tory Right seek to remove Cameron, and then Boris will make his move. Then he will “Come to bury Cameron, not to praise him.”

Dickens Would Have Loved This

Charles Dickens never tired of lampooning the hypocrisy, humbug and absurdity of the British Establishment. In Britain today he would have found enough material for several novels.

A Cabinet of multimillionaires tells us we are “All in this together”, as it pursues an illiterate economic policy of austerity, based on political dogma, which is directed almost exclusively at the working and middle classes of the country, and which has sent the economy into a downward tailspin, which will again most adversely affect those classes. Report after report details the extent to which living standards have fallen by around 8% as high rates of inflation, caused by Government and Bank of England policies, squeezes real wages, as nominal wages are frozen, or cut, as taxes and charges rise, and as workers are forced to pay more into their Pension Schemes, whilst they are told they have to work longer before they can receive them, and that they will be smaller when they do. Of course, the increased payments do not actually go to providing a better pension. For workers in the State Capitalist sector, the money goes into the State's coffers to help it cove the deficit it has run up to bail-out its friends in the Banks. And, as Panorama demonstrated a couple of years ago, the reason private sector pensions are so bad – where workers even have them – is because up to two-thirds of their payments into these schemes go not to providing for their pension, but go in Commissions and other payments to the Banks and Insurance companies running the schemes.

The FT yesterday had an article about how in addition to these vast sums being siphoned off from workers pensions there was also significant fraud occurring within them. The FT also had an article yesterday which showed that far from us all being in this together, whilst workers real living standards are falling sharply the cost of living for the rich is actually falling! In an article - Luxury Goods Prices Falling – it shows that the prices of the kinds of things the rich spend their money on has fallen significantly.

And, of course, whilst the wages of workers and the middle class have been frozen or cut, whilst their benefits have been reduced, and their taxes raised, the rich have seen the opposite. In the last year, the pay of British Chief and other Executives has continued to rise by around 40 plus percent. And, of course, as wages have been cut or frozen, profits have risen, which means that the incomes of the rich in the form of dividends, and Capital Gains has risen markedly too. If you have had a large part of your money invested in UK Bonds, then the percentage yield on those Bonds has fallen – though the interest you receive on your original investment has not – but you will have seen the actual value of those Bonds rise markedly, providing a sizeable Capital Gain.

In the meantime, David Cameron's intervention over the tax affairs of Jimmy Carr has acted once again only to emphasise the hypocrisy and incompetence of the Government. Firstly, Cameron decided to speak out about Jimmy Carr's tax affairs, but refused to say anything about Tory supporting Gary Barlow. Of course, he has said nothing about all the other Tory supporters whose tax avoidance is equally liable for criticism. As many punters have pointed out, not only does this demonstrate the Tories hypocrisy, but it also once again demonstrates their ineptitude and incompetence, because it opens the door for the newspapers to boost their readership over coming weeks with revelations about the tax avoidance of Tory MP's and supporters, in a repetition of the MP's expenses scandal of a couple of years ago.

But, for all the coverage of Jimmy Carr's tax saving, it pales into insignificance compared with the tax avoidance that the Government actually encourages for the very rich. After all, one of their first actions was to reduce the taxes on business, they have introduced measures to cut National Insurance payments for employers, but not for workers, and so on. They have cut the 50p tax rate on higher earners at the same time as introducing a massive increase in VAT, which falls heavily on ordinary workers who spend a large part of their income. And, once again demonstrating Cameron's ineptitude, his comments about tax avoidance being immoral came in the same 24 hours when he had encouraged rich French individuals to dodge paying French taxes by relocating to Britain! That is one reason why the attempts of Tories to wrap themselves in the flag of patriotism, as they have done more than ever this year during the Jubilympics, is particularly crass and hypocritical, because like Capitalists everywhere, they have no real commitment to Britain. They will move their Capital anywhere in the world in order to maximise the return on it. It is only workers whose movement they seek to restrict through immigration controls etc.

Over the last few weeks, the most popular blog post I have written has been - Liberal-Tory Incompetence – which has taken over from another post along similar lines - A Bit Of A Pickle – that I wrote in August 2010. Its not surprising. As I pointed out in 2010, the Liberal-Tory Government were already then marked by an obvious degree of incompetence and ineptitude. The 2010 article pointed out that they had taken on the very elements of the State that they needed to effectively push through their measures. Its not surprising that they have so often found themselves having to apologise for faulty information, badly presented or formulated policies, embarrassing leaks and so on. Nor is it surprising that although the economy has suffered from all of the damage to confidence – Keynes' “animal spirits” - that flowed from their dire warnings of collapse into a Greek tragedy, and consequent need to impose a bout of anorexia on the economy, in fact, the Government has so far only managed to implement around 6% of its austerity programme.

Having pointed that out two years ago, and in the more recent post, it now seems that the mainstream media have also now cottoned on to the fact that the Liberal-Tories are pretty inept and incompetent.

But, that is another reason that Dickens would have made hay under those conditions. Dickens whilst lampooning such absurdity never saw the real basis of it. The real reason for the hypocrisy is that Capitalist politics is, and has to be based on a lie, or a whole series of lies – as I pointed out in my post - Capitalism And The Importance Of Lying. In fact, some of the incompetence springs from that source too, because having set up a series of lies in order to win votes, Capitalist politicians then find themselves trapped and having to make at least a show of following through on some of the proposals they have made. Of course, it doesn't explain all of the incompetence of Cameron and Co., that just comes down to the fact that they are incompetent.

Another example of that was given this weekend with Cameron's interview with the Mail on Sunday. At a time when the media is full of stories about rich people avoiding millions in taxes, who on Earth would consider it the time for Cameron not to talk about that, but to focus on yet a another £10 billion round of attacks on Benefits??? Not even the rancorous diatribes of the Mail and Express can surely overcome in the minds of the vast majority the chasm of separation between the Liberal-Tories attitudes to multi-millionaires who avoid paying even minimal amounts of tax, with their attitude to poor people, who even when they do fiddle their Benefits, still barely manage to make ends meet on a day to day basis, let alone the vast majority who do not!

But, Cameron's proposal to deprive under 25's of Housing Benefit, is likely to have other unforeseen consequences. The Liberal-Tory proposals to cap Housing Benefit has already led to a sort of ethnic cleansing of London, as Boroughs seek to relocate families to other Authorities as far away as Stoke. In Liberal-Tory Britain in 2012, it is the under 25's who form a large proportion of the unemployed. Given the concentration of population in London, the Liberal-Tory proposals are likely to have a significant effect on the London private rental market, adding to the consequences of the Housing benefit cap. Whilst the latter is likely to simply lead to a denuding of workers from Central London, who provide many of the more mundane and low paid jobs, the latter is likely to see both an increase in the number of young homeless, and an increase in the number of young people who remain in their parents home. The latter is undoubtedly the Liberal-Tory intention as a means of saving on Housing Benefit. The unintended consequence will be a large reduction in housing demand. That will affect all those amateur speculators who have gone into the buy-to-let market over recent years.

They are seeing downward pressure on rents due to some of the other measures introduced by the Liberal-Tories, and because of falling incomes, they are also seeing steep falls in the value of their properties, as the bubble in UK property prices begins to pop. At the same time, Banks and Building Societies are being forced to increase rates both for ordinary mortgages and for buy-to-let mortgages because of rising funding costs due to the developing Credit Crunch in Europe, and because of the repeated downgrades of Banks such as that announced by Moody's last week. The FT, this weekend ha an article which looks at the way in which Banks and Building Societies are now tightening the screw on those with mortgages who, having found it impossible to sell their houses as the property market crashes, have turned to renting it out. Now the Banks and Building Societies, are telling them that if they do, they will have to switch to a buy-to-let mortgage, which means paying up to twice as much in interest!

The lies that Capitalism is based upon stem from the nature of class society, and the fact that exploitation is presented as merely an exchange of equals. Dickens saw the inequities of Capitalism as flowing not from this class division of society, but from the individual actions of the Establishment. By the same token, he saw the solution not in the collective action s of workers, but equally in individual action. In his only novel set outside London – “Hard Times” - for example, he is as critical of the Trade Union organiser as he is of the employer. In all of his novels the happy ending is one achieved by individuals, and often by individuals given a helping hand by some philanthropist, for example the Cheerybyl Brothers in “Nicholas Nickleby”. In other words, he never rises above a radical Liberal criticism of Capitalism.

But, that is the case today with the media coverage over tax avoidance, and other elements of Liberal-Tory hypocrisy. The media can easily take on the role of critic under such conditions, because in reality, it does not take me, the media or anyone else to point out to ordinary workers, under current conditions the hypocrisy of the Liberal-Tories. It is there for all to see. But, indignation at that hypocrisy ultimately goes nowhere unless the explanation for it is rooted in an understanding of where it comes from. All too easily can that indignation be simply translated into calls for individual action, for people to be moral in their tax affairs, for naming and shaming of tax cheats, for limits on high pay, or for changes in the tax regime. But, none of these things can make one iota of difference to the problem.

Calls for people to be moral in their tax affairs begs the question what is morality in this regard. It is likely only to result in the less well off feeling even more under pressure. In the meantime the billionaires, and the huge corporations will continue to avoid paying billions in taxes. Limits on high pay, will not affect those who receive tens of millions in dividends and Capital Gains. And, no change in the tax regime, as Marx pointed out will change the relation between Capital and Labour. No amount of individual action of the kind Dickens wrote about, nor even collective action by Trades Unions, or Labour Governments can change that reality. As Marx pointed out,

“Any distribution whatever of the means of consumption is only a consequence of the distribution of the conditions of production themselves. The latter distribution, however, is a feature of the mode of production itself. The capitalist mode of production, for example, rests on the fact that the material conditions of production are in the hands of nonworkers in the form of property in capital and land, while the masses are only owners of the personal condition of production, of labor power. If the elements of production are so distributed, then the present-day distribution of the means of consumption results automatically. If the material conditions of production are the co-operative property of the workers themselves, then there likewise results a distribution of the means of consumption different from the present one. Vulgar socialism (and from it in turn a section of the democrats) has taken over from the bourgeois economists the consideration and treatment of distribution as independent of the mode of production and hence the presentation of socialism as turning principally on distribution. After the real relation has long been made clear, why retrogress again?”

Critique Of The Gotha Programme

In other words, if we really want to get rid of these inequalities, and all of the immorality, the absurdity, the incompetence, and the lies that go with it, we have to get rid of the economic basis of them. We have to replace the ownership of the means of production by Capitalists, and replace it with the Co-operative ownership of the means of production by the workers themselves.

Cash For Cameron - Cut The Crap

Shock horror - the Tories take money from rich people, and pursue policies in favour of rich people; who would have guessed??? Why is anyone surprised that a Party, which was set up by members of the Aristocracy, and then replaced the Liberal Party, as the natural home of the country's Capitalists, and their supporters amongst the Upper Middle Classes, takes money from those people, and that it pursues policies in their interests?  Its like expecting the Manchester United Fan Club, to organise events to support Manchester City!!!

The real reason the media is full of all this faux surprise and disdain is because the commoditisation of politics means that we have to be fooled into believing that political parties are there to respond to the views of the electorate. But, that was never the basis on which Political parties were formed. They were formed by groups of people who wanted to push a particular point of view, a particular set of ideas about how society should be organised. That being the case, especially in a "First Past The Post", "Winner Takes All" system, like in Britain, that means that the Party who wins has a mandate to pursue that set of ideas it was propounding, and that means on behalf of that section of society whose interests it was appealing to.

No one should be more surprised that the Tories take money from rich people, who then get the ear of the Government, than that the Tories, and their Liberal clones, last week, pushed through a Budget that also favoured the rich, and further attacked ordinary working people. Society is not divided into just two Classes, but it is divided into two great "Class Camps", as Marx put it in the Communist Manifesto. That is the Camp of Capital and the Camp of Labour. The Liberal-Tories represent the former, and Labour should represent the latter. There is nothing wrong, or surprising, then in the rich, and the representatives of Capital, giving money to the Liberal-Tories in return for them pursuing policies in their interests, any more than there is anything wrong with workers, through their union subscriptions, or through individual subscriptions, paying money to Labour for the same reason.

As the saying goes, "You pays your money, and you makes your choice." If you are a worker, and you vote Liberal-Tory, then why on Earth would you expect a Party, set up by the rich, and financed by the rich, to pursue policies in your interest??? The lesson is simple. If you are a worker don't vote for them! What you might expect, however, is that Labour, financed by, and supported by, the Trades Unions, would in the same way act on your behalf. The experience, of course, does not support such a belief. That is not because, rich people like Bernie Ecclestone, also donate money to Labour. It is because the Labour Party was set up by the Trades Unions who themselves, rather than setting themselves in opposition to Capital, saw their role as assisting in its success as the only means by which workers could also prosper.

In the same way that workers do not exercise control over their unions, or Consumer Co-operatives, because they fail to take an active part in their functioning, so they have failed to take an active part, on a mass scale in the functioning of their Party, and with the obvious consequence, as Roberto Michels set out in his Iron Law Of Oligarchy, that the central bureaucracies, of these organisations, assert their own interests. Those interests are closely connected with the need to continue to function within the existing system. Of course, that is not an argument against building Workers' Parties, or Trades Unions, or Worker Owned Co-operatives - or even participating in Consumer Co-operatives - to fail to do so would be Ultra-Left sectarianism. It is an argument for Marxists to insist on building all these organisations from the ground up, as mass organisations, whose focus is away from bargaining within the existing system, and towards the direct action, and self-organisation, and self-government of the working-class, based on direct participatory democracy, that Marx put forward, and which becomes necessary for workers if they are running their own Co-operative enterprise, their own Co-operative Housing, Community etc.

The worst thing that could come out of this would be if it led to the State financing of political parties. Already, the large salaries paid to MP's, by the State, ensures that those drawn into it, are largely careerist politicians, who see the joining of a Party as being like catching a bus. They choose which colour bus to catch based on which they think will get them to where they want to go most easily. If these career politicians no longer had to rely at all on having a Party machine behind them, made up of Party activists, who do have some ideological basis for joining a particular Party, then they could separate themselves completely, in order to operate in a world which was indeed one in which politics had become just another commodity to be sold to voters.

It is not the fact that the Tories take large sums of money from rich people that is shocking here. In large part, many of those rich people are likely to be as disappointed as Trade Union members in their donations to Labour. For the real Capitalists, the owners of the biggest companies like Microsoft, there is no need to pay money to have dinner with Cameron or any other politician. It is more likely to be the other way around, and certainly Governments fall over themselves to hand over money to get these companies to invest in their economies. In the end, it is the interests of these Big capitalists that win out, not the small fry, who feel the need to hand over the odd £1/4 million, in the hope of gaining some personal favour. What is shocking is the fact that the supposedly sophisticated media, of a developed country like Britain, have acted with such surprise at it being revealed.

What is a reason for outrage is not the fact that the Tories have been found out to be taking this money but the fact that, throughout Sunday, David Cameron, and Party Chairman, Michael Fallon, appeared on TV News reports asserting that the comments by the Party Treasurer, were just bluster, and could not have happened. But, today we find out that it HAD happened as Cruddas had said. Money had changed hands, and meetings in Downing Street had taken place, and contrary to what Fallon seemed to be suggesting - though in the interview with Andrew Neill, on the Sunday Politics he was very evasive - these meetings had not been recorded. In fact, this morning, Downing Street are insisting that they will not provide details of these meetings!

This seems remarkably similar to the proceedings, only a couple of weeks ago, when it came out that David Cameron's association with Charlie Brooks had led to him riding the Police horse he had been lent by the Metropolitan Police. At first, Cameron denied any knowledge of the horse, let alone having ridden it. Then a couple of days later he had to admit he had done so. Now we are told that these meetings did not take place, and could not have taken place, then we find out they did, but we will not be told the details of them! That is, above anything, just typical of the political incompetence of the Tories, an incompetence that has been apparent in much of their actions from the time of the Election. The last example of it was over the way they dealt with the "Granny Tax" in the Budget.

If I were a Tory donor, my main concern would be not getting value for money from such a bunch of amateurs.