The EU referendum: is there an anti neoliberal way to vote?

The EU referendum is on Thursday, and I’m still undecided as to what I’ll do.

This campaign has been in stark contrast to the independence referendum campaign.  It has been un-engaging, unedifying, and I’ve felt no connection to it whatever.  The public reaction has seemed to me completely different from my experience of the independence referendum, too: this time nobody has talked to me about it at parties, in the pub, in the barber’s shop, in the street.  There is no excitement, no spontaneity, no feeling of mass participation in a debate about what kind of future we’d like to see. The level of “debate” on social media has been lacklustre, the official debate from our political class has been uninformative, and the coverage in the mainstream media has seemed to me to belong to a different planet to the one I inhabit.

We’re being asked by some to vote in favour of remaining in the EU on the basis of a description of the EU that really doesn’t match the reality.  It is not the great protector of migrants, it is not the champion of the workers, nor is it even a bulwark against the far right, as just a glance at the far right in EU countries will show you. For me to vote to remain in the EU would require a level of cognitive dissonance I don’t think I could maintain.

I think it's worth saying that the project that some people think they signed up to - a Europe of cooperation, of solidarity, of mutual aid, of democratic institutions we can all be part of, etc - is a good and worthwhile project.   It's just that the EU has demonstrated that it isn't it.

I've always favoured a closely linked Europe of solidarity between peoples.

The EU has shown, in its treatment of Greece, that it is not the institution to deliver that. It is instead a bankers', bureaucrats' and technocrats' tyranny that can overturn the democratically expressed wishes of any member state it feels deserves to be humiliated for daring to question the austerity consensus.   In or out we get austerity, and “remain” austerity has demonstrated it’s no friendly affair.

The EU has shown, in its treatment of migrants, that it is not the welcoming place it paints itself.  The razor wire, the grubby deals to deport Syrian refugees from Greece, the German and Danish border controls, the Calais “jungle”.  That is all happening within the EU.

The EU is a neoliberal project. The Lisbon Treaty of 2007, which we were led into by Gordon Brown, is a codification of neoliberal principles.  Far from being about protecting workers’ rights, it is about protecting the interests of the business elites. It is a prospectus for privatisation and deregulation, for eroding public health services and free education, and for decimating pension provision.

None of that looks like evidence of solidarity between peoples to me.

I’ve been amazed to see on social media people who were pro-Yes suggesting that voting Leave necessarily makes you a xenophobic bigot; have they got such short memories?  Voting Yes did not necessarily make you an anti-English bigot – that was part of a smear campaign.  And frankly it made me more determined to vote Yes.  Why on earth would recipients of that smear tactic think it will have a different effect on me this time?

It’s true that there has been almost no space at all given to a left case for exit.  The mainstream media has been dominated by volleys between the Cameron-led neoliberal camp and the Johnson-led neoliberal camp.  I have no horse in that race.  The fact that this version of the race is pretty much all there is to be seen in mainstream media coverage probably accounts for the blanket disengagement from the process I have experienced out here in the real world of bus stops and barbers.

People on social media say that a vote for Leave will give succour to Farage and Johnson.  Does a vote for Remain not by the same logic give succour to Cameron and the CBI?  I don’t want to give succour to either pairing.  But is that the best argument for voting either way?  That you don’t like some of the people who are also voting that way?  I’m tempted to say “a plague on both of your houses”, although I’m aware that this seems little better than wishing a plague on one house more than the other.

My choice seems to be to abstain.  I may still be undecided by this time on Thursday.


Update: Undecided until the evening of Thursday, in the end I voted Remain through fear that a Leave win might be seen as a vote of confidence in the UKIPpy right.   Now that a Leave win has come to pass, I hope it will not give legitimacy to a xenophobic lurch to the right.

Is There A Home For Me in Scottish Labour?

"In the US, there is basically one party - the business party. It has two factions, called Democrats and Republicans, which are somewhat different but carry out variations on the same policies. By and large, I am opposed to those policies. As is most of the population". - Noam Chomsky.



When I first voted, way back in 1983, I couldn’t wait to vote Labour. I was keen to be rid of the Tories. Little did I realise it would be such a long wait. And when Labour finally got into power in 1997, they turned out to be a government who admired Thatcher and continued her legacy. They proved to be a militarist government, taking us into wars that millions (including me) marched in opposition to. They were unrecognisable. So unrecognisable, that my long wait to be rid of the Tories didn’t seem to be over at all. They were still in power, just with a different name.  It seemed to me that Noam Chomsky's analysis of American party politics could equally be applied to Labour and the Tories here.

But now the Labour Party says it wants my vote.

Yes voters can find a home in Scottish Labour says @jimmurphymp. We disagreed for one day in September, but we agree on so much more. #bbcsp

— Scottish Labour (@scottishlabour) January 11, 2015

“Yes voters can find a home in Scottish Labour says @jimmurphymp. We disagreed for one day in September, but we agree on so much more.”

Well, let’s find out, shall we?

Trident.
A fundamental issue for me is getting rid of Trident. Do we agree on that, Scottish Labour?
No, Labour failed to support "a simple and non-partisan motion" on the renewal of Trident, in what CND called "a snapshot of the gulf between Westminster and the British public".

http://www.cnduk.org/cnd-media/item/2068-trident-debate-is-a-snapshot-of-the-gulf-between-westminster-and-the-british-public


Austerity.
What about austerity, then? The political ideology that seeks to punish the poor for the sins of the rich. Can we agree on that?

Well, it didn’t seem promising when Darling, before heading Better Together, said Labour’s cuts would be “tougher and deeper than Thatcher’s” were in the 1980s.

(http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8587877.stm). But he was then replaced by Ed Balls, so what did Balls say? Well, he was keen to show he had “tightened Labour’s austerity stance”:

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/blog/live/2014/sep/22/labour-conference-ed-balls-speech-and-reaction-politics-live-blog

He had also said, if elected, Labour could cut £5billion in its first year of Government.

“Labour would not reverse billions of pounds of spending cuts to the police, hospitals, armed forces and local councils, Ed Balls has confirmed.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/general-election-2015/11326446/Ed-Balls-forced-to-admit-Labour-could-cut-5billion-in-first-year-of-Government.html

Jim Murphy, now Scottish Labour leader, was vociferous on the matter:

He said Labour must adopt the Tory spending cuts in order to appear credible, and said Labour should reject what he called "shallow and temporary" populism. Labour should accept £5bn of Tory cuts in defence (which was his brief at the time).

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/jan/05/labour-party-spending-cuts-credible

But surely they wouldn’t vote to support Tory austerity measures?

Well, they did. Although Save the Children warned that the measure would push 345,000 more children into poverty, shamefully on 26th March 2014, Labour voted with the Tories in favour of an arbitrary and damaging welfare cap, thus ending Labour’s long weakened association with the welfare state.

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/salman-shaheen/welfare-cap_b_5042380.html

“Asked whether Labour would cap the same benefits and use the same numbers as in the Budget, Mr Balls replied: ‘Yes.’.”

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/welfare-cap-will-push-345000-children-into-poverty-in-just-four-years-warns-save-the-children-9217442.html

http://www.savethechildren.org.uk/2014-03/welfare-cap-risks-pushing-345000-more-children-poverty

Tory Austerity II - Osborne's "Budget Responsibility"

Another fundamental for me is not voting to support George Osborne’s “Charter for Budget Responsibility”, (AKA deeper austerity). Do we agree on that, Scottish Labour?

No, they voted to approve it:

http://www.parliament.uk/business/news/2015/january/mps-debate-charter-for-budget-responsibility/


Neoliberalism.

I detest neoliberalism and what it stands for. Do we agree on that, Scottish Labour?

Miliband has reaffirmed the original neoliberal ideal, says Daniel Stedman Jones http://t.co/Bd47CRd5

— New Statesman (@NewStatesman) October 15, 2012

Oh dear.

(Useful link on neoliberalism and what it is: http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2006/lilley190606.html)

The Royal Mail.

I think the Royal Mail should be renationalised – Westminster could choose to do this. I think it should. Do we agree on that, Scottish Labour?

- “Labour rules out Royal Mail renationalisation pledge”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24327001

It would seem not.

The renationalisation of utilities.

I think rail, electricity, and gas should also be renationalised – again, Westminster could choose to do that. Polls show that the majority of the electorate think it should.

https://yougov.co.uk/news/2013/11/04/nationalise-energy-and-rail-companies-say-public/

The public wants it. Does Labour? Can we at least agree on that, Scottish Labour?

It seems that the best Miliband can offer is a replacement ombudsman.

“He vowed to abolish energy watchdog Ofgem and replace it with a new regulatory regime that ensures customers get a "fair deal".”

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-24213366

That’s pretty disappointing stuff, Labour.

The new Clause Four.

I note that you are rewording Clause Four of your Party Constitution. Let’s see if I find it attractive.

“To these ends we work for the patriotic interest of the people of Scotland”.

http://www.scottishlabour.org.uk/blog/entry/yes-and-no-voters-can-find-a-home-in-the-scottish-labour-party

Oh, no. That’s put me off straight away. I detest patriotism. My Yes vote was not about patriotism or nationalism, but about a strategy for breaking us out of the neoliberal cage that Westminster politics has become defined by.

The NHS.

One of my fundamental beliefs is in a health care system, free at the point of use. The NHS that means so much to us in this country was first introduced by the post-War Labour government, back in 1948.

Surely Labour can be trusted on the NHS?

Well, they told us this in the referendum:

“The NHS is safe with a No vote”.

Worried about the future of the NHS? It's safe with a No vote. #indyref #LabourNo http://t.co/yZBlwXaEAZ

— Scottish Labour (@scottishlabour) September 17, 2014

There was a No vote, so that means the NHS is safe, does it? (Cue hollow laughing).

No, according to Labour, it would seem not.

In fact, yesterday, I got a Labour leaflet telling me how much peril the NHS was in. Despite those words “the NHS is safe with a No vote”. Do they think the electorate is stupid, or has such a short memory?

But not only are they mendacious and cynical, they are also personally and individually up to their necks in private health. Here is a list of Labour politicians with financial links to private health firms, according to research published on 2nd March 2014 by Andrew Robertson of Social Investigations.  - Yes, Labour politicians.

Labour MPs with financial links to private health firms:

1. Luciana Berger: MP for Liverpool.
2. David Blunkett: MP for Sheffield.
3. Rosie Cooper: MP for West Lancashire.
4. Simon Danczuk - MP for Rochdale.
5. Alistair Darling: MP for Edinburgh South-West.
6. Frank Dobson: MP for Holborn and St Pancras.
7. Frank Field – MP for Birkenhead.
8. Barry Gardiner: MP for Brent North.
9. David Lammy: MP for Tottenham.
10. Jamie Reed: MP for Copeland.
11. Emma Reynolds: Labour MP for Wolverhampton North East.
12. Owen Smith: MP for Pontypridd.
13. Gisela Suart: MP for Birmingham, Egbaston.
14. Shaun Woodward: MP for St Helens South.

Labour members of the House of Lords with financial links to private health firms:

1. Baroness Billingham.
2. Lord Carter.
3. Viscount Chandos
4. Lord Darzi.
5. Lord Davies of Abersoch.
6. Lord Eatwell
7. Lord Elder.
8. Lord Evans of Watford.
9. Lord Filkin.
10. Baroness Ford.
11. Lord Gavron.
12. Lord Goldsmith.
13. Lord Grocott.
14. Lord Harris of Haringey.
15. Lord Hollick.
16. Lord Hunt of Kings Heath.
17. Lord Hutton of Furness.
18. Baroness Jay.
19. Baroness Kingsmill.
20. Lord Leitch.
21. Baroness Liddell.
22. Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale.
23. Baroness McDonagh.
24. Baroness Mallalieu.
25. Lord Malloch-Brown.
26. Lord Mandelson.
27. Lord Moonie.
28. Baroness Morgan of Huyton.
29. Lord Myners.
30. Lord Noon.
31. Lord Puttnam.
32. Lord Sainsbury of Turville.
33. Lord Sawyer.
34. Lord Simpson.
35. Lord Sugar.
36. Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.
37. Lord Warner.

http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2014/03/compilation-of-parliamentary-financial.html

It’s a long list. Can we therefore trust Labour to vote dispassionately on NHS matters? On the basis of that research, I know I don’t.


So, is there a home for me in Scottish Labour?

No, sorry Jim, there isn’t a home for me in Scottish Labour You are not a party I could ever vote for. On too many fundamental issues, you are sadly everything I despise.


Here is a selection of articles containing current Labour party thinking, with which I can't agree:

Labour will make cuts to welfare budget if it wins 2015 election
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2012/oct/02/labour-cuts-welfare-liam-byrne

Labour support Iain Duncan Smith's fast-tracked emergency legislation to reverse the outcome of a court of appeal decision whereby jobseekers deemed were to have been unlawfully punished.
http://www.theguardian.com/society/2013/mar/15/dwp-law-change-jobseekers-poundland

Harriet Harman says: people feel 'resentful' of benefit claimants 'not pulling their weight'
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9977158/Harriet-Harman-people-feel-resentful-of-benefit-claimants-not-pulling-their-weight.html

Senior Labour figure says: "The welfare state has a legitimacy problem in Britain"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/05/labour-draw-sting-welfare-or-lose-2015

"Why I, a Labour peer, am supporting a regulated market for NHS competition"
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/apr/23/regulated-market-nhs-competition

Labour backs Iain Duncan Smith's "universal credit".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2316612/Universal-Credit-shake-make-sure-work-pays-gets-underway-Labour-finally-admits-sensible-idea.html#ixzz2S2gaOdOj

Ed Balls: Labour would cap state pension if it returned to power
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ed-balls-labour-would-cap-state-pension-if-it-returned-to-power-8651196.html

Liam Byrne says benefit cap isn’t tough enough.
http://blogs.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/2013/07/liam-byrne-changes-tack-to-say-benefit-cap-isnt-tough-enough/

Labour Turns its Back on the Welfare State

When Tony Benn died, along with him died the unheeded conscience of the Labour Party. Yesterday the Party of Atlee and Bevan turned its back on the Welfare State and forfeited for once and for all the right to be considered the inheritors of the legacy of the post-war government.

Save the Children has warned that the welfare cap will push 345,000 children into poverty over the next four years. And for what? This policy won’t do anything to address the problem. It isn’t trying to.

The problem is that ordinary decent people are in low paid jobs with wages that don’t meet the spiralling costs of living, meaning they have to rely on tax credits and housing benefits. Do you receive tax credits? They are subject to the cap.

The problem is that many of those in work have zero hour contracts, are in unstable self-employment, or having their hours slashed. The problem is that people are facing the choice between heat and food.

This is a policy decided in reaction to Daily Mail headlines and by trying to out-Farage UKIP.

The people that will be harmed are not “scroungers” but ordinary decent families in need. And that is the point. We have a Labour Party – a Labour Party! – that is demonising the poor. On the back of a few sensationalised accounts in rightwing newspapers and some lurid television programmes, a picture has been painted of an “undeserving poor” that the “deserving poor” are meant to vilify. And that is the justification for this attack on all those in need. The attack on disabled people, on retired people, on people in unstable employment, on people out of work, the vast majority of whom desperately want work.

This policy will push people into debt, into further poverty, into food banks, and into homelessness. This is a policy that blames and punishes those in need for the economic crisis. Never mind corporations that avoid tax, let’s attack the poor. The bankers cause a crash? Bail them out, but savagely attack the poor. Energy companies racking up heating bills? Means test pensioners for winter fuel allowance.

“We’re all in it together”. It’s a sick joke that Osborne repeated in his budget speech. And all of this is backed by Labour. Balls and Miliband have said they will stick to the austerity ideology of the Tories. They have said they will not reverse any of the Tory welfare cuts.

When I first reached voting age, in 1983, it seemed only natural for me to vote Labour. There was never even any question in my mind that I should vote any other way. Now, where should people turn for decency and humanity? Labour is morally bankrupt. It no longer represents the people it was founded to represent. It has turned its back on us.

This is the party that wants us to vote No in the independence referendum. It wants us to vote No in the hope that Labour will win the next Westminster election. It is far from certain that Labour would win, but even if it did, what difference would it make? They’ve already told us they’ll do the same as the Tories anyway! After Labour’s shameful performance yesterday, I expect more and more people to see that Labour has abandoned them. I expect more and more people to turn away from the morally bankrupt politics of Westminster. And I expect more and more people to come round to the idea of voting Yes on 18th September.