Don’t voters deserve at least one party that’s not in the pocket of Rona Fairhead’s HSBC?

Four shades of capitalist bullshit was on offer. Time for a new menu?

Four  flavors of capitalist bullshit was on the menu. Time for something else?

Let everybody expose the right-wing liars at the BBC who say Jeremy Corbyn is taking us back to the bad old days. What Jeremy is doing is fighting to give voters an alternative. The kind of alternative that was stolen from our ballot paper when Tony Blair ripped up Clause Four.

Never let it be forgotten that The Labour Party was set up in the first place to give a voice to those of us with nothing to lose but our chains: And that is now, as it always has been, the overwhelming majority.

There are lying Tory idiots who pollute the BBC. For the sake of the hard of thinking, I’m not placing all NUJ members into that category: there are many wonderful exceptions who successfully defeat their Tory editors, and bureaucrats. They do this at least to some extent, at least some of the time, although they clearly have a very precarious existence, subject to contracts not being renewed.

Rona Fairhead siphons off OUR license fee, and does so to prop up the anti-democratic Confederation of British Industry, an organization committed to the disgusting belief that the more money you have the more votes you should feel free to buy. That is the essence of Margaret Thatcher’s property-owning ‘democracy’, her shareholders ‘democracy’.

Rupert Murdoch’s SKY News and Andrew Neil are as proud today as they have ever been of crushing organized workers in order to maximize the rate of exploitation for the money men, working with General Pinochet’s pal, the then Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher.

Trade unions are radically democratic organizations. They represent the most basic tools of a class of the exploited to resist. They don’t put an end to, but certainly do limit, the rate of exploitation. And that has always proven more than enough to royally piss off Liberals.

The Liberal Party’s rejection of trade unions forced the latter to set up a party of their own. But that trade union party has been stolen from us by gangs of Yuppie Entryists lead by a corrupt war criminal by the name of Tony Blair: you may have heard of him.

The Labour Party that was created by trade unionists is one that Liz Kendall wants to enlist as part of her self-aggrandizing project, keeping it as a fig-leaf for capitalist exploitation. Labour’s golden days were never as great as the myth suggests. However, Labour has, even in theory, been a pro-capitalist party from the day Tony Blair ripped up Clause Four. Andrew Neil knows that. He is paid to keep the significance of that truth buried as far away from the popular imagination as he can. And 90% of Labour MPs want voters kept in the dark. And some of them find it impossible to restrain their contempt for a real socialist in their midst. John Mann is the most vocal of this Blairite tendency.

It was pretty right-wing ‘intellectuals’ by the way – The Webbs – who introduced Clause Four. They cynically drew up this draft not because they personally had shifted leftwards. They did it as a means of undermining the rising popularity of the revolution movements that was sweeping the continent at the end of World War I.

The Fabians drew up Clause Four to stop Britain going down the road of revolution, to stopping the growth of the Communist Party that was sympathetic towards the Russian Revolution. If capitalist exploitation could end by winning a parliamentary majority, as Karl Marx himself had argued, then why on Earth not opt for that? An excellent question that has been answered more than once, with tragic consequences, including by Margaret Thatcher’s chum, the butcher of Chile: General Pinochet.

Andrew Neil ‘forgets’ that capitalism is an exploitative system, dripping from head to toe in blood. Money begets money, and capitalists would sell their grandmother if the rate of profit was large enough. They’ve sold their souls to the Devil. Good luck to those evil bastards.

Capitalists are parasites. They are so because we are talking about unearned income. And unearned income has not been earned. It rests upon wage slavery. And Andrew Neil seems unaware that radical redistributive taxation involves more than income tax. We are talking about wealth taxes. And we are talking about nationalization on terms favorable to the majority. That, after all is what democracy means: people rule.

Bowing down before the profiteers is what most Labour MPs are all about these days. This has corrupted them. It has reduced any effectiveness they used to have – once upon a time. Blairites are very stupid people. They don’t even appreciate that  cheer-leading the CBI’s threat of mass redundancies if Scotland didn’t surrender to their blackmail lead to their implosion north of the border. There is absolutely nothing anyone can do to put that Humpty Dumpty back together again: Scottish Labour is dead, and absolutely no one mourns its passing.

Andrew Neil is blinded by pro-capitalist blinkers. There is precious little the left can do to save him. Rational debate is incapable of doing that because it is in his own narrow self-interest to hide from that key aspect of the truth, to hide it from himself as much as from most of the rest of us. However, there is more than one type of capitalist supporter.

Most of us have life experience that open our minds to something new. This point was comes from Marx and Engels, from the time before they wrote The Communist Manifesto. These ideas have inspired all the great Marxists. They have been best theorized at length by Antonio Gramsci and by Giorgi Lukacs.

Experience is always pushing against the ‘common sense’ vomited out 24-7 by the propaganda machines of Rona Fairhead and Rupert Murdoch. GCHQ and the CBI tell broadcasters, via their editors, what they have to say; or the gist of it at least, the limitations within which they must work.

On the whole, the capitalists get what they want. Journalists who aren’t happy feel intimidated, scared of being sacked, of being blackmailed, possibly framed, smeared, then blacklisted if they act as whistle-blowers to investigate their own bosses, their editors, and colleagues who do what is expected of them.

The left can disagree about many things, but not about the direction of travel, nor about our need to clarify our ideas through democratic debate, uniting to get our message across to the majority, and to then lead that majority towards its own self-liberation, doing so against the forces of darkness that are at the heart of the British Establishment. Supporting Jeremy Corbyn’s bid to give voice to all the oppressed at every Wednesday’s Prime Minister’s Questions is a key part of that process. Let’s all unite. And let’s be clear that expecting fairness from Andrew Neil isn’t going to get us very far.

Posted in politics | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Jeremy Corbyn needs the left to bury sectarianism. Prepare for Andrew Neil

Jeremy Corbyn deserves our putting sectarianism to bed

Jeremy Corbyn deserves our putting sectarianism to bed

Jeremy Corbyn is going to be interviewed by Andrew Neil on Sunday Politics. On Sunday, I suspect. All the left have to prepare for this. We have to be on our best behavior. Do we want him to get a good vote or not? I suggest all of us must. Those who will be paying £3 to vote for him need to anticipate that our Facebook pages, twitter accounts, and all comments on blogs, radio call-ins etc will have been taken down, and will be placed into our personal dossiers by Rupert Murdoch, Rona Fairhead, and all the heads of the various agencies Theresa May won’t let us investigate.

We owe it to Jeremy to see to it that he can’t be blamed for anything the left does. I have a few suggestions. Firstly, we leave our sectarian baggage at the door. Andrew Neil is going to look forward to reading out live on Sunday what individuals have said about each other, then ask Jeremy Corbyn why voters should vote for someone to be Prime Minister when this is what his voters think about each other. Do we want to look like the Life of Brian shambles that is today UKIP?

Let’s call a truce. Let’s extend olive branches. Many of us may not be able to forgive some individuals for personal issues no one else knows about or gives a damn about. Fine. Let individuals agree to stay the hell away from each other. That’s something I do, blocking people on Twitter when they behave like trolls, etc.

But we have to unite against our common enemy. And Jeremy Corbyn is someone the left must all unite around. The bigger his vote, the more he gets to make arguments on Question Time, Newsnight, Murnaghan, etc. Then what he says finds an echo all across the country, in every trade union, office canteen, social clubs, everywhere people congregate to discuss what the problem with society is. All of this media exposure undermines the truly awful propaganda that infests the BBC, SKY News, Channel4 News, ITV, Channel 5, and all the reactionary pillars of the British Establishment: CBI, GCHQ, MI5, MI6, Special Branch.

Comrades, please let us put on the public record that a substantial part of our polemics has constituted very tasteless jokes, especially on social media where we’ve allowed ourselves to vent, and we’ve let it get out of hand. Let’s try to agree to let bygones be bygone. Let us also give Jeremy Corbyn our permission to put on our behalf in his interview with Andrew Neil that those differences we still have we will continue to debate. But we will do so in our own time, in our own way. And if Andrew Neil is happy to give us the time to develop what we want to say, we are happy to do that. But if we are shouted down and allowed no more than a soundbite or two, then that’s his problem, not ours.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

All the left from across the United Kingdom should support Jeremy Corbyn


I am happy to share this facebook update despite the fact I have not joined, and will not be joining, the Labour Party. Other socialists need to make their own decisions. And whether or not you join, the left across the parties, sects, ghettos of the left, all across the United Kingdom needs to unite in defense of Jeremy Corbyn, promoting him at every opportunity on Twitter, radio phone-in shows, in the workplace, unions, wherever.

I have already seen one tweet point out that Frank Field helping get Jeremy onto the ballot paper proves his candidacy is meaningless. However, Frank Field will live to regret doing this. It is no less a nightmare for Liz Kendall. She can now now kiss her ambitions goodbye. It is also a nightmare for Andy Burnham. He now has a left-flank to protect: he will now have to EARN second-preference votes, and he will find this no walk in the park. If he carries on as he has been, he will enthuse no one, repelling Labour’s left-wing voters into the arms of the Greens, TUSC, etc.

Since Andy Burnham will have to tack left to pick up votes, that further shakes things up: there will be ripple effects inside the Labour Party, the trade unions, and the rest of our movement. In the medium to long term – even in the short term – parties to the left of Labour CAN benefit, counter-intuitive though that might seem. The beneficial effect will, initially, be indirect. Whether the left beyond Labour benefits at all depends on whether we play our cards right.

Those to the left of Labour absolutely cannot be seen to be in any sense responsible for Jeremy losing out to one of the right-wingers, including to Andy Burnham. There can be no united front between socialists to Labour’s left and Blairites or Tories like Liz Kendall or Jo Coburn.

The reality is that Tristram Hunt, Chuka Umunna, Ben Bradshaw and a hundred Labour MPs (most of whom merrily took blood money from corrupt war criminal Tony Blair) are probably already planning to go down the Shirley Williams route: splitting the Parliamentary Labour Party to help an ultra-right-wing Tory government. They will do that even if Andy Burnham wins the leadership on the back of trade unionists second-preference votes.

A split in the PLP is pretty much inevitable whoever wins, a split into more than two parties perhaps, some independents or moving directly to David Cameron, or maybe a UKIP MP or two.

The inevitability of a split in the Labour Party is a proposition I’ll defend despite knowing that Jeremy Corbyn won’t be able to echo it for the time being, and probably not concede it even as a theoretical probability until the splitters carry it out.

And that is why those to Labour’s left must adopt a sophisticated united front approach to a good Labour socialist like Jeremy Corbyn. That is why we cannot secretly hope he suffers electoral humiliation so some crumbs fall into the hands of small parties to the left, although that may turn out to be a silver lining we have to work with if and when it happens.

United we stand. Divided we fall, comrades. Everyone needs to debate rationally and with respect. I don’t know about you, but I’m looking forward to this.

Posted in politics | Tagged | Leave a comment

An email that I posted on SSP’s internal debate list relating to the malicious prosecution I referred to on Twitter yesterday.

August 17, 2011


—– Forwarded Message —-
From: Tom Delargy <>
To: mhairi mcalpine <>
Sent: Wednesday, 29 September, 2004 14:47:33
Subject: Re: [SSP Debate] APPEAL TO ALL SSP MSPs

Hi Mhairi,
You are the first comrade to contact me. I appreciate your concern. I will contact you tomorrow to answer some of your questions. I literally have to go home now, and do not have an internet connection there.
Tommhairi mcalpine <> wrote:

Hi Tom,
Sorry to hear about all this – sounds like a nightmare.   What are you being accused of? Is it on record that you were badly hurt when the police turned up?
Do we not have lawyers in the party that could help you?  I know that Ahmed Anwar is very good, but I guess this really isn;t his area. 
Anyway, best wishes and I hope that you get the support that you need.

tomdelargy <> wrote:

Dear Tommy, Frances, Rosie, Carolyn, Colin and RosemaryYesterday morning a judge at Paisley Sheriff Court threatened to
throw me in jail until I told him I agreed with some statements read
out by him. In the circumstances, I stopped protesting my ignorance.
That judge refused to answer any of my questions about the refusal of
the court to allow me access to pertinent facts relating to the
prosecution case. Specifically, he refused to explain why he had
refused to allow my lawyers at Ross Harper (recommended by Allan
Green, but absolutely useless, from my point of view: I will be
submitting a complaint to the Law Society about their behavior)
access to the addresses of the prosecution witnesses, in order to
allow the defense team to “precognose” these witnesses. I insisted on
my right to have these witnesses precognosed in order to expose them
as non-credible, but two senior partners of Ross Harper, Richard
Freeman and a Mr Diamond refused to insist on exercising this
important right of mine.

Secondly, the judge threatened to have me thrown in irons for asking
for the contemporaneous notes of the two arresting officers. Thirdly,
he threatened to have me locked up for asking why he had refused to
allow me access to the charges against me in written form, given my
diagnosed autistic spectrum disorder, and suspected (but, as yet,
undiagnosed attention deficit disorder), which the judge is aware
makes it impossible for me to take in auditory factual information
the way most people can. I handed Richard Freeman, in the presence of
my support worker at the National Autistic Society, Ruth Langford, a
statement to be handed to the judge complaining about the refusal of
the prosecution to make reasonable arrangements due to my diagnosed
disability. Richard Freeman told me that he handed this statement to
a third lawyer at Ross Harper (who denies ever being given this
statement), and Richard Freeman and Mr Diamond refused to explain to
me why the judge refused to allow Ross Harper to permit me reasonable
access to the witness statements or the contemporaneous notes of the
arresting officers, or the crime report written by these arresting
officers. Richard Freeman (in the presence of Ruth Langford) told me
that he did not know when the lying statements read to me were
written, which I knew must be a lie. I subsequently found out (no
thanks to Richard Freeman) that the police statements were not not
written a few hours after I was arrested (on 16th March 2003), as he
told me he assumed, but eleven months later, both statements dictated
within a couple of minutes of each other.

Since the judge has threatened to throw me in jail for attempting to
ask for special arrangements to be put in place, as a consequence of
my ‘autistic spectrum disorder’, and since he has threatened to throw
me in jail for asking him why he has denied me and my previous
defense team access to the prosecution witnesses, and to have police
statements that were produced on the day of the alleged crime,
instead of eleven months after it is supposed to have taken place, I
no longer want to represent myself in court. I need legal
representation, and only have a fortnight to find such representation.

The Prosecutor Fiscal is aware that the two prosecution witnesses are
close friends of a third party who was sent to jail for sending me a
death threat. And the Procurator Fiscal is also aware that the only
reason the two arresting officers turned up to the scene of the
alleged crime was because I dialed 999 to explain that my home had
been attacked and that I had been violently assaulted: I was subject
to a thirty minute assault in my living room, by the fists of a
muscle bound thug, and his mate relied on his boots, a razor and an
iron bar: I was covered from head to foot in blood, my front teeth
were knocked out. My face was slashed. And I was kicked repeatedly in
the head and testicles. The two prosecution witnesses saw the two
thugs who assaulted me, but refused to cooperate with bringing them
to justice. The Procurator Fiscal knows that I am alleging that these
prosecution witnesses had advanced warning about that assault and
that this assault was revenge for my sending their friend to jail for
sending me a death threat.

There is a lot more to this case than what I have said so far. I
promised Eddie and Catriona that I would not dwell on most of the
details. And I will keep that promise. I do not want to focus on this
list on these events, and comrades should note that I have been
subject to repeated threats where I live for the last six years. I am
not asking for pity. And I demand that I am not dismissed as a Walter
Mittey fantacist for raising the points that I have today. But I am
asking for the party’s MSPs to help protect me from these thugs, and
against police harrasement and threats by judges simply for demanding
my constitutional rights. Frances Curran has my mobile phone number,
and I left a message on her mobile answering service last night.
Please could Frances liase with other MSPs to help me protect myself.
In my defence I will attempt to prove that these continued death
threats and the assault on 16th March 2003 and this criminal case are
all politically motivated. I have already written to the Procurator
Fiscal and told him I believe that he is conducting a malicious
prosecution. However, after yesterday’s court appearance, I know the
judge will throw me in the cells for attempting to make my case. If I
am imprisoned for any matter relating to this malicious prosecution,
I will go on hunger strike until I am proven 100% innocent.

P.S.: I do *not* want this list to focus on this thread. Any comrade
interested in my legal defense (or any other part of this post) can
email me off-list, and I will send you selected correspondance with
my lawyers, the Procurator, and others. Any expressions of solidarity
with me will be much appreciated, but preferably sent to me off-list.
On this list I would like to return to debating (in a comradely
manner) all sorts of political, organisational, strategic and
tactical questions, as I have over the years. I have only raised this
matter on this list today because time is rapidly running out before
I am thrown in jail for what I know to be a malicious prosecution,
and because I feel those party comrades who have been aware of the
substance of these events have not, thus far, offered me the support
that I think I am entitled to. I am confident that I will get that
support now.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Prosecute Alistair Carmichael for corrupting the general election.


I think what this government minister did was more than ‘just’ stealing his own seat: this lie was peddled systematically by the Labour’s Party’s Chair of General Election Strategy – Douglas Alexander, who was at the time my constituency Member of Parliament.

Douglas Alexander tweeted three links to this obvious fabrication within minutes, leading to Ed Miliband referring to the lie as ‘damning revelations’, even after it has been comprehensively exposed by James Cook as a third party account of a conversation that has been denied by both parties involved in the so-called conversation.

Ed Miliband’s bizarre peddling of what had already been exposed as a fabrication was in turn used to justify Labour’s refusal to form any kind of progressive alliance with the anti-Tory Scottish National Party’s MPs to democratically lock David Cameron out of 10 Downing Street.

This fabrication became popular due to Ed Miliband’s cavalier refusal to check the facts already in the public arena, and Douglas Alexander’s deliberate attempt to mislead his alleged preference for Prime Minister. Alistair Carmichael’s collusion was denied at the time. The then Secretary of State for Scotland knew what he was doing had more than local consequences.

Alistair Carmichael knowingly contributed to the implosion of Labour Party’s vote in England as well as in Scotland. And that in turn helped him crowbar David Cameron back into 10 Downing Street. And that is why I believe this one-time government minister deserves to be prosecuted for corrupting the outcome of the general election.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

The Curious Insidiousness of the ‘autistic spectrum’.

This blog post is my review of a review of my review of the award-winning novel, The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time by Mark Haddon, which is a book that I haven’t actually read. Confused yet?… Excellent.

Let me clear a few things up. Firstly, when I say I haven’t read that book, what I mean is I haven’t finished it yet. I am severely dyslexic and I’m clutching at that straw as my excuse. I don’t think it’s a particularly bad excuse. Not if you could appreciate how difficult fiction reading is for people like me. I’ll plough on with the book, and when I reach the last page, I may write another review. A better one. Anyway,…

I won’t name the critic who dismissed my defense of that book. Partly that is because I don’t want anyone to be intimidated into pretending they like something they don’t. This critic said she thought many who praised the book were only jumping on a bandwagon – the Emperor’s new clothes syndrome. No one should feel they have to pretend to like something if they don’t. Everyone must be free to disagree. However, those who take issue have to be prepared for robust defense by the other side. And, with all due respect, the fact the reviewer admits to skipping parts may partly explain why she didn’t get as much out of it as she could have.

The book is popular clearly because it is laugh-out-loud funny. But humor is a personal thing, and this critic didn’t get the jokes. Fair enough.

But what I argued in an email was dismissed as potentially dangerous. If I had argued what this critic said I argued, I’d agree with her, but I was actually arguing the exact opposite. And that is why I am taking the cudgels up once more, writing this defense of myself in this blog.

What I am writing here is not so much literary criticism/praise for what I concede is a wonderful book, that part of the book which I already have under my belt. What I am trying to do here is flesh out the case I made in a series of emails and tweets, parts of which were read out. That program, by the way, was BBC Radio Scotland’s wonderful Janice Forsyth Show, which is now on every Monday to Thursday between 2:00pm to 4:00pm, a program which is one of the best things broadcast anywhere in the United Kingdom, radio or telly, as far as I am aware.

Janice read out some of my thoughts, and I appreciate that. Since I didn’t convince at least one of the reviewers of Curious Incident, I want to make that case again. And I hope to convince as many people as possible that the model of an ‘autistic spectrum’ comes nowhere close to addressing the complexity of those who are being lumbered with this label of ‘autism’.

What is a spectrum? The narrator of Curious Incident knows. He knows because he thinks like a scientist. Alas, he needs help to switch off his scientific mode to embrace a more poetic one, one that infers things from context, from body language and facial expressions. Most young scientists do that as soon as they reach adolescence as hormones teach them there are more things in heaven and their pants that the curvature of space time and related cosmological gubbins. Then they can woo members of the opposite sex, possibly their own  – maybe both – with poetry and all that lovey-dovey crap.

The electromagnetic spectrum, as Christopher could explain, refers to waves that all travel at the speed of light. One number is all you need to identify anything on that spectrum. Wavelength gives you frequency, and vice versa.

The model of an ‘autism spectrum’ is intended to grade everyone as more than or less than all the seven billion humans who currently walk planet Earth, and those who ever existed in the past, including obvious autistic people such as Sir Isaac Newton. Is a spectrum with a single dimension a great model for handing out this label? Absolutely not.

Janice read out my putting it to Mark Haddon in a twitter exchange that an autistic spectrum is far too limiting as it grades everyone with a single number, which is clearly nonsensical as there are many criteria and some score high on some, low on others. Mark agrees with me that a multidimensional matrix makes far more sense. That, for instance allows for the fact that my own symptoms overlap in a few areas with Christopher’s, but not at all in others that are supposed to be key characteristics of those with this condition.

Unfortunately, having heard that both myself and Mark Haddon rejected the narrowness of this spectrum model, the critic of the book went on to accuse us of saying that this book explains what everyone on this so-called spectrum has to be like. I said the exact opposite. And so does Mark.

I was accused of arguing something dangerous for suggesting that everyone on this non-existent autism ‘spectrum’ were little more than clones of each other. I was accused of suggesting that this is why I thought Mark Haddon should consider his book a resource for those with the label, as should their parents, extended family, community, school chums, everyone. I can’t get too angry at my critic for accusing me of this given that Mark himself failed to see the point I was getting at.

Mark didn’t offer anyone a clinical analysis of those with a condition partly because he did no research. But he has written a believable account of the popular image of what many of these people are assumed to be like, at least on the surface, as they appear to those of us on the outside.

But what Mark actually did was something much more than this. He humanized what might otherwise be a stereotype, opening up their interior lives, proving to us that there is someone in there after all.

Christopher Boone is an individual who needs to be appreciated for who he is, not because he is a member of an autistic community who has specific communications problems. He is one of us and deserves to be helped to be everything he can be, someone who can contribute his highly valuable gifts to society. My critic might not care about how such scientists think, but if it wasn’t for this she would not be on twitter, as there would be no world wide web, no internet, no computer, no telecommunications, no GPS, indeed no architecture for her to keep herself warm.

Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time is a valuable resource partly for reminding us that Christoper is who he is for reasons of nurture as well as nature. He has relationships with his mother, his father, at least one teacher who understand him and cares for him, neighbors, a pet rat, all the dogs in the world. They all make him who he is. These humans all suffer from frailties, and they all make bad choices from time to time, cutting corners, lying for what they tell themselves are good reasons (little white lies) only to find that these untruths have done more harm than good. Accidents happens, and Christopher is often the victim.

Christopher is a victim of abuse,of malicious bullying, and of misunderstanding built upon a foundation of society’s prejudice against people like him, which is sad. Very, very sad. Don’t you have to have a heart of stone to read how Christopher made a get-well card for his mother with an art teacher with 9 red cars because this was going to be a VERY VERY GOOD DAY, and to find the very next sentence tell us his father told him his mother had just died? Christopher often seems to have the emotional maturity of a very young child. How can you not cry at such moments?

Are Christopher’s so-called long-winded explanations ‘annoying’? For some people they no doubt are. But they didn’t ‘pad out’ Mark Haddon’s book as this critic insisted. What they did was teach us how people like Christopher think. A great deal of the time, it is how I think. I suspect it might be how I used t think most of the time when I was the same age as Christopher, or a few years younger.

Janice said that I’m someone who has the condition. Actually, what I am is someone who has a diagnosis. But it is not one I have ever fully embraced. A student was trusted to oversee tests, but she screwed up about four or more of the key ones. I hold her largely responsible for the professional who digested the raw material to draw entirely the wrong conclusions. Over half a century of my life has been wasted over this. What a total shambles.

People who were paid to help me have simply been far too busy and self-absorbed to actually listen to what I’m telling them. They have their one-dimensional ‘spectrum’ model, and are not about to let a whippersnapper like me challenge someone with a professional qualification. Hope you’re pleased with yourselves, because I’m not.  And I’m pretty sure I’m not the only one whose life has been crushed by trying to fit us into a box when we simply don’t belong there.

Posted in Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Why England’s left must unite against David Cameron’s 37% dictatorship? By-elections?


The entire left from across the parties need to do more than laugh at Ed Miliband’s MPs and their problems. The trade union link matters. So does the nightmare of first-past-the-post.

The latter is exploited by the British Establishment’s out-of-control mass media. What conclusions must be drawn?

The left across our ghettos must engage with every debate that takes place amongst all our ‘competing’ groups. The left has to immediately prepare for a rising unpopularity of David Cameron’s government: TUSC, Left Unity, the Greens in England – as well as the Labour left (hopelessly weak though it is) – needs to start talking with Labour’s affiliated trade unionists and all those other members of the organized working class. And we need to talk to other sections of the extra-parliamentary struggle: race, war, students, pensioners, the disabled. Everyone.

The anti-sectarian left has to do whatever we can to ensure we unite around a single agreed candidate of the left, one that is genuinely anti-Tory. In Scotland everyone now sees what that can give us: one hell of a nightmare for David Cameron and all the Tory bastards who pollute the airwaves from the BBC, SKY News, Channel4 News and ITV. Let’s talk. And let’s be patient with one another.

Let’s extend olive branches, accept the right of others not to be persuaded with what we say, at least not the first time they hear what is on our minds.

The left in England needs to rebuild a culture of tolerance towards each other while still being able to unite against our common enemy. Our enemy is more than just David Cameron and his rotten MPs. It is also all the propagandists who want the 63% who voted against this shambles of reaction to tolerate David Cameron’s dictatorship based on 37%. That 37% so-called majority was won under a crap electoral system, with the entire mass media behind him, and quite possibly the above-the-law elements of MI5, Special Branch and GCHQ.

Posted in Uncategorized | 1 Comment