After New Labour, does Russell Brand have a point?

“It’s not up to Tony Blair to rename my party to ‘New Labour'”.

And thus spake Tony Benn.

With nearly 10 million “hits”, it’s beyond reasonable doubt that the interview between Jeremy Paxman and Russell Brand has been an internet viral sensation. It’s appreciated that, despite successes as the national minimum wage, Blair’s government was ideologically of ‘no fixed abode’, and the “clause 4 moment” can be interpreted as a symbol of the rejection of socialism (akin to Hugh Gaitskell).

Jeremy Paxman himself has said publicly that he is not particularly drawn by any political party, and about three and a half years ago the popular Labour blogger, Sunny Hundal, started an initiative to recapture “a million lost votes”.

At around the time, Peter Kellner did a tour of the conferences circuit explaining how people had curiously become detached from “the political process”. The backdrop to this is that the political process produces one leg of the ‘One Labour tripos’, the other two legs being the ‘one nation economy’ and ‘one nation society’.

Various cogent explanations were offered for this ‘democratic deficit’ in England, but curiously not high on the list was the finding that this Coalition kept on introducing statutory instruments which had not been clearly signposted in either of their two manifestos (sic). One glaring example, apart from tuition fees of course, is the Health and Social Care Act (2012).

There is no doubt that Russell Brand’s viewpoint, whilst appearing somewhat self-exhibitionist, is potentially very engaging. However, Brand’s conclusion of not bothering voting appears at first blush to be completely at odds with what Tony Benn has been arguing for ages. That’s if you don’t factor in the possibility of a Lib-Lab coalition, with our unamended boundary changes.

Tony Benn is of course not the font of all knowledge, but he is an incredibly wise man whom is the target of much affection by modern day socialists. Benn has long argued that ‘democratic socialists’ often cannot buy influence by donating lots of money to multinational corporates, but they can exert influence their democratic vote. Rather than being Brand’s ‘lost cause’ or spoilt ballot paper, in Benn’s Brave New World a vote means hope.

And indeed logically any vote against decades of English policy designed to transfer resources from the State to the shareholder dividends of private limited companies and plcs, otherwise known as “privatisation”, fits the bill.

Also, if it’s the case that the Lobbying Bill has a parliamentary intention of strangling at birth trade union activity rather than the private sector companies wishing to ‘rent seek’ in a new liberalised NHS, Benn’s desire for us socialists to exercise our vote could not have come at a better time.

The question is of course: which party should I vote for which has the best chances of delivering a NHS based on reciprocity, solidarity, equality, cooperation, collaboration and social justice (otherwise known as socialism)? There’s an argument that true “believers” of the NHS might vote Labour (as the party which implemented the NHS under Clement Attlee’s Prime Ministership with Aneurin Bevan as health minister).

You could ‘hold your nose’ and vote Labour, as Professor Ray Tallis put it at the book launch of ‘SOS NHS’ at the Owl Bookshop in Kentish Town, or you could, on the other hand vote for one of the other alternatives, Greens or NHS Action Party. At the end of the day Benn, I’m sure, would endorse the idea that you should produce a vote most likely to produce your preferred option in the real world? But which party represents best how you feel?

If you’re faced with a choice between the Liberal Democrats and Tories, it might be tempting to vote Liberal Democrat. However, since the Liberal Democrat Party have ditched the “social and” part of the “social and liberal democrat party”, you might end up delivering a Liberal Democrat vote for a liberal part of a neoliberal Lab-Lib coalition on May 8th 2015, which is more than capable of delivering a neoliberal rather than socialist agenda. So it might not be worth voting at all, than to vote Liberal Democrat.

And the anger against Labour, particularly since the days of New Labour, is still very real. After New Labour, does Russell Brand have a point? But Andy Burnham MP emphasises categorically that times have changed: i.e. he’s repealing the Health and Social Care Act (2012), and “rejecting the market”.

As they say, the choice is yours.

http://lenin2u.wordpress leninnightingalelenin Nightingale

Whichever political party is in power, the Government has been ordered by the EU to privatise the NHS etc (ref). Already begun with Foundation Trust hospitals which are semi-private ie manager determines how to spend budget, NHS policies etc do not apply. All part of the wider political picture and aims for a new world Order, run by USA businesses, as countries signed to agree with in 1950s (refs)
Hence many may well say, there is no point voting. South African Government is a good example of this and how USA influences.
see lernin2u.wordpress
http://twitter.com/mjh0421 Mervyn Hyde (@mjh0421)

I reiterate what I have said in the past, sadly the leadership of this new Blue Labour party are neo-liberal to the core. If party members want to save the NHS they must take back control of the party and start telling the MPs what they should do, not following hoping they will do the right thing.

My experience of the system of forums in the Labour is that the bullet points leading debate, end up being the rubber stamped, and are always vague aspirations such as, do you want to you want a health service that responds to peoples needs? answer yes.

That could be seen to mean, either more democratic control or more privatisation and market philosophy, that is the customer dictates but in reality has no say whatsoever.

This kind of debate was introduced by Blair and is the reason democracy has become a sham, because both right and left think they are taking part in the democratic process and agree to the same statement for opposite reasons. Hence the continual drift to the right and mass disillusionment for the real Labour members.

I do not trust Ed Miliband, he has unlike in the days of Harold Wilson who created a cabinet of left and right; maintained Blair’s principle of governing by patronage and those that are not on message never get promoted.

Ed Miliband’s secret memo appointing Alan Milburn to formulate policy on health is categorical proof that the neo-liberal agenda will be alive and well in Eds government. Along with the clear sign of wearing purple ties highlighting they are a safe pair of hands on the right wing tiller.

Ed Miliband’s latest brave statement saying that he will split the banking system up, is also deception by no other name, these are the Banks we nationalised. So how brave of him to decide he will split them up when in fact it is more democratic accountability we need in the Banking system not artificial competition.

The sign that Ed doesn’t intend to get it, as he said he did in his leadership campaign, is that he refers to neo-liberal sound bites such as competition. Well we have been told that story for forty years now when is it actually going to work? The answer of course is never, because competition is a myth. China has more gifted children in China than the whole of Europe and North America put together, If we are going to compete, then we have already lost before we get out of bed in the morning.

What we need is a society that works together not working against each other and Ed just doesn’t get it. Neither do the sycophantic hangers on like the rest of the shadow cabinet, but they do all know which side their bread is buttered on.

Labour members need to wake up and take control of our party, not follow like sheep. Ed and the other cabinet members are Oxbridge PPEs they are all singing from the same hymn sheet as Cameron.