Socialist Workless Party

UK politics is far calmer today than it once was. Just look at the current government; a Conservative-Lib Dem coalition that functions quite well and where disagreements in ideology have been successfully ironed out in the interests of the country. Similarly, the political mainstream continues to drift ever closer to the centre, leaving extremist parties like the British National Party marginalised. Personally, I find this to be a good thing; the more people abhor them, the harder it becomes for them to get a political voice at all.

One party I particularly despise is the Socialist Workers' Party - a Marxist party -, which manages to spout its useless crap at every possible opportunity. Of late, they've made a big deal out of the spending cuts, talking of "united action" (strikes) as if it still has the power to initiate them. Truth be told, the days of polarised and violent political conflict - aka the 1970s - is over, and a combination of internal doctrinal disputes and a lack of societal need for such a party in these increasingly centrist times has left the SWP fragmented, smaller and redundant. Today, watching an SWP protest is like watching a car crash in slow motion.

I recently watched a video of an SWP rally last October; they were staging a protest outside of the 2010 Tory party conference. It was raining. The SWP were outside, in the rain, shouting. The Tories were inside, dry, and couldn't hear them. Similarly, the idea that the Tories, of all parties, care about this lunatic fringe party is laughable. But the actual content of the speeches are the true comedy gold. In this particular instance, the speaker was a middle class woman doing a paltry job of adopting a working class accent to match her clothing and aggressive demeanour.

One particular favourite of mine was "cut the private sector, not the public sector". Clearly, this woman didn't think her statement through. First, the government cannot 'cut' the private sector - because it is private and therefore does not receive any government funding to be cut. The only equivalent would be heavy taxation. Similarly, they seem totally oblivious to the need to reduce the state deficit; how do they propose we do it? Centrally planned economy, as the wish to create? A party that doesn't understand the difference between public and private is, as far as I'm concerned, unfit to run a centrally planned economy (a dismal idea as it is). Instead, the moronic speaker proclaimed herself a "deficit denier". Thus we see the downside of state education.

The calls for "united action" were cheered on by the foolish few at the rally, but of course the SWP - its heyday having passed long ago - was totally and rightly ignored in this respect.

But my favourite of all the oxymoronic statements by this archaic demagogue was "we, the workers". Those at the rally, and those who regularly attend the other SWP rallies, were, at midday in the middle of the working week, standing outside a Tory conference a shouting. Last time I checked, this was neither a profession or a part of any other job. I suggest that these so-called workers, if they're angry with their lot, go and either get a job or, if they already have one, actually turn up to it. I'm sure then they'd find this is a way of getting an income. Then again, I imagine most SWP members and supporters are benefit parasites anyway.

These days, the SWP is continuing its long decline. Senior members resign, one by one, because of laughable, inconsequential doctrinal disagreements, leaving the party ever smaller. The only regret I'll have when the SWP eventually succumbs to common sense is that a very valuable part of the British comedy scene will be gone. Other than that, it's good riddance to loud, aggressive, nonsensical rubbish.

Middle Class Pretentiousness

For me, the 2010 UK general election was a massive relief. Finally, the disgraceful shambles of 'new Labour' - perhaps one of the most successful PR stunts in British history - came to an end. My only regret is that David Cameron did not have a large enough mandate to govern alone. I suppose he never was; Britain is plagued by a "personality politics" culture that stops someone like Cameron, who exacerbates the 'problem' of being an Etonian by doing a shoddy job of hiding it, achieving true popularity.

But there was one piece of awful news from Brighton from this election. The idiotic Green Party gained its first MP ever, in the form of its smug leader Caroline Lucas, from this constitutency. I suppose it was the closest to a 'safe-seat' the Greens had; a retiring Labour MP and a place famed for its pretentious desire to be 'alternative' (hence the thriving gay scene).

The British middle classes are full of pretenses. Many of them in the middle middle try, pathetically, to talk and act like the upper middle class in order to seem 'erudite', 'well-educated' and so on. I see nothing wrong with the upper middle class existing and being themselves, but trying to emulate them to seem somehow better is futile and, frankly, makes the person doing it look like a complete twat. The people that do this are the self-obsessed middle class; those who care only for their own pride and so on.

Conversely, there is a new type of equally pretentious middle class that seems to consist of much of the Brighton electorate. These people often have roots (sometimes very distant ones) in the working class, but their financial and social status is assuredly middle class. Instead of concerning themselves with trying to be something they're not, they spend their time worrying about left wing concerns. They are the sort who join Amnesty International (whose letter writing has been massively undermined by the Arab Spring), lecture others on charity and the carbon footprint, and vote either Lib Dem or Green. These people are easily swayed by fads, so long as it appeal to their innate belief in fairly wishy-washy morals. Thus, they are easily influenced by 'alternative' lifestyles, such as the acceptance of transgender people.

One particular pet hate of mine is the practice of meditation by everyday, non-religious people. It is not so much the fact that they meditate to relax themselves (though for the record it is a placebo), but the fact that they do so with little to no understanding of what meditation really is. It is entirely superficial.

Caroline Lucas and her party belong to the latter group. They are self-righteous and condescending, and Lucas care little for any cause other than trying to make history as the "first Green MP" and so on. It's all very petty and, frankly, laughable. The people of Brighton, in their willingness to be faddish, jumped on to yet another bandwagon in voting for this lady. As such, they've effectively thrown away their opportunity for having a true voice in the Commons. This is a party with a very narrow view of politics that thrives on voters who embrace them simply because it "upsets the status quo". The fact that the Guardian made a big thing of it is indicative of their audience. I'm not the sort to believe that two party hegemony is the only way, but trying to change it for the sake of changing it, as per the Green Party, is pathetic.

As far as I'm concerned, if people want to be left wing, alternative and PC, vote Lib Dem. They may be a political disaster, but at least they're not as upstart, fake, and opportunistic like the Greens. Let us hope that this Green voice in Parliament really is a passing fad and, come 2015, Lucas and her smug face are booted out of the Commons by the voters (though they'll probably elect some LBGT independent candidate in her place). If the Greens become a Parliamentary fixture, it's a bad sign that democracy is degenerating; how can so narrow a party ever become a legitimate political force?

Cut Throat Politics



Japanese PM Naoto Kan



Former Italian PM Romano Prodi

 I must admit, I am fascinated by the variety shown in the political dynamics of democratic countries. Across Europe, Asia, and the Americas, the common thread of democracy is interpreted very differently by all parties and people. To say that any two democracies are entirely the same would be wrong. It doesn't matter if they've got a Parliamentary or Presidential system; differences between nations with Parliamentary systems are chiasmic, for example.

Let us compare, for example, the USA and France, two Presidential democracies. In the USA, for example, the Senate is shared by two parties; the Democrats and Republicans. In France, however, there are far more parties in the Senate; aside from the UMP and PS, there are also Senators from the centrist union, Communist Party, Left Party and so on.

Parliamentary systems also have large differences between them. In the UK, for example, though there are two dominant parties, Labour and Conservative, the third party Liberal Democrats have a sizeable representation in the Commons (57 of 650 seats). In Italy, on the other hand, no party ever has a majority, because there are three tiers of party size. The current government, for example, depends on a coalition between Il Popolo della Liberta and Lega Nord.

The dynamics of the parties and their respective power is only one interesting aspect. Another is the patience of the party members and electorate with their political and party leaders, and the longevity of political parties. In the UK, the two main parties are both quite old; the modern Conservative party was founded in 1834, and the Labour Party in 1900. In Italy, however, the two main parties, Il Popolo della Liberta and the Democratic Party were founded in 2009 and 2007 respectively. Similarly, the Conservative Party has been lead by David Cameron since 2005, while Italy's Democratic Party has had four leaders in just under four years.

All of these trends and comparisons, as interesting as they are, are little more than mere trivialities in most cases. The USA, UK, France, and so on, all function properly despite their different systems and dynamics.

But there are two countries that suffer as a result of their unique political dynamics. I am, of course, referring to Japan and Italy. If we look at both these countries, they suffer from short lived governments and, by western standards, political instability. Both countries have exceptions to the rule; Junchiro Koizumi in Japan and Silvio Berlusconi in Italy, but, overall, governments don't tend to last long in these countries.

Since 2006, Japan has had five Prime Ministers. Italy, on the other hand, has had two. There is no doubt that Prime Ministers are quicker to resign in Japan, but their governments are also more effective. Italy and Japan have very different problems that plague their democratic systems.

Italy's, as previously mentioned, is the fact that there are so many parties, with so little ideological overlap, that they all tend to eclipse each other and none can ever, ever get an absolute majority. Thus coalitions are always formed. I am not talking about coalitions in the sense of the Conservative-Lib Dem government we currently have in the UK, where two parties together govern. I am talking about coalitions of many parties with a great many conflicting ideals and interests.

Take, for example, the most recent government to collapse; the second government of Romano Prodi. Formed in 2006, it collapsed in 2008, after less than two years. Why? The fact that it was composed of 11 political parties (after some merged with each other) likely contributed to this. Balancing the unique interests of all these parties is like dancing on a pit of snakes. The only reason that Silvio Berlusconi is able to make his coalitions (his first government aside) stay together is a rare talent that likely has something to do with the media monopoly he has. This is not to say that Berlusconi is totally immune to issues; recent local elections and the nuclear power referendum show his influence is on the wane, though it may always re surge, as it has in the past.

The problem Japan has is totally different. Governments here consistently form majority governments; indeed, it is well known that the centre-right Liberal Democratic Party ruled consistently from 1955 (I think) until 2009, with one eleven month interregnum in the 1990s. Since 2009, the Democratic Party has managed to rule with a majority. But it has had two Prime Ministers.

The problem as I see it with Japan is that the politicians and public are unforgiving, and the former too willing to backstab to improve their lot. In Italy, Berlusconi gets away with all the gaffes he likes; he is, if you will, immune. Conversely, Japanese Prime Minister Hatoyama made history in September 2009 when he ended 54 years of LDP rule, but in June 2010 resigned because of gaffes that, in other countries, would have been shrugged off and pale in comparison to Berlusconi's sex games and tactless remarks.

Naoto Kan has done an admirable job of staying in office for what is now over a year. Recently, he resisted pressure to resign. Members of the LDP sided with members of his own party to try and get him to resign... because there was an earthquake and tsunami, and they felt his handling was not up to scratch. Japanese politics are ruthless, petty, and very bad for the country, in the same way that Italian politics are unstable, corrupt, and similarly bad for the country.

The democratic system is a wonderful one but, clearly, it does not always work as it should. In such countries, measures need to be taken because, at the end of the day, very little has been achieved politically in the past decade. Similarly Japan, a country beset by natural disasters, needs to have a little more respect for its leaders and needs politicians who are more loyal. Until such a time as both of these countries realise and sort out their problems - in Italy, this means once Berlusconi is retired and/or dead - then real progress cannot be made.

Ron Paul: The Sensible Choice for the USA

To say that I've ever been much of a fan of post-WWII US foreign policy would be, quite simply, a lie. Ever since Truman, the USA has always been a country to involve itself in every other nation on earth. The USA feels it needs to validate its vast military spending with perpetual war, with often awful results for them and their global image. In places where they don't intervene directly, they squander their money on weapons and aid for regimes that couldn't otherwise survive. Many, such as that of the Shah of Iran, couldn't survive even with the US aid.

But Ron Paul has given me some hope. The Texas Congressman, currently seeking the Republican nomination for the 2012 Presidential election, is a breath of fresh air in a party that otherwise consists of imbeciles (Sarah Palin, Michele Bachmann), outlandish hawks (Bush, Reagan), or characterless political opportunists (Romney, Pawlenty, Santorum). Their political ideology is often based around a set of exaggerated, 18th century values, all of which are no less demagogical than left wing rhetoric.

Ron Paul is different. In a recent debate, Paul said of US intervention in Afghanistan: "it's time to end that war that hasn't helped us and hasn't helped anybody in the Middle East."

Congressman Paul, as a proud European, I salute you. For once, a US politician tells the truth. I never thought I'd hear it out of a Republican. Ron Paul also believes in bringing troops home to improve homeland security, rather than have them scattered across the world in around 130 nations. It makes sense to me, and may even contribute to ending the military-industrial complex.

Paul's ideas make sense not only on a practicle level, but on a more symbolic level. Let us not forget that America's endless policing of the protecting the world is the thing that many hate most about it. It is what prompted Imam Khomeini to claim that "America is behind everything that's gone wrong", it's what Ahmedinejad's popular support in Iran thrives on. It is a view held by a great many civilians across the world.

But, most importantly, America's greatest enemy would be almost entirely defeated by this move. I am, of course, referring to al-Qaida, the single organisation that has inspired the most fear in the American public and government.

Many American citizens will be unaware of this fact - in the words of Hassan Nasrallah, the American public is "distant and ignorant to what is going on in the world" -, but removing troops and shutting down bases across the world would do a great deal of damage to al-Qaida.

Because, for all of its atrocious actions and barbarities, al-Qaida is an ideological organisation. Its aims are manifold, but many do not purport directly to the USA. The reason Osama Bin Laden harboured such resentment of the USA is because of its "continuous injustice and oppression practiced against our sons in Palestine and Iraq..." in his own words. In essence, the basis for al-Qaida's hatred for the USA stems from their bases in Saudi Arabia (which they consider holy), from their constant involvement in the Ummah, perceived oppression of Arabs and Muslims, and their support for Israel. Bin Laden has also referred to the Ummah as "being torn into pieces between the teeth of a wolf". In the eyes of al-Qaida, US presence and influence across the world is tantamount to occupation.

Though I do not agree with Bin Laden's ideology, I am able to make the connection between his ideas and the positive effects of Ron Paul's thinking on the Middle East situation. If America were to withdraw its bases from the Ummah, the only ideological reason to launch attacks against the USA, from al-Qaida at least, would be its support of Israel. But wait! Ron Paul has a suggestion for that too.

"They [Israel] have become too dependent on us, not only for money and have economically become dependent, they've become dependent in that they can't even work toward peace with a country we might not like them to do it. But I don't want any of this foreign aid, Pakistan or anybody else, because the principle is wrong and because it doesn't achieve anything... Israel is in charge of its sovereignty."

There we have it, folks. Ron Paul is advocating leaving Israel alone. US aid to Israel is massive, and this is something that al-Qaida, and other groups such as Hezbollah, view as US/Israeli occupation of Arab land. Cutting off all aid to Israel would take the USA out of this equation of hatred. Of course, AIPAC will be unhappy, but AIPAC are a scummy organisation of liars with little place in a democracy as far as I'm concerned.

Bringings troops home and ending foreign aid to Israel would remove all ideological reasons for al-Qaida to attack the USA. Some politicians would be afraid of losing face. But what they fail to realise is that these bases and aggressive foreign policy (which, regrettably, has changed little under Obama) only create more resentment and strengthen groups like al-Qaida, which diversified after the beginning of the War on Terror and increased their members because, not in spite of, American aggression.

The evidence of this approach working on a smaller scale can be made clear from Lebanon. Back when the US had military personnel in Lebanon, during the Israeli occupation no less, their bases came under constant and very deadly attacks from Hezbollah. Since they withdrew, Hezbollah has become a problem of the past. Al-Qaida may strike US soil directly, but their different methods are both strategies to solve domestic 'problems', and removing the ideological grounding al-Qaida has against the US in the way outlined above would almost certainly have a similar effect.

If we look at al-Qaida today, it is an organisation on the backfoot. It has failed to influence events in the Arab Spring. Bin Laden, as much an operational leader as a charismatic ideological one, is dead and his successor, Ayman al-Zawahiri, is a pedantic man who is divisive in jihadist circles. I've no doubt his ability to lead al-Qaida, on the surface, will pale in comparison to Bin Laden. The only true successor, in terms of being a charismatic recruiter, is the Yemeni cleric Anwar al-Awlaki. Like Bin Laden, he's proven a slippery snake for the US - he escaped a US drone strike just days after Bin Laden died with a clever car swap - and so it would be far easier to simply undermine his ideological mesage than spend decades bombing Yemen and hindering their development for one man. True, there are some pure thugs in al-Qaida, but their leadership are largely very ideologically motivated and, if the USA brought troops back and stopped funding Israel, it's likely al-Qaida would move on to trying to create an Islamic caliphate across the Ummah. The USA would no longer feature on its radar, and it on theirs.

Bin Laden may be dead today, but these jihadist and other terrorist organisations have proven far more difficult to eradicate than the trillions of dollars of military investment would suggest. Ten years on, Mullah Omar is alive and the British government have admitted that talks with the Taliban would be essential to a lasting peace in Afghanistan. In the name of God, has the west achieved anything there in the last decade? Blair and Bush might as well have pissed on our money and burnt it, it would've had the same effect. Military intervention left, right and centre has never really worked as a strategy.

If President Ron Paul had been in office in 2001, things would be very different in the world today. Unfortunately for the Middle East, al-Qaida would likely be very strong there, and only there, in its attempt to create its pan-Arabic caliphate. Saddam Hussein would also be in power (though the Arab Spring may change it in the future). On the other hand, the USA wouldn't have the vast deficit it does today, or be on the receiving end of the condemnation of so many in the Ummah and wider world. Israel, too, might not exist anymore, and in its place an Iranian exclave or God knows what else. For the wider world, these consequences may not be good, but the USA would be in a markedly better position than it is today and, at the end of the day, it is the job of a leader (of any nation) to put his country's interests first and foremost. Bush did it in a stupid, debt-building way. Paul would do it in a sensible, somewhat isolationist way. Personally, I prefer Paul's method.