Wednesday, January 05, 2011

Left-Wing Influences Part 1

Never one to shirk a challenge I have been tasked [albeit in a different internet guise] by Flesh is Grass for my thoughts on “Left-Wing Influences” – good, bad, indifferent, too influential or not influential enough. Hmmm!

My first problem is what is left wing? It kinda depends where you define the centre, which from where I stand keeps moving around [or maybe it’s me – all things are relative you know], and I’m quite sure there will be some who regard David Cameron as a Commie entryist. My second problem is the notion among physicists that space is curved – if you take a straight line for long enough it will be a circle. Some use this as a metaphor to argue that the left-right political axis is not a straight line at all but a circle with the extreme left and right wings occupying the same space – something I have some sympathy with particularly as we often see this on the TV news with the boys in blue having to keep them apart.

Anyway, I’ve had a think while watching the football – a subject where left and right wings actually have some meaning that is commonly understood. Here are my thoughts, whether they are left or right I have no idea but they are what came to mind.

Factionalism
This is where the left excel. They are constantly throwing their toys out of the pram and falling out with each other, as anybody who has seen Monty Python’s ‘Life of Brian’ will be all too familiar with. These people are the purists, the fundies – there’s no scope for compromise or negotiation. They are right correct and everybody else is wrong. The trouble here is that if you take this to its logical conclusion we end up with Individualism, each belonging to a Party of One. And, strangely enough their view of Individualism is that it is a bad right-wing idea that produces selfishness and greed. Oh dear! Far too influential this one. We are social animals and we really must stick together for the common good, mustn’t we?

Tribalism
The very opposite of the previous heading but even here the left get it wrong. Misguided loyalties prevail. They will support their party of choice come what may regardless of whether that party are doing things they personally disapprove of. Let’s take a look at two local examples. Here we have Wes Tweeting, Labour Councillor in Chadwell Ward and former President of the National Union of Students [and a hot tip for a safe Blue Labour seat at the next General Election if there is still such a thing after the Tories have redrawn all the boundaries] tweetin us to his location on the political compass. Then we have local Chadwell LibDem Focus team activist Jesse Boucher whose position is almost identical. The trouble is that neither of them are anywhere near their chosen political party. Looky here. Perhaps they ought to consider paying a visit here along with the likes of John McDonnell and many others. Let’s face up to realities, there’s only ONE left wing party in England and it ain’t Labour, Nu, True or Blue. No, I’m not telling you where I appear on the compass, I’m in enough trouble already.

Academisation
Now we’ve established that there is only one ‘left’ party in England let’s have a closer look. The roots of the Green Party were conservative when it was formed as the Ecology Party back in the early 70s. But it has since attracted many who regard themselves as ‘left’, indeed there is a faction within the party called ‘Green Left’. Question: if the party itself is truly ‘left’ why do they feel the need to identify themselves as such? [see Factionalism] But what I want to highlight here is that the membership, or at least the visible membership – the activists, seem to be predominantly academic, ie Doctors of the PhD type although there is at least one who is a GP and wears a suit.

Now there’s nothing wrong with that, except that it’s not representative is it? [See later] This is a problem with the left who seem to regard an academic education as a must at the expense of teaching children how to actually do things. Like cook, change a tap washer, or even a light bulb. Grow some vegetables, mend a fuse….. Screwdiver? WTFs that? Write a 2,000 word essay on the role of screwdrivers in the oppression of the working classes, boy! And woe betide you if you abuse an apostrophe!

Of course these days the really useful things, like operating grandad’s VCR, the Wii, a computer and texting on a mobile phone are all learnt before children actually start shool at the age of 5….

Social Engineering
Now, I’m not at all sure that there was a ‘left’ prior to the twentieth century. Before that we had the Tories and Whigs, neither of whom I would have thought of as ‘left’, but in the early 20th century the working man made a stand via the Trade Union movement which gave us the Labour Party here and Communism elsewhere. This was a product of the Industrial Revolution. But there was an often unrecognised revolution later that century, which started about the 1950s – Social Science. It’s not science, it’s Bx, or at least the interpretation of it is Bx as alluded to in these two examples here and here. The practioners are just not disciplined enough to question what the evidence actually means and merely see what they want to see.

At the “Who Runs Redbridge” event last month we were told that there are more young black males in prison than at university here in the UK. Well, I’d want to have a look at the proportion of young black males in professional football and other sports [but not swimming; strange that] as well as the music industry to see how that compares.

If an identifiable group is under represented in one place they must be over represented somewhere else. You just have to look.

There is a tension between freedom to choose and forcing people into something they don’t really want to do just to make up the numbers for the illusion of representativeness. We are products of Nature, which works on stuff like chaos theory and produces random results. Chill out! Let it be!

The Safety Net
Most people would define this as The Welfare State, The National Health Service or even The Health & Safety Executive. But it’s gone way beyond that. The thing about a Safety Net is that it makes you careless and slack. It changes the way you view risk. You know that if you fall you are not going to break your neck. Take the most recent and topical example. The Bankers gambled our money in a casino and lost, knowing full well that if they did lose they were too big to fail and that those whose money had been lost [Mr & Mrs Taxpayer] would pay twice by picking up the tab. Now, had that safety net not been there, and the Bankers were personally liable for their losses do you really think they would have been so, well not to put too fine a point on it, so bleedin’ stupid? Of course not!

Same goes, I’m afraid to say, for those who bash the plastic and get into debt they can’t manage, knowing they can just walk away from it. Just declare yourself bankrupt and start all over again. And perhaps people would be more careful in the way they drive their cars if they didn’t have air bags and the surgeon wanted a Credit Card before administering trauma care.

It’s a good idea in principle, but as with all good ideas there is always the law of unintended consequences. No one I know would object to looking after the vulnerable and the poor, but the rest of us have two feet to stand on. It’s called responsibility.

Health & Safety is a popular target for the critics, including me, but it has had a major [positive] impact on injuries and even death in the workplace, particularly in the Construction Industry. The trouble is when it prevents people from volunteering to do things they would otherwise do. You then have to wonder about the way it’s managed and has been interpreted and implemented. Too much in this area is just box ticking and lip-service. In this aspect it’s not working at all.

Right, sorry left. That’s 5 headings written over a 5 day period and I’ve not even started on Equality and Equal Rights, Anti-Racism, Political Correctness, Direct Action and Revolution. I might do those later in Part II. In the meantime is there anybody out there up for a Guest post on Influential Right-wing ideas?

14 comments:

  1. Respect!(sorry that's respect to you, not the party) Political compass is great, it has the BNP as a left party, leaving aside the argument of is this correct, it’s not the leftwing position of the BNP that makes it objectionable, it’s is racism. I think we get too hung up on the left-right thing, as you say the Ecology Party was founded people who would be classified as ‘right-wing’. Of all the main parties the GPEW’s membership has the highest average earners, highest proportion of ABC1’s, and just pips the Lib Dems for having the highest educated members – not your average socialist party – perhaps the GPEW is a green party.

    Green Party councillor Robert Vint said of local Lib Dem - Green Party relations "I feel that the two parties are natural partners and I look forward to continuing to work closely with the Lib Dem group on the district council." Sometimes other issues transcend the left –right divide.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I went away and thought about this and actually there are a number of ways of answering/countering the so called political spectrum test.

    The assumption of where the parties sit on the political spectrum is highly suspect. For example the assumption that the Lib Dems are where they are right of centre and slightly authoritarian I would argue is grossly inaccurate, as apart from the parliamentary party, who are largely the Economically Liberal wing of the party, the majority of activists are closer to my own position on the spectrum at the socally liberal end .

    The only other reason I can offer, and it would apply to all parties, they are themselves coalitions of widely differeing views. While the economically Liberal wing (the so called orange book Liberals) of my party may dominate the parliamentary party, it is worth noting that activisits from the Lib Dems have recently elected Tim Farron MP as party president, from the more Socially Liberal Beveridge Group withing the party, and Simon Hughes as Deputy leader of the party also an outspoken critic of the so-called Orange Book or economically liberal wing of the party.

    Further, although I of course can't speak for Wes, he comes from a different wing of the Labour party (his position on the spectrum would suggest he is more allied to those that value civil liberties, and want voting reform, a perhaps more social democratic wing of the party). and yet Labour are also depicted as somewhere on the right of the Spectrum and authoritarian too.

    As for tribalism, I don't agree, it doesn't mtter where you sit with your own views, if the former Government and now opposition of the Labour Party, still don't get why Lib Dems are not enthralled by the overtures being made, it is because of the overwhelming belief that Labour eroded Civil liberties, was complicit in allowing extraordinary rendition flights, entered an illegal war in Iraq, failed to even start to tackle the bankers, continued to allow detention of children of asylum seekers and you think that there could EVER be common ground between the left of the Lib Dems and Labour. There is one very strong message I hear time and time again about Labour's overtures and it isn't polite...Ed Miliband is just starting to sound desparate. 'Come and write our policies for us because we don't want to pop our precious little heads above the paprapet'...sorry even the most disaffected Lib Dems are unlikely to join Labour for these reasons and it has nothing to do with tribalism.

    These are just a number of thoughts on the subject, and I can't wait for your views on equality and antiracisim, both matters very close to my heart.


    Jesse

    ReplyDelete
  3. Very thought-provoking post Weggis. A couple of things occur.

    I agree that the left/right divide is problematic - Political Compass views it exclusively as an economic divide and that certainly sharpens things up, and makes me question my contention that empathy is an essentially left-wing trait.

    I also remembered this from a few years ago - globalist v. anti-globalist, with the left/right dimension too, audaciously pitting the neo-cons against the fascists.

    On social engineering, the thing is that there are certain forms of participation which open up the good things in life in a way that others can't. Higher education is one of those. Being in prison isn't. Using a screwdriver (wrt your point about academicisation) may well earn your keep but it won't help you understand or influence the decisions of the people who make the policies within which you exist and attempt to flourish. Chilling out about representativeness is basically accepting the status quo - in your example, that's inequality along ethnic lines. Or there was some statistic after the last election about participation of women in Parliament which found that at the current rate of growth and without intervention, representativeness would be achieved in something like 200 years.

    The safety net - I'm not persuaded that on its own it makes people slack - conceptually speaking, dependency on the state is only a few degrees removed from dependency on your friends and family - something most people try very hard to avoid. In the case of the bankers you get the impression that there was an inflated view of themselves and their ventures which gave rise to a sense of entitlement. I have no problem with making financiers take on more liability for the risks they take, and all that separation of wall st from main st stuff - but I'm not sure what that has to do with the safety nets of the left, like the welfare state.

    Look forward to the next installment.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Holding reply. Thanks for comments, Will reply when sober.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Anon,
    Yes, it's amazing how people from different parties can work together when it suits.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Jesse,
    You are clutching at straws. The position of the Parties on the compass is derived from their manifestos and what they actually do.
    Granted that may not coincide with rank and file members such as yourself, but that's for you to reconcile.
    Of course it's unlikely that there could be "common ground between the left of the Lib Dems and Labour" given Labour's current position on the Compass, but that's not what I was suggesting. Go Green Young Man!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Flesh,
    As I commented on your blog in reply to Mod, the University of Life is much underrated these days. There is a difference between educated, trained and intelligent; that’s why we have different words for these things.

    “inequality along ethnic lines”: Have you looked at heavyweight boxing or premiership football lately where blacks are over-represented. They are there because they are good at it and I for one would not wish to hamper their life choices or opportunities to realise their full potential despite their grotesque wages.

    “Women in parliament”: I have argued before on this blog that we should leave politics to the girls. The only trouble is that women, on average, tend to lack the basic skills to succeed in this arena, ie arrogance, mendacity, conceit……
    And I would remind you that over half of the electorate are women, and I suspect women also play a major role in the selection process within parties.

    ReplyDelete
  8. University of Life - right on the money Weggis. I used to work with a bloke who studied Napoleon – I went with him to some event, where a uni lecturer with a Ph.D was learning from him. I do worry that the obsession with qualifications has stopped social mobility. Mine was the last generation that could work their way up from the shopfloor to management in my industry. I think the police (just about) and the Fire Service are last bastions of work-your-way-up. Oh and I found out the best headteacher my kids had – only had a Cert Ed!

    ReplyDelete
  9. Everyone can go to the university of life, and most of us have several PhDs from it.

    But that doesn't change the basic inequality in contemporary society which means that without a little bit of paper, a degree then you are naturally disadvantaged, your life expectancy is even less, the chance of your children doing well is even less (all readily available information to confirm will this, etc etc ).

    Not only that, the culture of learning is lost.

    If we wish to have a equal society then those of us, from the working-class, need to have equal access to education and the culture to use and appreciate it (as pushy middle-class parents and their offspring do).

    If, however, we want more of the same, alienation, frustration, mindless street gangs and the only outlet to be found his crime (or low paid jobs) then the status quo should prevail.

    I am against the policy of low expectations, the status quo and *only* access to the University of Life.

    Are you?

    ReplyDelete
  10. Yes, but it's not quite that simple.

    Watch this video.

    ReplyDelete
  11. No, but then I don't want to write a 4000 word essay either :)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Interesting video.

    Unfortunately it is missing the point rather, which is that some people - the usual suspects - have already been trying and trying to reform e-ducation to make it a genuine 'leading out' or opening up process for donkeys years past.

    There always has been and always will be huge resistance against this from all the vast numbers of repressed and narrow-minded people, all those who want to control how others behave for economic, political, religious or other emotionally screwed up reasons of their own.

    Socrates, Pestalozzi, Montessori, Neill, the list is endless.

    As for any "culture of learning" - sorry, that's way uncool.

    Nostalgie de la Boue rules now.

    ReplyDelete
  13. But returning to the immediate subject of your post, you've hit a few nails squarely on the head there, I think.

    You might be interested in an excellent think piece from Stuart Staniford, here.

    ReplyDelete