The Ego Effect

Or why we double down when the facts are against us

“A man with a conviction is a hard man to change. Tell him you disagree and he turns away.Show him facts and figures and he questions your sources. Appeal to his logic and he fails to see your point” Leon Festinger

We all know scenarios when friends, colleagues, politicians or those in our social media field have a strongly held belief that they can’t let go off. The facts are against them. Their own experience shows that the assumptions they have made are false. Obviously what they will do is accept reality and move on. Yet so many don’t, they instead shift the goalposts or create new parameters or simply deny that was what they actually meant. This is called the Ego Effect.

In the 1950s a psychologist, Leon Festinger, read a story about a local woman Marian Keech who claimed that she had information from a superior being about a forthcoming calamitous flood. She had a specific date and time. She persuaded a number of people to give up their belongings and join her in the back garden of her Michigan house to be rescued.

Festinger and two researches joined the group to observe. Keech claimed that she had received a message that the saucers were on the way and her entourage, after having removed all the metal on their persons (obviously), then stood outside to be picked up.

Unsurprisingly by 2:00a.m.on the following day the followers gave up exhausted and nearly frozen when the spaceships failed to arrive.

The assumption, of course, would be that the cult members would at this juncture give up and go home defeated.

That isn’t what happened. They instead made excuses as to why the beings had not arrived. Keech herself claimed that the reason was due to the presence of this good group of people. The cult rather than disperse doubled down. What had been a small secretive group become more active, hitting the media and actively recruiting members. They kept making predictions in the hope that one might actually come true.

Festinger in 1957 wrote a paper “A theory of Cognitive Dissonance” in which he theorised that we have a tendency to ignore or reframe the facts to support our deep held beliefs, rather than accept that we were wrong.

This tendency is an essential barrier to moving forward. In some instances with deadly consequences. In medicine highly skilled Doctors would cling to a belief, perhaps installed during training, which would result in poor outcomes. Yet rather than change their behaviour they would assume it was an issue with the patient or the nursing staff or bad luck or more often a complication.

Those of us that indulge in social media see examples of that behaviour every day, and very likely are guilty of clinging onto a firmly help belief ourselves. Even if the facts seem to exclude the possibility that we are 100% right, Even more annoying is other clinging to their beliefs even when the facts, experience and reality excludes the possibility that they are right. Brexit, Climate change, Covid, Immigration  have exponents of this phenomenon on both sides and it is I think incumbent on all of us to consider if we are always wholly right or “they” are always wholly wrong.

It is of course frustrating that you see this tendency in others, but perhaps we should also be careful to examine our own beliefs to make sure that they still meet the facts. It is rare that every viewpoint is black and white, mostly we should accept that there are shades of grey, even if just a hint.

Why is the use of language important?

A reflection on the growth of Anti-Semitism.

I have based this essay on some work that I did on a module on the Holocaust at the Open University. It isn’t intended as a complete study of the events leading up to the mass extermination of the Jewish people but just a few thoughts on how a civilized nation like Germany could be converted into a brutal regime with so little concern for humanity.

Holocaust:

The holocaust was not the first act of genocide to occur in modern history. The Armenian massacre by the Turks and the murder of millions of Ukrainians by the Soviet Government both occurred in the first half of the twentieth century. Nor was anti-Semitism started by the Germans, throughout history Jewish people had been singled out for persecution. In the middle ages during the Black Death Jews were murdered after being accused of poisoning wells. They had been driven out of nations and denied the rights enjoyed by other citizens. In the UK we had anti-Jewish propaganda in abundance. The Rothermere owned papers, the Mail and Mirror, were ardently pro-Nazi. Tory MP Archie Ramsay was interned during the war for his pro Nazis views.

Jews had often been scapegoated because they were a visible minority community, they had differing religious practices, they were often efficient money lenders and one major factor in the generation of anti-Semitism by Hitler was the large influx of Jews into Germany fleeing the collapse of the 1917 Russian Government and the man-made famine in Ukraine.

The key difference about the holocaust with the genocides that preceded it was the huge scale and industrialisation of the Nazi programme to eradicate Jewish people and the other people Hitler regarded as undesirable Roma, Homosexuals, Disabled, Socialists, Free Masons, Jehovah Witnesses and others.

Hitler’s Philosophy:

It is hard to find where Hitler started to embrace his Anti-Jewish sentiments they may have started before the Great War but it is that conflict that seems to have been the turning point in his life.

The First World War: it was a common theme in post WW1 Germany that the nation had been betrayed by the Jews, the social democrats and the communists rather than losing on the battlefield. It wasn’t true, of course, many German Jews made the ultimate sacrifice for their country. However it fed into the mind set of many normal Germans.

The post war chaos in Germany resulted in a number of attempted rebellions, manly by Communist groups, it provoked a widespread reaction from the right. Army soldiers were given lessons in the danger of communism and nationalism, it was here that Hitler discovered his power of oratory and started his political career with the German Workers Party.

Hitler argued that he was less in favour of uncontrolled outbursts of random violence, but that he argued for “antisemitism of the mind”. They needed to be a legal base for the expulsion (initially) of the Jews from German soil as they would dilute the stock of good German citizenry and were a “germ” that needed controlling.

Hitler argued that the Jews were part of a global conspiracy (a still common part of antisemitism) to take over the world and that they would exploit capitalism to achieve their ends. Notwithstanding the obvious contradiction he also believed that communism was Jewish plot.

Before the outbreak of WW2 Hitler focused on removing Jews from Germany. The 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop pact with the Soviets agreed amongst other things to the forceful removal of over a million Jews from Germany to resettlement camps in the East and the resettlement of their lands by ethnic Germans.

Central to Hitler’s philosophy was a belief in higher and lower races. The Nuremberg Laws stripping Jews of their rights and freedoms was the first stage of his plans to expel anyone with Jewish roots from German soil.

The Four Strands of Anti-Semitism:

Economic:

The depression in Germany had been particularly hard and the Nazis pointed to the relatively wealthy Jewish bankers and businessmen as the cause of the problems. The general theme of scapegoating is a regular occurrence in the story of the growth of anti-Semitism in Germany and elsewhere.

Racial:

Hitler identified Jews as a homogenous race, regardless if they had converted to Christianity or other religions. He used that philosophy to include children of mixed religious marriages, because of his belief in the pure bloodlines of the German (Aryan) race. He tied the purity of the Aryan race to the occupation of the land and wanted immigrant Jews expelled from the German Empire.

Religious:

The Nazis pointed to odd religious practices as alien to their culture. The practice of separate education and laws. The continued belief that Jews killed Jesus.

Political:

Middle class Germans were more concerned about the “Communist” threat seeing Jewish intellectuals as a potential source of revolution. Working class Germans believed that Jews had let the nation down in WW1. These views were amplified by the Nazis and all four ideas were used to demonise the Jewish population.

In Post WW1 Germany as in modern society Jewish people are not a homogenous item, some are very religious some more secular. Some Gay, Some straight. Male and Female. Young and Old. Left and Right Wing or non- political.  Like any group of people they are often more remarkable by their differences rather than their similarities. Hitler managed to persuade a German nation, or at least a substantial part of it, through the use of language that they were all the same, that they all represented the same threat to the Aryan race.

Why Language Matters and why it’s still relevant today:

Right wing Governments have often used a minority group of people to demonise in order to garner support from a section of the population. Hitler used the Jews, Mussolini the Communists and our Government the “Illegals”. There is no concern for separating the genuine Asylum Seeker from the rest. We told Afghan interpreters if they could get here by irregular means we would give them sanctuary for instance.

The continued use of terms like “illegals” “Swarm” “invasion” and banning asylum seekers from the basic rights available in most democratic countries and so central to the values of decency and justice the UK was proud to be seen as a global icon on, seems a price too high to pay just so the Tories can gain some political points from their hateful campaign.

Obviously we all want to end the boat crossings they are incredibly dangerous and the money ends up in the hands of criminals. A solution that deliberately break International Law and is bound to be halted in the courts isn’t the appropriate action. Choosing not to process claims then moaning about the cost of Hotel bills is not the appropriate action. Sending people back to be killed or tortured or locked up is not the appropriate action. Dispatching human beings to a nation with a dubious Human rights record is not the appropriate action.

Processing off shore will reduce the number of migrants arriving in the UK. Additional border patrols and greater cooperation with our neighbours will help to reduce the numbers of crossings. Just sending people back means they will cross and disappear into our communities rather than claim asylum, without any checks. That will be particularly true of Women and children being trafficked for nefarious purposes.

Let’s try and find a solution that is Legal, treats other human beings with respect, which protects the weak and vulnerable and a rhetoric that isn’t based on the language of hate and fear.

Many Thanks to the Open University and the Anne Fran

Memorial day

Holodomor- A Genocide of the 20^th Century 

Gordon Craig 26th November 2022

Background:

Like many people in the UK my knowledge of Ukraine was limited before 2014. I knew about Chernobyl and, of course, Dynamo Kyiv. I had read about the Crimean Wars and Florence Nightingale but in reality I was only vaguely aware of the geographic location of that conflict.

Obviously things changed with Putin’s invasion of the Crimea and the illegal annexation of the peninsular. Suddenly the World’s attention on the area was in focus and frankly the response was derisory.

A few sanctions, a lot of words and very little action. Within a few weeks it was back to business as normal. Indeed the EU and the UK expanded their reliance on Russian Oil and Gas, the continued building of Nord Stream 2 indicated a compliance with Russia not a criticism.

 In 2018 Russia attacked Sergei Skirpal and as a consequence killed a British citizen and hospitalised a number of people. One month later Boris Johnson, who was the Foreign Secretary at the time, flew directly from a NATO summit on the dangers of Russia to meet with Alexander and Evgeny Lebedev unsupervised and without the normal protocols. Meeting with an ex KGB agent at this time was unpardonable and the elevation to the Lords of Evgeny Lebedev is unfathomable in light of the threat posed by Russia to our national security. The Conservative Party have taken millions of pounds in donations from Russian sources since, they have continued to accept money even in light of the 2022 invasion.

One of the justifications that Russia has put forward to their invasion of Ukraine is that many of the citizens in the region speak Russian. It is an interesting and very macabre story as to why that is and whilst we know that Stalin was a brutal dictator that murdered millions of his fellow citizens of the USSR, the brutal facts of the Holodomor are less well known.

The Holodomor 

(From “Holodom” –to kill by starvation” also known as The Terror-Famine or the Great Famine)

Some Historians have argued that the disaster that unfolded in Ukraine in 1932 and 1933 that killed millions of Ukrainians was a result of a purely administrative error, that Stalin’s pursuit of a State Capitalist model that he had applied to factories was expected to work for agriculture also. However, whatever the original intention there is little doubt that Stalin used the situation to attempt to eliminate the Ukrainian Independence movement and it is now widely acknowledged that his policies should be regarded by the world as an act of genocide.

In the early part of the 20^th century Ukraine was, as it is now, a major supplier of grain to the world although much of the land was harvested by peasant farmers. In 1929 under the “collectivisation plan” peasant farmers were induced to transfer their land and livestock to collective farms. Unrealistic targets for food production were set by central Government without any it seems understanding of the local geography or with reference to the skill sets of the local farming population. 

The introduction of crops like cotton and sugar beet and the mismanagement of the farms meant significant amounts of crops were never harvested and those that did were often spoiled because of inadequate transport arrangements.

Unattainable targets were set for production and the State extracted quotas from the region based on those targets. In 1932 they took over 4.27 million tons of grain, enough to feed 12 million people for a year. Even though the population was starving they refused foreign aid and continued to sell grain overseas. 

The situation became a disaster. Many farmers whose land was seized by the state were sent to Siberia with no means of support others who tried to escape the famine zones were shot. The State used the famine they had created to punish the workers and imposed a number of harsh laws. One example is the “The Law of Spikelets” a decree that prosecuted anyone for gleaning any leftover grain from the collective farms. 200,000 were sentenced under this Law. The possibility of escaping the area was stifled by the introduction of passport controls to halt the exodus of locals trying to flee the areas of famine. The punishment was to be sent to the Gulags. The persecution of officials led to nearly 40,000 arrests with punishments for being an enemy of the state ranging from execution to internment in the Gulags.

Meanwhile the Soviet State denied the very existence of the famine but a handful of journalists exposed the truth. 

One Gareth Jones who had worked directly for British Prime Minister Lloyd George visited the Soviet Union on three separate occasions on the third occasion he escaped his Soviet minder and walked over 40 miles, visiting 20 villages and 12 collective farms. In his press release “Famine Grips Russia, Millions Dying”. He wrote “everywhere was the cry ‘There is no bread. we are dying’”. The Soviet Union with the complicit aid of the pro-soviet bureau chief of the New York Times in Moscow, Walter Duranty, denounced Jones as a liar.

In 1933 another young journalist, Malcolm Muggeridge, wrote a series of articled for the Manchester Guardian exposing his own travels in Ukraine and the scenes of mass starvation and piles of dead bodies he witnessed piled by the roadsides. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2022/mar/02/exposing-stalin-famine-in-ukraine-muggeridge-1933#:~:text=In%20the%20spring%20of%201933,famine%20in%20the%20Soviet%20Union 

Arthur Koestler a Hungarian-British Journalist wrote

“At every station there was a crowd of peasants in rags, offering icons and linen in exchange for a loaf of bread. The women were lifting up their infants to the compartment windows- infants pitiful and terrifying with limbs like sticks, puffed bellies, big cadaverous heads lolling on this necks”

Timothy Snyder wrote in his book Bloodlands 

“At least 2,505 were convicted of cannibalism between 1932 and 1933 in the Ukraine”

A very conservative estimate of 4,000,000 dead of which a third were children because of a failure of State Capitalism and the collective system goes someway to explaining how many Ukrainians think about “mother” Russia. In a sense the rise of Hitler masked the horrors of the Holodomor, but we should remember the victims of genocide by the Soviet state.

Modern Consequence 

At the end of the 1933 famine 13.3% of the population had died. In some regions the number was much higher. 29% in Kharkiv for instance. The pressure to adopt Russian and the new “soviet Identity” intensified, the nation continued to suffer Stalin’s purges, World War Two, Nazi occupation and the Holocaust and the famines of 1946-47. The consequential result included the taking over of unoccupied, because the owners were dead or in the Gulags, Ukrainian land by Russian speakers and citizens. So when Putin talks about Russian speakers in the regions the knowledge about how they got there might make you consider the legitimacy of his claim,there has never been a majority support for rejoining Russia in the region. Referendum results obtained at the barrel of a gun don’t legitimise the behaviour of the Russian State and Putin. Ukraine has been the victim of Russian brutality and oppression before,they survived that as a people. I expect them to do so again. 

Celebrating Defeat

Recently as an exercise for a healthier mind in the current lockdown I chose to enrol on an OU course studying the heritage culture of Scotland. It partially conducted a comparison in the treatment, reaction and stories associated with two significant battles in Scottish History.

The two whilst arguably not the most significant in Scottish History are certainly the best known. The battle of Bannockburn June 1314 a significant win for the Scots and Culloden in April 1746 a massive and bloody defeat.

Yet Culloden remains the most visited battle site in Scotland and one of the most significant heritage sites in the nation. The site attracts visitors from all over the world, who want to see where their ancestors fell and fought. In Nova Scotia they even have a copy of the battle field cairn, with some stones from the original site.

Some years ago, I remember Billy Connolly reflecting that the music that flowed from Scottish defeat was far more rousing and upbeat than any that came from defeat. The Skye boat song is a case in point, the rescue of a defeated king by Flora MacDonald tells the tale of heroic defeat.

It is telling that as Scotland has developed a more robust and developed independent national identity in recent years that “Flower of Scotland” has become a rallying call, since adopted by the RFU as an anthem.

Yet it remains the case that we consider it a particularly Celtic trait to partake in the “Glorification of Sorrow”, we recognise culturally that Irish and Scottish are particularly prone to laments and sorrowful prose when it comes to defeats and devastation. We proscribe this cultural heritage to a sort of ubiquitous Celtic mindset, yet I would contest that is not the case.

The English famed for their stiff upper lip and their glorification of global dominance are not seen to praise defeat in the same manner, the cultural “glorification of sorrow” the prose and songs that reflect great defeats are not deemed to be part of our heritage.

However, when we look back through our history there are some poignant proofs of the opposite viewpoint. The war poetry of Wilfred Owen, reflecting the horrors of war compared to the glorification written by the likes of Kipling at the start of the conflict. Owen’s dismissal of “that old lie Dulce et Decorum Est pro patria mori” reflects that a shift in tone from the nobleness of war to the lament at its horrors.

Other examples of lyrical and cultural heritage throw up a slightly different perspective from the English. Great emphasis is placed on noble defeats from Tennyson’s “Charge of the Light Brigade”, the defence of Rourke’s drift after the slaughter of the British Army, the noble sacrifice of General Gordon at Khartoum. All mythologised to show how the English are able to lose with dignity, our great losses disguised as victories.

 

The greatest, perhaps, of all myths is that of Dunkirk.

The battle for Dunkirk was described by Churchill as “a colossal military disaster”. Yet today if you asked most people to name a notable British victory during WW2 it is certain that Dunkirk will feature in that list. We evoke the Dunkirk spirit on a regular basis, right wing politicians in particular, it has become to mean a great victory. In reality Dunkirk was the smallest victory from a huge defeat.

The saving grace for the BEF wasn’t the plucky small boat crews or the Royal Navy it was a combination of three main factors. Firstly, it was the sacrifice of the First French Army who fought a sterling rear guard action. Additionally, in a bizarre tactical error by the Germans the land army halted their advance leaving the destruction of the BEF to the Luftwaffe, but they also chose not to continue attacking.

Without these delays and the time that it bought Dunkirk would have been an even greater disaster and the war would almost certainly have been lost.

It isn’t to take away from the bravery and the effect on morale of the small boat flotilla, but in reality, defeat was avoided by the inaction of the Germans as much as by action by the UK.

The British Army lost 68,000 men (lost dead or captured), 2472 guns, 20,000 motorcycles,65000 other vehicles and almost all of their 445 tanks. In addition, the BEF abandoned 75000 tons of ammunition, 162,000 tons of fuel and 416,000 tons of other stores.

The British and French lost 18 destroyers 95 other major vessels and over 200 other craft. In addition, about the same number were damaged.

The RAF lost 145 aircraft including 42 spitfires.

Churchill was quite clear about Dunkirk “we must be very careful not to assign this deliverance the attributes of a victory. Wars are not won by evacuations”.

So why do we use the “Dunkirk Spirit” to ascribe an attitude of victory?

Essentially the answer lies in the power of propaganda. The ability of the Government to extract a small flame of hope from the disaster that was Dunkirk and eulogise it to the extent that it is now part of popular cultural belief.

The enduring belief that carrots are good for your eyesight is another example of wartime propaganda. In reality this was to con the Germans into thinking night time kills by fighter pilots was down to a healthy diet rather than radar.

So, from the Skye Boat song and the rescue of Bonnie Prince Charlie to the mythology of Dunkirk the ability of the British to claim a victory from defeat is maybe more universal.

The danger today is that we continue to be fed propaganda and fake News, in more complex and sophisticated ways than ever before. I wonder what laments will say, in years to come, about our current tragedy. Boris the slayer of Boris the Saviour. You decide.

In 1439 Johannes Gensfleisch zur Laden zum Gutenberg changed the world. His invention created a revolution that freed the poor, saved millions of lives, informed, entertained, agitated and caused revolutions. Without it society would be poorer both spiritually and financially. It elevated the commoner and altered the establishment more than any other thing. Yet the positive changes in society have faltered and the role of his invention seems diminished

What are the establishment, why are we all against them and what does it mean for the future?
It used to be really easy to know what your position was in society. We all had our roles and we understood where we sat in the pecking order.

    

We used to talk of the three great estates, the nobles, the church and the commons. The later making up the vast majority but the power, wealth and authority resided in the first two.
Universal suffrage and the pre-eminence of the House of Commons changed the balance of power between the Lords and the Commons. The Church lost a great deal of their influence as society became more secular. The increased wealth of the merchant classes meant a blurring of the barriers between the Nobles whose wealth was mostly through land with the new wealthy who made their money through trade.

More importantly though the change in the balance of power in society was the growth of the Labour movement and the enfranchisement of the working people. The producers of wealth found that they had power, the power to withdraw Labour, the power to elect officials that understood their needs and aspirations. The Union movement and its political wing of the Labour party became a major force for good, perhaps best personified by the NHS, but found in worker’s rights, universal education and myriad improvements in the lives of ordinary men and women.
.                                                        

                                                                     Keir Hardy-1st Labour MP
The Post-War consensus meant that the establishment invested in the belief that the duty of Government was best exercised in trying to improve the lot of the majority . One nation Conservatism, whilst a paternalistic “we know best approach” still had at its heart a belief that the duty of the rich was to improve the lot of the poor.
That changed in the late 70’s,unions became less interested in the improvement of the whole of society and focused on the narrow band of their own membership. Union leaders were perceived as radical’s intent on causing trouble at any cost, including that of their fellow workers. Of course, much of this was a media construct promoted by the Conservative press. The winter of discontent, strikes at British Leyland, the miners’ strike that brought down Heath were all used as excuses for Thatcher’s government to bring in draconian laws to break the unions.

What changed in the work place?

                                                             Gutenberg Press
Having worked in the print and design industry for 35 years much of the struggle has been reflected in the changes that have taken place in that time. Print unions become too greedy, constant introductions of extra shift allowances, pay increases and work restrictions made it difficult for employers to grow the business. One of the reasons Thatcher targeted the print unions first was the simple expedience that working practices would be seen by many as antiquated and unreasonable and the reality that unlike coal, for instance, the non-printing of newspapers would not bring the country down. The clamp down was of course supported by the Press Barons and corporate power.

Thatcher might not have broken the print unions but she certainly put a dent in their ambitions.

However, in tandem with this change in the balance of power something more radical was happening in the print industry. The change from lead to lithographic and from film to automated plate making has massively altered the landscape of print. Like many industries modernisation and computerisation has significantly changed the industry. The drive to the bottom exacerbated by a growth in other forms of communication, the paperless office and to a smaller extent global competition has meant that many working in the industry have seen no growth in their incomes for over a decade.

So where does that leave the machine operator, the plate-maker even the salesmen and women. When I started, being a printer with your years as an apprentice meant you were regarded as artisan, a craftsman, it was a job to be proud of. By association the other people who worked in the trade were equally proud of the role they played in the industry. It was often quoted that print was an art not a science.
Now print and even design is regarded as a commodity, not given any particular regard by purchasers.
So, it’s not surprising that many of the more mature people in the industry, it is very much an ageing trade, want to go back to a time when things were better. The diminution of their place in the society’s pecking order has naturally ensured they look back on the good old days with some fondness.

When I reflect on this effect on my industry I also imagine how much more this must be felt in towns and villages where heavy industry and mining were central to peoples lives. The devastation felt in those place where generations of families had worked in the same type of  jobs must have been immense.
This change to our manufacturing base because of globalisation and modernisation has created a groundswell of resentment in communities, in particular those industrial heartlands.
Whilst industry was declining the growth in the finance sector, based mainly in the South-East created a disassociation not helped by the ludicrous antics of the new super wealthy.

How has this fed into the national Zeitgeist?
Into this unease at the decline of status and income as well as the increase in unemployment amongst traditional trades came the new right. They exploited this disengagement between the working poor and the Westminster establishment, as they would term it. Harking back to a, very often mythical, time; when the UK was pre-eminent, when we could choose how we sell our fruit when we could be proud of our industrial might, appealing to a rose tinted industrial heritage. The Hard Right put the European Union at the very centre of the woes of the nation, resolutely blaming them for failing the nation.

Selectively choosing to attack Human Right legislation as some sort of Terrorist Charter, ignoring the multiple rights it confers on us all.
Making the anti-immigration debate about Syrian refugees rather than the free movement of EU citizens.
Constructing a false argument that Turkey was about to join the EU to create an anti-Islam response added by the frankly Racist press.
Folk bought the message; “taking back control” became for many the clarion call for the Brexit campaign.
Many working-class voters disenchanted by the changes to their status and indeed the aspirations they have for themselves their families and their communities chose to ignore the warnings of experts and the Government and chose instead to take a leap into the dark. To suggest that it is anything else given the complete lack of any exit strategy would be beyond ridiculous.

The campaign led by David Cameron and George Osborne was too much about the economy but ignored the very pertinent fact that many in both our traditional industrial areas and poorer rural regions don’t feel they have seen a great benefit from the economy in recent years.
Even in those areas that have been big beneficiaries of EU grants support for the Brexit campaign was strong.
Brexit was in many aspects a working-class revolution against a system that has seemingly abandoned traditional industries, done little to replace those jobs and more importantly less to restore the pride and aspirations of the workingman.

Is the New Right the solution?

Why though would anyone invest the role of anti-establishment champion in a man who is a career politician, millionaire, ex-commodity broker, public school educated member of that very establishment elite they seem to despise.
The simple reason is that he espouses a facile populist message, articulated clearly but with precisely no detail. In fact, his methodology is similar to Jeremy Corbyn who has a great technique in top line sound bites but little in the way of detail. Or indeed to Donald Trump.

Of course, the danger from the new right is greater than just the disastrous decision on the EU, UKIP are clearly a proto Fascist party.
Roger Griffin’s definition of modern fascism:

“Fascism is best defined as a revolutionary form of nationalism, one that sets out to be a political, social and ethical revolution, welding the ‘people’ into a dynamic national community under new elites infused with heroic values. The core myth that inspires this project is that only a populist, trans-class movement of purifying, cathartic national rebirth (Palingenesis) can stem the tide of decadence”

The vitriol and hate generated by the new right, in particular racist abuse, has escalated since the referendum. Friends and acquaintances, which have rarely or never been subject to racial based abuse, have been treated to the sort of verbal hate terms not heard since the late 70s.

Members of the right wing are able to express views of such complete absurdity on climate change, homosexuality, public services, the impartiality of the law and race relations almost unchallenged by the press. Indeed, the Daily Mail and Express have become mouthpieces for some of these extreme views.

It’s absurd that the legitimate fears of ordinary men and women are exploited by this populist nationalism. Yet the fact is that politics like nature hates a vacuum.
The attraction of sound bite policies laying the blame at the feet of the “elite” and the “EU” and the “Westminster Establishment” resonate with the some of those working-class people who feel betrayed by Government and the change of pace in society.

It’s easy to point to immigration and say “these people are talking our jobs”, “filling our schools”, “blocking the NHS” even though the real facts tell a very different story. Like 25% of all Doctors in the NHS being immigrants for instance.

The solution lies in simple economics and real politics.
The economic solution lies in the wise investment in areas which have been worst hit by the decline in “Traditional” Industries, not just infra structure but in new industry. For instance, developing an area of expertise in alternative energy near to a suitable University where companies would be given very substantive grants for research and development, investment and educating/training local people.
The UK needs to create a new industrial base but it is pointless trying to compete in the sorts of industries that rely on low cost labour alone. Our national expertise will need to be cutting edge technology such as the work being done on nanotechnology and graphite memory.
We can create an edge in these products and restore an amount of pride in the workplace and well as producing goods that have added value.
Real politics means a return to pragmatism over populism, understand the concerns of worried and disheartened swathes of society and offer real solutions.
Put across a message of hope for the future rather than creating a toxic atmosphere of hate, but back the message up with real solutions.
When seeing the messages of fear and loathing put across by the new right, blaming the woes of the world on the Non-British, I often consider the true generosity of the British public. When we come around to fund raisers like Comic Relief  not one of those generous souls donating their hard-earned cash are thinking I wish our Government did less for the poor and needy at home or around the world.

Let’s fill that vacuum with hope not hate

Jeremy Corbyn’s Movement is doomed

“Jeremy is Principled” “Jeremy is honest” “Jeremy is a real Socialist” “Jeremy is anti-establishment” “Jeremy is a real working class hero” “Jeremy is the new Messiah” Ok the last one might be an exaggeration but look through Twitter and Social Media and it won’t take you long to find similar sentiments from what seems to be a completely non-critical support group. The “Movement” seems to resist any possible criticism, the leader must be right. If you disagree you are a Red Tory or worse still a Blairite.
That most invidious of insults to be associated with the most successful Labour party programme in most of our lifetimes that brought us the Working Time Directive, reduced child poverty, improved schools and hospitals, passed the Human Rights Act and The Equalities Act, introduced Sure Start centres and the National Minimum wage. Yes, that Government made mistakes but the successes of Labour must not be overlooked as well. We should rightly be proud of the improvements for many working people, won whilst we were in power.
That is the key though “whilst we were in power” to change the country for the better the Labour Party needs to win a General Election. Anything else makes us a voluble protest movement not a valuable asset to the poor and vulnerable.
“But Jeremy has thousands at his rallies that prove he is electable” “the Polls are fixed by the Tories” are the sorts of response that meet any suggestion that Jeremy is not going to lead us to a glorious victory, but it is the same denial of facts and experts that the Brixiteers used to persuade the nation that leaving the EU would be a great thing. It is a form of anti-establishment rhetoric that has no foundation in fact. Currently, Jeremy Corbyn is the least popular political leader in the UK, only 19% of the electorate think he will make a good Prime Minister. Labour are currently running at 29% in the polls if we continue down this path the Tories will walk the next election. Some pundits are suggesting a 90 seat Conservative majority.
That sort of mandate would be a disaster for ordinary working people in this country. Workers rights already weakened by Brexit will be swept away and we will be able to do nothing about it. The privatisation of the NHS will gain pace and we will be able to do nothing about it. The Conservatives can continue the campaign of isolating the working poor, the unemployed, the old and the ill and we will be able to do nothing about it.
Why though is Jeremy not the answer? His popularity amongst new and old party members is undoubted. He is the ultimate populist in British politics saying the things we all want to hear but if we don’t win the election he may as well be baying at the moon.
History tells us two things Labour needs to prove to be trusted by the electorate.
Firstly, can we be trusted on the economy and secondly, can we be trusted on national security.
Jeremy will fail on both those tests and here’s why.
His association and active support for the Irish Nationalist movement will be exploited by the Conservative media to expose him as a “friend” of terrorists. No matter how keen Jeremy is to ally himself with the peace process in Northern Ireland he will be exposed as a supporter of Sinn Fein, and therefore the IRA, his voting against the Good Friday agreement will be utilised as a tool to prove that. Facts that will not sit well with the public at large.
No posturing will dismiss his closest associate, John McDonnell’s statement that IRA killers should be honoured for their sacrifice to the Republican cause.
It is inconceivable that the great majority of the British people will be comfortable with a politician that calls the leaders of Hamas and Hezbollah his friends.
On Trident he may have more sympathy from the British people, although the majority lean towards multilateral rather than unilateral disarmament, but when he said that he would not use press the nuclear button he showed personal conviction but political naivety.
Jeremy suggestion that we would not support a NATO ally in a time of military crises was understandably met with derision by the media. It exposes him once more as an ideologue rather than a considered leader.
These things matter to the British public. Jeremy has taken the path chosen by George Lansbury rather than that of Nye Bevan putting personal ideology before pragmatic policy.
On the economy, Labour has to show the electorate that the public purse is safe in our hands. Much of the reason we lost in 2015 was because voters were not confident that Labour was financially astute. They bought the Tory austerity argument even in the face of massive evidence of Conservative economic incompetence, they blamed Labour for the financial crisis and believed that Labour had spent beyond the countries means.
The redistribution of wealth needs to be at the centre of any socialist programme but it is essential that we qualify what that means, but Jeremy doesn’t do detail he only does pronouncements. Continually we get further sound bites of things we are going to do in Government but with no attempt to explain how this will be paid for. The British public will yet again label the Party as a tax and spend party and they have always shown reluctance to vote for a Party that will take money from their pockets.
Owen Smith is seen by the general public as more pragmatic on defence and less spendthrift on public finances. His brand of more inclusive democratic socialism is our opportunity to build a better, fairer more egalitarian society.

The speech I was due to give to the Witney Constituency Labour Party,but never got the chance.

 

Let me start by saying I admire Jeremy Corbyn in many ways. His unfailing commitment to peace and social justice is a credit to him. I like a maverick. The Dennis Skinners of the world light up the political arena with their scepticism and witty banter. The problem is that mavericks don’t make great leaders.

When you have a leader that has voted against the party he represents more often than the chief of the opposition it is difficult for him to criticise the loyalty of others. 172 members of the Parliamentary Labour Party have lost confidence in Jeremy. They have resigned from shadow cabinet and other posts because they have lost faith in Jeremy.That incidentally is their democratic right. It is also fair and reasonable to point out that these M.P.s represent around 7 million voters. They too have a mandate.

The union leaders have expressed their support and that is admirable, but it must be recognised that is a personal opinion. They haven’t canvassed the thoughts of their members. Indeed it seems the only polling of Unite members that has been done indicates that 60% of the respondents think that Mr.Corbyn should resign immediately or before the next election. Is this the same disconnect that they claim between the PLP and members of the party. Is it possible that Union leaders with their large salaries, broadly metropolitan lifestyles and isolation from real working class people have misjudged what the people who vote for them really think?

Notwithstanding that, it is a truth that the bulk of the party membership voted for Jeremy in the leadership contest. Indeed the figures seem to show that great swathes of people are joining the party to support or otherwise. If nothing else it will help the party finances. I grow concerned though at the people that are surrounding Jeremy. Momentum seems to have a wide political base including many members with extreme political views, such as the SWP, a party that has candidates who stand against members of our party. Images from many of the “support Jeremy” rallies seem to have a preponderance of SWP banners; it is not a development that I am comfortable with. I remember the damage done to the party by militant and despair at the possibility we may go through that again.

But why do I think Jeremy himself is not the answer to the question. I think back to key figures of our party from the recent past the firebrand rhetoric of Neil Kinnock, the soaring intellectualism of Michael Foot the wit and knowledge of the great Tony Benn. These were people to be admired, to be listened to, to enthuse and commit people to our cause. Dare I say it the young Tony Blair won hearts and minds with intellectual argument and clever oratory. Whatever the subsequent mistakes he made we cannot dismiss that he is the most successful Labour Prime Minister in history. Whilst we understandably concentrate on the disaster of Iraq we should not dismiss the massive improvements he made to British society and workers rights.Gordon Brown showed the power of persuasive and committed speech making with his powerful intervention in the Scottish referendum.

Jeremy has none of this, his lacklustre performance and grudging support for the Remain campaign was neither inspiring nor committed. His indecisive action on anti-Semitism is embarrassing; his continuing caveats about the Party being against anti-Semitism “and other forms of racism” make him sound disingenuous. These two are just an indication of the liability he will be to the Party at the next general election.

We in the Labour Party have to make a decision; is it more important to us to have control of the party or control of the country. Do we spend the next 5 years contemplating our political navel or do we try to help the poor, the vulnerable, the week and the disenfranchised. Should we sacrifice another generation to the divisive, cruel and economically illiterate Conservative Party. It is clear that with Jeremy at the helm we are less likely to win the next general election, his approval ratings are about the same as David Cameron’s a man disliked and ridiculed by both sides of his own party and indeed the nation for his poor judgment on the referendum. We call it an achievement that we do less badly than the media say we would,in local and national elections, rather than being concerned that we should be doing so much better against this Government whose economic policies are causing disaster for the nation.

I know in a sense I am partly in the bubble, much of my information and feedback comes from people who think like me. So I asked friends, colleagues and acquaintances who come from a wide range of backgrounds two things. Firstly what do you think of Jeremy Corbyn and secondly would he make a good prime minister.As you can imagine the responses were varied.Many praised Jeremy’s integrity and commitment.Many were less complimentary. Some believed he was honourable and some thought he was deluded. Almost universally though none thought he would make a good Prime Minister,many thought it was an irrelevant question as it was never going to happen. One young man who should be a key supporter for many reasons opinioned that “I admire the way he is determined to go down with his sinking ship! Unlike David Cameron.” One person who has been a Labour supporter for many years clearly expressed his concern that the danger to this country is that the main opposition to Labour in its heartlands is not the Tories but UKIP. I think that I speak for us all when I say that possibility fills me with abject terror.

I hate the fact we seem to treat elections in the country like a presidential campaign, the U.K. is a collective form of Government after all. However I don’t think the media will change so it is crucial that we have the best person in the position of leader to promote our message.In this case it’s not about the policies it’s about the personalities,wrong I know but we have to face reality.

The question we have to ask ourselves is this.Is Jeremy Corbyn able to provide the leadership our Party desperately needs and wants. The answer has to be an unequivocal inescapable and demonstrable no. For those of us who care about the Labour Party,the poor,the sick,the old and the vulnerable that means he has to go.

Leadership Advice

David Cameron on being elected to the leader of the Conservatives decided to visit Margaret Thatcher to ask her advice.

After a bit of a chat Mrs. Thatcher handed David Cameron three envelopes.

“David” she said, “when you are struggling and need my advice open one of the envelopes and follow my instructions. It will serve you well”

Cameron boosted by this went back to his office and put the envelopes in a drawer for future reference.

During the 2010 election campaign things were not going well he remembered the envelopes and drew out the first one.

Opening it he read “Blame it all on Labour”, so Cameron managed to put the blame for the global financial crash on to Gordon Brown and just managed to win the election, with a little help from his friends.

After a few years with a few small triumphs and a few large hiccups the 2015 election was looming large. David Cameron was nervous about the chances of grasping power once more.

Worried David opened his 2nd envelope inside it read “Blame it all on the EU’ so Cameron to keep his MPs on board and stave off the threat of UKIP proposed the idea of a referendum on EU membership. The ruse worked and the Tories managed to squeeze into power again.

Unfortunately the referendum caused massive problems with the Conservatives, half of his MPs said they would vote against him, the budget was a disaster, the media turned against him. David was feeling desperate; he had hoped to save the third envelope for nearer the election. Finally in a moment of despair Cameron reaches into his desk drawer and pulls out the third envelope.

With some trepidation David opens it and read “Prepare three envelopes”

A letter to my MP.

Dear Prime Minister,

I am writing to you as a constituent about a matter that you might consider as a private matter or indeed a national issue, but I think that it also affects us here in West Oxfordshire in a very crucial way.

I know that holding an offshore trust fund is not against the law and indeed I understand that we all want to legally avoid paying more tax than we have to. After all I get pension relief and have an ISA.

The issue to me is not about the legality,but it is about the lack of openness and transparency.If you as Prime Minister are involved in making tax legislation in the UK and the EU it is, without any doubt, clear that you should be honest about your vested interest.Anything less positions you in the same light as a petty dictator in some dodgy state.

Tax avoidance,evasion and non collection as you know was estimated at at least £34bn last year. Some sources, like the world bank, say nearer £100m. Far more than any savings you have attempted to make on essential services. That’s at least 6.4% of the budget far greater than the .7% attributed to benefit fraud.

It is also estimated that 50% of all the worlds wealth is hidden in trust funds,where the wealthy are able to defer paying inheritance or income tax until those trust are distributed.If a fair rate of income tax was applied annually to the profits of these trusts then your economic problems would be resolved and you might have a chance of hitting at least one of your targets.

I have always admired your loyalty, even though in some cases like Mr.Coulson that was misplaced.No one should expect you to criticise your father,but that should not blind you to the issues that we as voters have about offshore trust funds.

The reason this matters is that whilst we have a million people using food banks,the NHS is struggling to meet the nations needs, schools can’t afford books, children are living in poverty, wages are stagnant, we can’t help major manufacturing companies,normal people who pay all their taxes are wondering how rich people can avoid paying their fair share.

You suggest that you believe in One Nation Conservatism may I remind you that Disraeli believed that it was the duty of the rich to help the poor. That is the essence of One Nation.

As a constituent I expect you to behave in a manner that reflects the office you have been privileged to ascend to and ensure that the services that we rely on here in West Oxfordshire are properly funded and taxes are properly collected.

Best regards
Gordon Craig

Why the Spectator is missing the point.

A cautionary tale for young people:

Once upon a time there was a group of people who thought that they owned everything, because pretty much they did, and that all the other people should be really grateful to them for letting them exist.

The owners controlled the courts, the parliament, the army, the church and most of the land. They believed that this was a God given right and the other people, lets call them the workers should bow and scrap to them.

These workers often had to work very long hours in very dangerous conditions, for very little money. If they complained the owners would often lock them up, fire them or send them away. The owners also thought it was absolutely fine to get children to work, in fact they liked it because that did not cost as much.

One day the workers, having been told they would be getting a 30% reduction in their pay, got a bit annoyed. They got together with other workers and formed a group to ask the owners if they might reconsider. The owners said no and decided to cut the wages by another 10% and because they were annoyed with the workers who had objected they sent them to live in a penal colony in Australia. Australia wasn’t terribly nice in those days.

The thing was the friends of these workers got a bit angry and they all joined together with other workers and found that together they were more powerful and necessary than the owners. This rather upset some of the owners who were used to getting their own way and they had a few tantrums.

Some of the owners who called themselves Christians and Philanthropists thought the workers might have a point. They did things like build libraries , improve education and housing to make the workers lives a bit better. Other owners chastised them for it.

One of the owners sat in the House of Parliament (this was at the time mainly a club for the owners as they were the ones who controlled the voting) saw the way the wind was blowing and told his Party, lets call them the Tories that they should become a One Nation party. He meant that he believed it was the duty of the Rich to help the Poor.

Lots of Tories didn’t agree but some did and for a while the Tories thought they ought to help the workers. The problem was that they only wanted to help them as long as they knew their place, which was doing what they said was best for them.

Now the workers and the more enlightened owners got together and questioned the right of these owners to control their lives. They decided that they would get together and look after each other. This was called Socialism. The Tories didn’t like this and tried very hard to stop them.

Then about 100 years ago three cousins had a row and fell out. The trouble was these three cousins were actually the biggest owners of all. They persuaded all the workers and the lesser owners that it was their job to be slaughtered in there millions. They called this Duty.

The workers who came back after this war and the families of those that didn’t started to question the owners, lets call them the Right, about votes for Women, rights of workers and the control of power. They formed bodies called trade unions that forced the Owners to improve working conditions and education. Some of the workers even became owners.

The right were not very keen on losing all the power and tried to keep control but little by little the Left as they were often known improved the conditions of the poor. Some of the new owners, the enlightened owners and some people in the church helped them.

Sadly a very right wing man came to power in a country called Germany and many workers were sent overseas to kill German workers and their friends and later Japanese workers. This was a very sad time and this nasty right wing man killed lots of innocent people.

When the workers came back they decided it was time to take the power from the right wing owners who had taken them to war again. They got together and decided that providing a free medical service for everyone to cut down things like babies dying young was a good thing and then they thought lets build some houses so workers don’t have to live in squalid un-hygienic conditions.

Although this was done by Left the people on the Right eventually agreed this was the correct thing to do. They might have thought this because there are a lot more workers than owners and now everyone had a vote. The Right like power and they will often say something to make you like them, but beware they don’t always mean it.

The Left had a bit of a falling out, it was not as bad as people think but sadly the Right seem to own most of the newspapers and kept telling people how dreadful it was. The Right decided the best way to get back the power they crave so much was to destroy the workers groups. They changed the laws and got their friends the newspaper owners to make these workers groups look bad. They had a very right wing lady who decided the best way to destroy these workers groups was to get rid of the companies they worked for. She was very good at it.

Some of the Right kept mentioning One Nation but the Right wing lady scoffed at it and called its supporters wets. The Right wing lady didn’t believe that people should help each other, she thought poor people would get richer by giving more money to rich people.

The Right wing lady upset a lot of people and as usual the Right decided the only way to keep hold of power was to get rid of the Right wing lady. It worked for a bit.

Eventually after a very long time away from being in charge the Left were given a go at power. The Right thought that this nice new man was really one of them. Whilst they were busy congratulating themselves about this, he went about mending schools, building new hospitals and trying to repair some of the damage the Right wing lady had done to Public services.

The man did some very good things but he made a couple of very big mistakes. He supported our biggest friend in the world over a war we shouldn’t have had, sometimes you have to tell your friends they are wrong even if that means they are less friendly afterwards. He also let a very important business, lets call them the Banks, do whatever they liked. The Banks are the place where the owners and the workers keep their money that they then lend to other owners and workers for buying houses and things. The Banks used to be trustworthy and honest in the old days but they got greedy.

The Banks lent too much money to too many people who couldn’t repay them. Silly Banks. They had to be rescued by another Left wing man who didn’t want to see the workers lose all their money. This was a good thing. The Right, who get most of their money from Bankers were really glad this happened, but they got the Newspapers to say that it was the nasty Lefts fault.

So now the Right have a new leader, he is very rich and went to a Posh school and has lots of rich posh friends but like the owners in the old days he thinks he knows what’s best for poor people. He doesn’t really like poor people. He thinks that sick people should be made to work even if they are too ill, thats not vey nice is it?

He and his posh friends say they are very clever and they will make things much better, but actually they are making it worse. They make promises to win power and then break them. They get their friends in the Newspapers to tell everyone how nasty the man in the Jacket and vest is because he doesn’t think that singing a song to a very rich lady is quite right, that he doesn’t believe that killing people is quite right and he doesn’t think taking money from sick people is quite right.

The Right wing man says that he is the friend of the worker because taking money from them will make them work harder. He doesn’t know how that works but he keeps saying it.

The Left wing man in the jacket and vest scares the Right wing man and his rich friends because he likes the workers and wants to make their lives better and,like the One Nation man, thinks the rich might need to help a bit. The owners don’t like that idea,they think they should have even more money.

So to help the man on the Right journalists, who pretend they are workers but are not really, keep telling everyone the Left don’t like workers but we now know that isn’t true don’t we children.

gx