I’m likely to avoid posting for much of the next 3 days; so, as a shortened form of holiday reading, here’s the hugely impressive Green New Deal, on which I’ll write a review in the very near future.

Brown is clearly at severe risk and when even some of the unions are baying for blood (or at least a Major style “Put up or shut up” confrontation). This is hardly surprising, but what has taken me aback is the pathos extracted from his weary, bloated face.

It is essential that we remind ourselves that this is the man who demanded the state be able to imprison the innocent for six weeks, who allied himself and bribed far-right foul bigots to ensure that the act was past, who demanded cannabis be declassified despite this directly disregarding the conclusions of a panel of experts reporting on the issue, who taxed the poor to give minuscule breaks to the moderately affluent, who now plans benefits reforms reminiscent of prison workforces and who has performed a plethora of other idiotic moves in his short reign.

Brown’s beleaguered state is richly deserved. His “Phantom Election” is much touted as his grandest folly but had the economy which he had been charged with for over a decade as Chancellor been kept in a better state the likelihood of the crash being as severe as the one we have actually experienced is small. Without the economic downturn Brown would be in a far better, perhaps even unassailable, position. Without his constant stream of policy that irks his natural base he would have held far stronger against the Tories than he has.

Brown has served as his own gravedigger.

But as for the alternatives? Cameron speaks sense in places but is about as worthy of trust with power as a ferret with a rabbit den. So far as can be determined none save the Blairites (Clarke & Co) are willing to step into the actual position of Prime Minister (and given the conditions surrounding that chalice can they be blamed?) At least one other writer for this blog agrees with me over backing Miliband to the hilt, but he has proven (understandably) wary of the prospect. It would take a politician of nothing short of Messianic proportions to redeem the Labour Party now.

But there can be only so much waiting: at the present rate of erosion it seems likely that there will be precious little Labour Party left to inherit for whoever takes over after Brown. If it were to be done then it would be better that it were done quickly. Each day which the present order remains in place appears to be another step by the Labour Party towards oblivion.

The government’s new policies for unemployment were, according to the Tories, lifted from the Conservatives. This wouldn’t surprise me, seeing as they pause only from outright theft to try a spot of outflanking {the Tories have lately, finally, wisely, taken to simply claiming the centre instead of plunging further outwards towards fascism}.

Irrespective of their origins I am left wondering what exactly distinguishes this proposal, that able bodied people shall be put to work in exchange for their benefits, from the standard social democrat solution to unemployment of job generation. It’s an old trick practiced by reformists and revolutionaries, right and left, alike: the revisionist Marxists who reached power throughout Europe had the people participate in the construction of public parks, dams other massive projects, the National Socialists built the autobahn, Roosevelt had people hired to scare pigeons away from public monuments with lengthy sticks, the Paris Communes kept people occupied through having some of them dig large holes and others fill them in again.

So why would New Labour follow such a radical tradition? Why would it engage in something so closely resembling the socialism it had previously denounced? And, more curious still, why would the Conservatives lay claim to such policy? Why would they desire to be seen as the architects of this piece of outright statism? Does their view of the relationship between the British people and British State really involve a significant increase in people who deem it their employer?

Well, a singular thing separates this proposal from the rest of those examples: in all of them the workers were given a proper wage; whereas here the de facto state employees will be getting the usual pittance they were anyway in exchange for full time labour.

Gordon Brown’s Chancellorship was built on “prudence”. He was the boring Chancellor: the steady helmsman with both hands and even his glass eye trained fixatedly on the rudder of the British economy. His obsessiveness yielded rewards. Apart from one or two mishaps (such as announcing that he would sell gold when the price was at its lowest, just to ensure that it dropped further still), he was a reasonably good Chancellor. He inherited a rallying economy, but must be credited for not screwing it up.

Unsportsmanlike: Gordon Brown

I am not pretending that Brown was a saint of any sort. He has largely deceived the population with dodgy statistics and misplaced promises about his “rules”. He has borrowed far more than he says he has, but shifts figures by counting that debt as separate to national debt. A crass comparison can be made to Hitler’s employment figures: take Jews, the disabled, women and conscripted soldiers out of the equation and Hitler was a master at slashing unemployment! Moreover, the Tory charge that the government has failed to prepare for the coming downturn is entirely fair: Brown promising to build thousands of new homes when construction firms are feeling the pinch is too little too late. When the going is good, we should enjoy it. But we should also recognise that the downturn will not be a particularly pleasant experience.

The last thing people want in times of economic slowdown is increased tax. Brown knows that his fiddling with tax cost him dearly in local and by-elections recently. Any increase in tax would be suicide. But an increase in borrowing is a worse scenario: it harms the economy for a very long time to come. It is, in short, irresponsible.

But worse, it is unsportsmanlike. The recovery from the recession in the early 1990s was a natural response to the economic situation, albeit politically motivated. Brown’s current policy of spending at will with an IOU is wholly irresponsible. It is thoroughly unfair to lose a duel and then kneecap your opponent as you leave the arena. By denying the Tories the chance to govern as they wish (low tax, low spend) he has dictated the economic course for the next few years (high tax, low spend, debt repayments). The simple problem with government borrowing is that it does not yield a good return for the taxpayer: they pay for yesterday’s welfare at tomorrow’s prices. To strap the Tories into paying for his spending, he has effectively sounded the death-knell to solid welfare provision for the next decade.

I object to this addiction to borrowing, therefore, for two simple reasons. Firstly, that it denies the next government from governing as their manifesto states. This is surely an abuse of office? Secondly, when the Tories see public spending targets as “what’s the least we can get away with and still win elections?” it is shocking that a Labour prime minister would steal their spending power and waste it before they get into office. If Brown seriously thinks that welfare is worth having, he should be trying to protect it by keeping government debt as low as possible now. By his current actions, it looks as if he uses it simply to win elections, then hopes the Tories will slash it so he can win the election after that. It is unsportsmanlike, and illogical in the long-term. The Tories will doubtless crow about this U-Turn, and blame it for years to come, but the loudest dissenters must surely come from the Left.

(Scribo Ergo Sum at Marxism 2008 - part 4)

This time around I got to speak to some lefties before I even got into the festival, something which had only happened previously in order for me to ask some directions towards the location back on Friday. The reason for this was a pair of men who I overheard discussing some topic revolving around the Respect meetings and the SWP all having the same agenda upon arrival. This is (rather revealingly) something which caught my interest as the application of Democratic Centralism to coalition votes seems to have caused no end of complaints amongst the groups the SWP has worked in (the Socialist Alliance, Stop The War and, of course, the Respect Coalition). In fact I went so far as to presume that they were non-Left List/Alternative Respect members. It actually turned out that they were “critical” SWP members; quite an exotic breed. They spoke jovially about the state of Respect and stated that a split was effectively inevitable at some stage owing to the division which would have arose over whether to attack or back Ken Livingstone. Affable though they were they seemed slightly displeased with their position and perhaps a tad uncomfortable with the party. The less than glowing recommendation that I should probably not join the party if I didn’t believe what it did was given as we parted, perhaps their weak gesture towards participating in the recruitment side of this event.

By some unanticipated miracle I had avoided lateness, indeed it was the first speaker who was behind time, momentarily leaving me wishing that I had instead attended the one being held on Gramsci. This was exacerbated by her use of the phrase “Gramscian” when she did arrive and I had no idea what it meant (the reason for the delay was a breakdown in service from Oxford). But it quite quickly became clear that it was entirely worth it. Deborah Cameron is a linguistics professor and one of the few writers I have found that both share views concerning gender with me and have pierced mainstream media. She had a series of extracts from her book The Myth of Venus and Mars published in the Guardian earlier this year and reading them was what could only be described as a relief.

Cameron takes to task the substantial sub-genre of “Self-help” that effectively seeks to state that there are immense differences between men and women which are entirely inherent and that these should be understood and accepted as challenging them is a waste of time. Besides the obvious and intellectually cripplingly moronic failure to distinguish between presence and source these texts invariably exacerbate differences with the sort of selective pseudo-science everyone attempting to wield research as a weapon encounters. Where Cameron focuses, though, is her specialty: linguistics.

Male humans and female humans communicate in fundamentally different ways, the divisionists tell us: men speak far less than women and women talk about their feelings far more. Men are more assertive and women communicative, the former better in positions that lead and the latter in rolls revolving around empathy and emotional communication.

These are the claims but the evidence is scanty: Cameron started through telling us of an analysis which traced the myth of 20,000 words a day for women and 7,000 for men back to its source: a less extreme number in a Christian aimed book about marriage; which seemingly plucked the figure from thin air. Although in this instance she was able to obtain a retraction of the statistic from a well-respected book many other myths litter the memetic landscape that our and every culture consists of and she rattled through them at a satisfyingly brisk rate. There is no evidence that emotional words are used unequally between the genders besides swear words, which men do use more often (she notes that this never leads anyone to conclude that men are more emotional), men and women share conversation time equally when in equal status and it is only when there are more men higher in the hierarchy than women that they dominate conversations. Women are no superior at communication and men find women perfectly coherent as they speak the same form of English.

Where this starts to become of high importance is instances such as rape trials, where rapists can use this presumptuous nonsense to say that they somehow failed to understand women due to them not using explicit wording, when in reality almost all short of the mentally handicapped can understand signals of that nature under such conditions. She quoted the occasion in Cool Hand Luke where the prison guard tells the eponymous protagonist “What we have here is a break-down in communication”. Just as this was a euphemism for disobedience so is, for example, a man refusing to remove a bag of rubbish.

But many want to hear the reassuring signals of inherent difference and gender dichotomy being deeply entrenched, even if it means abandoning critical thought and relying upon shoddy readings of science. Challenging this is a vital task for any egalitarian as the division of humanity into an assortment of interacting but mutually distinct groups invariably should be pursued solely when necessary. This is not such an instance.

Before the meeting I had had a lengthy talk with a fellow who had seemingly been checking the room for anyone on their own and not in the Socialist Worker Party, for he quickly outlined to an extraordinarily attractive girl why she should prior to us leaving. He was another one of the charming young SWP members and he certainly seemed to consider it a positive organisation. I again expressed wariness at their organisational structure and today told that I was uncertain between social democracy and socialism (still truth) and thus uncertain if I’d be appropriate for an outright socialist party.

There were no communist groups around today but a few SWP were having something of a discussion on the grass outside Birbeck College with a pair of independent socialists. As this was ongoing I spoke to an Socialist Worker on the periphery who’s name was Simon. I later found out that he was from Belgium, where the left consists of four Maoists still talking about “Armed Struggle”. He had a sharp wit and when I told him my ideal for the left (a large structure with various factions) he told me that it already existed: the Labour Party. It takes your money and your vote and expects nothing else of you, he said. He told me that he was wary of working in an organisation where Stalinists or Maoists were also operative and I told him that I had not seen any such parties present at Marxism. His response was rather unexpected: he mentioned the CPGB. He stated that although they were not avowed in their ideology they followed such positions. Unfortunately the party in question weren’t around to ask.

He said that independent socialists had a role but could not expect their position to achieve a great deal, although they could of course be worked with in a popular front against fascism or the war or the like. He was opposed however to the autonomist anarchists who operated on in Sussex. As we left he paused and said that I should think about joining, because what with the 400 other people telling me to join the SWP I probably hadn’t considered it yet.

I headed out to check for any more interesting lefties around the corner but it seemed that only the SWP tents (and Stop The War and so on) were around so I headed kback to see a talk on “Zombieconomics”. This was a topic that intrigued me purely due to the name but which I knew nothing about, indeed in the room prior to the speaker’s arrival I engaged with another socialist about how it might be pronounced (with Zombie and Economics divided instead of combined, it eventually turned out).

The talk was given by Ben Fine, who had studied matters economical for decades and come to the conclusion that the subject was firstly dead: there was no room for growth or expansion as there were three main schools and hybrids between them but nothing beyond this could be envisioned. “Economics is dead” was not his message, however, in fact it was worse: rather than simply ceasing to exist economics had instead reached out and attempted to dominate the other social sciences, just as an unliving zombie has no essence of its own and seeks to forcibly extract it from those around it.

Much of his talk, as with Chris Bambery the day before, revolved around neo-liberalism but Fine made efforts to explain that this term can mean just about anything. Either a tendency to destroy public services to reform them, either an outright rejection of Keynesianism or a new form of it, theory or application, original form or current, these are all distinct varities that bear the same title. Comparatively the Respect/Respect split seems a matter of ease to understand.

The tone of his talk was in part hopeful: social sciences had moved away from post-modernism and neo-liberalism, he told us, although the extent to which he could go into points rather than merely touching upon them was limited. He was aware that he was not talking to a roomful of economists and confined by as much; but also avoided being condescending. To be honest though I still only half understand the meaning of “Financialisation”, although I accept that its implications seem to be negative ones.

I also don’t entirely understand the distinction between a political economist and a regular one but apparently it is primarily that the former are given less respect and purged from university departments more often. Apparently one of the speakers universities (in Sydney, as I recall) currently understands them to belong in the Arts department, something which they find most inappropriate.

In short it was mind-expanding stuff and probably the sort of stuff anyone wanting to become a Marxist would have to wrap their head around. Thankfully though I don’t have to and that’s one of the many reasons why.

I was considering just heading off home but decided to stage one final raid upon the mystical white “Marxism Attendees Only” tent, since that’s where all of the revolutionaries seemed to be at.

It seemed that my West London comrades were not in attendance but I caught up with Simon; who was behind a table stuffed full of food I eventually gained access to without paying. A discussion was underway between the assembled group about the Brighton bomb factory, a delightful but grim topic that revolved around the course of action to be taken against EDO. Apparently the aforementioned autonomist anarchists had taken up the course with force and were using a series of stunts and other direct action tactics to get the place shut down. A typical tactic was to chain themselves to the gates on a Wednesday and stay there until they got themselves arrested.

The anarchists had seemingly scared off the rest of the public from involvement with the cause; however they were also deterred by the obvious consequences: as great a blow as this would be for neo-conservatives in the short term (the factory makes door opening mechanisms for bombers that have been used by the Royal Airforce and US in Afghanistan and Iraq, as well as the Israelis against Palestine; therefore rolling a number of far-left issues into a potent cocktail) they would simply relocate and the effect upon the local economy from all the jobs lost would be disastrous.

Indeed I suspect that this was why the gentleman gently agitating in favour of action against EDO was struggling with the thus far non-commital SWP: much as they are often eager to take up a cause and take it to the streets in this instance they would be actively working in order to try and increase Brighton unemployment. But the activist in discussion with them stated that in capitalism everything was related to jobs and business and that any ethical projects would end up losing people jobs. This was simply part and parcel of operating politically within it and was unfortunate but had to be done and could be mitigated through demands including full employment for all the factory workers (who by, he did not outline).

Then there was the difficulty of methods: the suggestion of protesting on Saturday rather than the weekdays which had been done before (with the anarchists attempting to shame the factory workforce) was seen as an improvement but still considered warily. The difficulty was explained as there being no “Either or” choice between protest and direct action: the area had been cased and little willingness for factory closure found amongst the general public. Accordingly perhaps the only action possible is the sort that was apparently found legal by a judge in some similar case or other.

Just to complicate matters a little further the exact attitude of present company with regards to the autonomist anarchists was not precisely clear. They were dedicated activists and if direct action was to go underway doubtless valuable allies of some kind. But one of the Socialist Workers had heard that it was largely them that were scaring away any sort of mass movement over the issue of the bomb-delivery production plant. If so then any attempts at popular fronts would have to be formed without them and if direct action was the plan then they would have to be convinced to coalesce with socialists, at least to some extent.

In short I was receiving a quick vision first hand of just what a struggle it is to actually organise anything, even a local project with a specific aim.

The exact outcome of their in promtu meeting was indecided, but I was certainly well fed at the end of it thanks to a mixture of rolls, grapes and pasta. Stuffing the latter into the former was quite delightful, especially so because I got to do so while chatting to the chap organising against EDO. His name was Penny and he was quite possibly the result of the day. This I only discovered when probing (as one does under such conditions) his political affiliation. He was a member of Respect and told me his position within it when I told him that despite having covered it closely for a few months now and he replied that he was on its national committee and he still couldn’t.

This Respect is the Respect that isn’t Respect any more but was the Left List and now is the Left Alternative. Yes, the name is apparently around to stay, which I expressed my dismay over. Apparently he was plumping for the Left (too broad) or Left Solidarity (too close to Tommy Sheridan’s failed party for the electoral commission to handle) and the word “Party” was for some reason out entirely.

More importantly he was one of the seemingly rare Respect-but-not-SWP types I’d only met two of previously. I asked him how common his kind were and he said the split was either 50-50 or 40-60 in-not on the national committee, while on the local level the SWP bias was significantly stronger. He was not keen on Galloway but, unexpectedly, brought up Obama and expressed some considerable admiration. I told him that I also found it remarkable that he had defeated the Clinton Machine with such limited corporate backing and admired the transparency and skill that had marked his campaign, along with its top-down structure.

It was at this stage that I was approached by a Socialist Worker wearing an “Event Staff” t-shirt (weren’t they all?) who asked to see my ticket. I replied that I did not have one and he informed me that the tent was for Marxist attendees only. I replied that I was attending Marxism and he said he knew this as he was the one who had let me into Tony Benn and expelled me from the SWP student meeting. He reminded me that I had told him I had no money (perhaps presuming that I had paid for food). It was, I suppose, only a matter of time before they caught up with me. Too late. By this stage I did not even ponder resistance, when he told me I would have to leave the tent I didn’t even bother mentioning the ending of Animal Farm to him and obeyed his assertion of property rights, biding goodbye to the Respect member and then departing the area and the event.

On my way out I was stopped briefly by the Campaign Against Climate Change leafleteer, the first non-SWP sort I had encountered active that day. I mentioned the connotations of his leaflet with good humour and he laughed. We discussed the group for a short while and to demonstrate the Tony Been denying political bent of his organisation he simply pointed at his t-shirt, which declared Bush as “Wanted for Crimes Against Humanity” due to his stance on climate change. He spoke of the president now wanting to drill in Alaska and I told him how after the “addicted to oil” stuff this seemed to be junkie scrabbling. He laughed again and told me that it would make a fine cartoon; then I was on my way.

Marxism let me see a wide range of intelligent people for free and allowed me the peculiar opportunity to frequently be in a room-full of people who I was well to the right of. It allowed me to make some sense of Respect and conclude that everyone fucked up hard. My thanks to the SWP for putting on such a fine event. I’ll certainly trot along next year and hopefully can drag at least one of my SES comrades with me. In the meantime I’m still not a Marxist but I am far better informed than on Friday. Until next time, comrades…

Number of meetings attended: 10

Amount of money paid: £0.00

Number of infiltrations: 4 (Apparently the white tent counts, so my count of 1 yesterday was entirely inaccurate.)

Number of successful infiltrations: 3 (NOMNOMNOM)

Amount of free meals obtained: 3

Amount of offers to join the SWP: 400 a minute.

Vegetarianism gains more ground.

Political Bettinghas reminded me of the infamous October interview with Andrew Marr.  Calling off the election that he had never called was an unbelievably stupid move from Gordon Brown - probably his most stupid move to date.  Indeed, during the interview, he talks over Marr as he asks “You don’t think you’ve lost your moment?”

Challenged over the brilliantly successful Tory party conference weekend, Brown tries to discredit the Tory tax announcements:

Let me just say, we will win an election because when you come to dissect these Conservative policies - i-if you throw £5bn at a problem, you know, 2p on income tax, on a problem, and do not show how you are going to fund it, then for a short moment you can persuade people that you’ve got a policy.  But when it comes to the forensic job of dissecting that policy, it will be found that the Conservative policy not only doesn’t add up, but it leads to economic disarray.

A mere eight months later, Brown is willing to get Britain £2.7bn further into debt in order to bribe the electorate of Crewe.  “For a short moment you can persuade people that you’ve got a policy… economic disarray” - indeed so, Prime Minister.  I would laugh, but it’s just not funny. Watch from 2mins 10secs.

Lesson #1 of politics: if you don’t want to answer a question, don’t accept the premise of the question.  Try to spot Alistair Darling’s denial that the £2.7bn of new public debt is a by-election swindle.  I couldn’t.

I often seem to find myself disagreeing with my esteemed colleagues here on Scribo.  It’s not something I am usually concerned about, but today I am almost incredulous at Vamp’s assessment on the subject of “Brown Caves“.

Unlike most {all, in the case of the right} I see a deviation from the former stubborness of the Labour Party to be a positve thing.

I find Brown’s latest troubles anything but a sign of an end to stubbornness: in fact, little he has done has been more stubborn.  Let’s chart events:

Gordon Brown’s final Budget includes measures that hit the poorest group of workers in the country.

Gordon Brown claims the Budget is tax-cutting.

MPs finally read the Budget and realise that the poorest people are being hit by the change.

Gordon Brown denies anyone will be financially harmed by the Budget.

Rebellion stirs among the backbenchers.

Gordon Brown tells lobby journalists that the rebellion is tiny and not an issue.

Rebellion grows.

Gordon Brown forced to break from engagements in the White House to persuade spineless PPS not to resign.

Gordon Brown still claims the rebellion is insubstantial.

Frank Field reveals the scope of the rebellion: more than enough for a government defeat.

Gordon Brown dithers for a week.

Minutes before PMQs on Wednesday, Gordon Brown reveals plans to “compensate” those who have lost out as a direct result of his budget.

David Cameron mocks him for U-turning.

It becomes clear that the U-turn was a mere sleight of hand: the “compensation” has helped nobody very much.

Gordon Brown pretends all is well with the world.

Tories get 18-point lead in Telegraph poll.

If that is not a record of stubbornness, I will emigrate when I see one.  I also disagree with Vamp’s suggestion that the opposition “were apparently jubiliant yesterday but they were denied the grand scalp of a Commons defeat”.  These events play directly into the Tories’ greatest attack - Brown is a ditherer who is completely out of touch with reality.  Brown is fooling nobody: probably not even himself.  This is far, far more valuable than a commons defeat.

For those of you who are fooled by Brown, consider the sham of a compensation package he laid out yesterday.  Direct financial reimbursement for the employed will occur through an inflation-busting rise in the minimum wage - paid for by employers.  Other minor payouts will occur, but only the Winter Fuel Allowance will be backdated to this Spring.  Forgive my cynicism, but what exactly does backdating Winter payments from Autumn to Spring entail?  Precisely nothing.

Let’s not forget that this is a tax increase, not a surcharge on being poor.  When those hit by it are not properly reimbursed and those who are receive compensation only through their employers, the state is onto a winner.  Even if every person affected by the change came out of the compensation process with as much money as they had before, the government would still have made a profit! What an absolute scandal!

The truth is more startling still.  The government has pulled a profit from screwing over some of the lowest-paid workers in the country, and has saved its skin by screwing over their employers.  This, I fear, is the kind of disgusting stunt befitting a government that has been hanging out to dry for far too long.  If Vamp thinks this is an acceptable way to cling to power, I worry greatly about the long-term future of this country.

No government, however desperate, should ever resort to such dirty tactics as these.  It’s intolerably shameful.  It is a matter of great regret that there is not a shred of evidence to suggest that the alternatives would behave any differently.

I read Guido Fawkes’ Blog.  I don’t expect to see shocking leaks that will bring down the Westminster machine (I like to think that Mr Fawkes assumes an alias simply because on name doesn’t do justice to his burgeoning ego) or very good gossip.  But I do expect to find some faintly amusing content about the less serious aspects of politics; the kind of stuff that’s too cheap for political journalists to put in their paper and risks lowering the tone of their blog.  It fills a gap in the free market of the internet.

It is with surprise, then, that I find myself compelled to reproduce an entire post from the site.  It’s snappy, concise, liberal with grammar, and strikingly true.  Common sense on the tax system; now there’s a rare sight!

Watching Darling spluttering explanations for abolishing the 10p rate this morning it is clear that the Brownies can’t see that their preference for taxing with one hand and then paying benefits back with the other hand is a wasteful bureaucratic merry-go-round that doesn’t work - except on paper.

Darling says “tax is complicated”. Who complicated it? Simplify it by raising thresholds dramatically. Why should people on earnings of less than £10,000 pay any tax? They only have to fill out endless forms to get it back in welfare payments. Crazy. Raising the threshold on the low paid will incentivise people to come off benefits and work. It will reduce the cost of collection which is disproportionately higher on low incomes.

The Tories are too timid, the mood of the public has changed. New Labour has always referred to “unfunded tax cuts” and demanded to know how many hospitals, schools would correspondingly be cut. The Tories should be pointing to Labour’s ”unfunded spending commitments” which have given Britain the highest budget deficit in the Western world. We can’t afford Labour’s reckless spending commitments they are literally mortgaging our children’s taxes to pay for current spending. It is the economics of the “never, never”.