The Fabian Society has discovered that those who have given Labour such a commanding lead, which at 14 points would require a 29-point swing to the Conservatives for them to overcome it, are "well to the left of the population at large". Apart from the question of how that is arithmetically possible, it depends on what you mean by "left-wing".
The turn to the Labour Party of Ed Miliband, with him of Jon Cruddas, and with him of Maurice Glasman, is the turn by those opposed to the crippling of provincial economies through the
slashing of the spending power of public employees far from London, to the
breaking up of the National Health Service with a view to its piecemeal
privatisation, to the deregulation of Sunday trading, to the devastation of
rural communities through the sale of our Post Office and of our roads, to the
abolition of Gift Aid, and to the imposition of VAT on listed building repairs,
among other attacks on the things most valued by conservative Britain, which
rightly looks to the State to safeguard those values.
The present generation is
crying out for an alternative to neoliberal economic policy, unrestricted
liberal social policy, neoconservative foreign policy, and the triumph of the
1970s sectarian Left and the 1980s sectarian Right on the supposedly centrist
basis of the common position at which they have arrived since 1990. Yet that is
the foundation of the Coalition established in the aftermath of the 2010
General Election.
It is no wonder that the
local elections have proved a triumph for a de facto alternative
Coalition embracing all parts of the United Kingdom, all of their respective
internal regions, all ethnic groups and social classes, all living generations
of voting age, town and country, conventionally left-wing and conventionally
right-wing, Labour and Independent. The purpose is now two-fold. To give intellectually
rigorous and persuasive voice to the intuitive basis of that alternative
Coalition. And to give organisational expression to it, so as to replace, not only one Coalition party, but both of them.
What are your thoughts on Common Purpose? Are you affiliated with this organisation in any way?
ReplyDeleteMy thoughts are readily available in print.
ReplyDeleteI have visited some of those Stop Common Purpose websites, to look up my own locality. I have found that there were lots of names, several of which were familiar to me as someone who has lived round here most of his life and been active in various fields.
I had met a number of them a few times, and a few of them a number of times. But only one was remotely well-known even to someone like me. And his inclusion was, frankly, beyond ludicrous.
If the thing really exists at all, then it is a Wizard of Oz operation. Like the Blilderbergers, not worth worrying about. The real threats are elsewhere. And my detailing of them is, again, readily available in print.
Thank you for your response.
ReplyDeleteI didn't imagine for a moment you would have been involved with them, but I'm always sensitive to references to The Fabians, so I felt I had to ask. I have only recently become acquainted with your work, and I was rather taken with excitement that there are people with your ideas and beliefs who can meld a coherent vision of what can be achieved with the Labour Party in the near future, were it to so choose to follow such a vision.
A lot - most? - of what you articulate really chimes with me. I am glad I found this place. And by the looks of recent events, it seems I'm not the only one.....
I find the anti-Common Purpose fraternity a strange bunch themselves - how much do we really know, for example, about Brian Gerrish, other than that he is a retired Naval officer who had some apparently nasty brushes with Common Purpose, doesn't like them very much and has made lots of videos saying so?
ReplyDeleteStill, although I doubt whether Common Purpose - if even a fraction of the allegations against it have some foundation in fact - is the only organisation creating mischief here and elsewhere, I'd still be interested to know why you think that the putative threat that it presents can be so easily and summarily dismissed. To which of your earlier writings can I refer to obtain an answer to this perplexity?