3 election presentations, 2005.

(A. k. a. 'The experimental education and public humiliation of an Independent candidate'.)

These three pieces were pretty much written on the hoof and were subject to other pressures at the time. As such they don't neccesarily fit the billing but it was hoped that an audience discussion would have taken matters further.


#1 Environmentalism: outline for presentation at Normanton.

Despite informing quite a lot of political discussion leading up to the elections the environment has been sidelined probably because it runs counter to people’s aspirations for a better life, but also because the terms in which it is defined are wrong.

Elections – a time when we believe we can choose how our lives may be mapped out and we have the limited option to exert some influence should be a time when these matters are discussed.

The fact that green issues have been quietly dropped seems to point out that there’s more to this than at first meets the eye.

I don’t want to make this a discussion about Tony Blair –that’s a different matter - but he did promise to make environmental issues - particularly climate change -central to his (expected?) presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading Industrialised nations.

Such is the level of importance attached to this issue that it is likely to inform the political landscape for some time to come, though perhaps in a different form.

Politics, however, is not an exact science and is subject to opportunism. Some elements of the mainstream are trying to change their position yet make out it’s a progression from their last one, hence good old uncle Tony belatedly endorses Nuclear power as possibly the way forward – albeit under the guise of it being greener.

Nuclear power is actually more ‘environment friendly’ but it certainly doesn’t fit into what the green ‘movement’ wants. If anything it’s their ultimate bogeyman, for now.

The whole notion of environmental politics or ideology is backwards, anti human and, in fact, contradictory.

To explain I’ll give you an example –

My own dissatisfaction with life as a teenager led me to become a vegetarian – since recovered, thankyou.
A thawing chicken on the draining board at home looked too much like a dead body and put me off meat. There then followed 5 years of ethnic and organic ‘whole’ foods which gradually slipped into cheese, biscuits and all manner of convenience foods.
The raw nature of whole foods means that nearly every aspect of them is done at home by individual processing – taking all the stones out or risk losing your teeth if you’re talking about lentils – then soaking, slow cooking, etc, etc until they are suitable to eat. And all for a result that is easier attained when these things are done on a mass scale - cheaper, more efficient and plentiful.

*
Ecological arguments undermine themselves by offering a utopian vision that is contradicted by the actions and desires of its proponents.

Despite people’s dissatisfaction with their everyday lives – myself included – we live better and healthier than ever before. Yet there is a deep rooted pessimism about our ability to make things better today.

I’d argue this ability to improve, to progress, is a defining characteristic of human beings and something that we are all capable of.

Curiosity, endeavour, then later industry, science and technology have vastly improved our lot but are being undermined by a widespread belief that we are destroying the planet, that human activity makes things worse.

Of course there are areas for improvement – that’s why people criticise or take an interest in politics.

Notions of progress when applied practically reveal things that we are initially unaware of. Sometimes the results aren’t quite what we expect but then life isn’t an exact science, but again that progressive bent means that we attempt to sort it out.

I think that’s where the confusion lies – how we sort things out, and it depends on whether you are an optimist or a pessimist or believe that a better future can be achieved.
*Nuclear power, Gmo food technology and factory farms, etc actually confound the green argument because more is provided with less thus leaving more time, space and energy for true societal and personal development. . . . tbc

*

#2 ASBOs and discipline: outline for presentation at Stanley.

To anyone who has been on the receiving end of persistent or intense nuisance behaviour I apologise if the following trivialises that experience. Although it is not my intention to do so.

It would be foolish to deny that youth and some adults do, on occasion, pose something of a nuisance to others. Graffiti, litter, petty vandalism and rowdy drunks, etc do exist and indeed always have done to one degree or another, but not to the extent that merits the attention they receive today.

I’m more concerned as to why such petty aspects of behaviour have risen to the forefront of political discussion.

*There is a generalised ‘climate of fear’ endorsed and promoted by an increasingly detached elite – those who shape and implement policy that governs all our lives.

Since no grander vision of how best society can be organised exists anymore mainstream politics has reduced itself to the management of affairs between individuals.

This is something shared by all mainstream parties to some extent, merely differing by degree as to how they choose to entice a disillusioned public.

New Labour in power has initiated over a thousand new laws, rules and regulations.
On top of this there has been a huge growth in advisory bodies, counselling groups and further recommendations as to what we can and cannot do and what we ought to do.

This extends through most aspects of our daily lives whether at home, in the workplace, on the roads, wherever.

This reflects an ever greater distancing of anxious politicians and their desire to connect in which ever way.



However, these attempts to micro manage our lives actually undermine social cohesion and displace authority from those directly involved – parents, neighbours and the wider community and place it in the hands of state authorities.

This insidious encroachment of our liberty goes largely unquestioned. In fact, with no other channel, sections of the public are likely to clamour for even more intrusion, which in effect only serves to make the situation worse.

*We may remember being kids ourselves and, if we are honest, many of us will recall getting up to allsorts of mischief - it's a rite of passage.

On the whole children cannot have the same understanding of events that adults do. They neither have to work for a living, pay the mortgage and other household bills or even bring up children.

As they grow older the things that they were lead to believe in are confronted by reality, but still, society pays lip service to convention and these beliefs are transferred to successive generations, perhaps slightly modified but largely unquestioned.

It’s hardly surprising then that children and youths test the barriers and get up to mischief as they become older.

*Abuse is the term now widely applied to many aspects of behaviour that an individual rightly or wrongly finds disagreeable.

Parents, Teachers and other adults can no longer chastise unruly children without their authority being called into question.

The way education is implemented and the subject matter is an issue of its own yet Teachers are also hampered in their delivery of lessons by unruly classes for fear of inviting an investigation of their behaviour.

Little wonder then that many are fed up with their profession and there is a problem with holding on to staff.


*Proper cases of abuse, adequately covered by existing laws, have been used to introduce a raft of measures that can be and are implanted in what are quite ordinary circumstances.

Such is the all encompassing approach of regulation and its application in trivial circumstances that serious matters go unnoticed until it becomes too late.

The Police, notably in South Yorkshire, have stated that they can no longer attach much importance to burglary and the like, which does beg the question as to why more endeavour is placed in what should be the private realm.

Indeed crime - by any measure - has fallen only to be replaced by the ‘fear of crime’, despite evermore activities now being classed as criminal at worst or subject to investigation by state authorities.

The Chief Commissioner of Police, I believe, actually rebuked Michael Howard for raising fears over increasing levels of crime.

*To conclude this very brief introduction I would argue that these fears are generally overplayed and in themselves problematic leading to ever increasing calls for regulation and further societal mistrust and breakdown.

*

#3 Multiculturalism: outline for presentation at Ossett.

This year the UK will be holding the presidencies of both the European Union and the G8 group of leading industrialised nations. Therefore it comes as something of a surprise that this hasn’t featured more prominently in mainstream political circles.

Interesting enough that New Labour decided fox-hunting was more of an issue than something as important as this, deciding to hold any referendum on Europe only after the general election. This in itself proves the limited nature of electoral politics - such is the importance attached to anything that really matters.

The European Union is perhaps best understood as a protectionist zone for European Business; now something of a bulwark against a rapidly emerging far eastern economy and in times past the USA. Although the UK’s special interest with the US has always been one of the factors holding up European integration.

Of course Britain is not alone in this as all European nations have their own specific interests – cohering their respective populations around a set of values, or culture, and safeguarding the interests of their own economies.

Britain’s unique role stems from new international relations that came into effect after WW2 when the world order was determined by America – the true victor of WW1 and 2.

Now though, the USA is the largest debtor nation of all time. This stands in sharp contrast to its post war position as The global economic, political and military power, the world reordered around US interests and defined against the Soviet bloc.

It is the demise of the Soviet Union that has undermined all the old post war institutions and the beliefs attached to them that has led to the crisis of confidence in the west.

Western capitalism’s triumphant mood has proven short lived leading to the quest for new values and cultural identity as all the old ones are called into question.

This process is well under way in the US and has been lurking in the background in the UK for some time.

*Despite many a reason being given for it, the war in Iraq was for no other purpose than to find a sense of mission and reclaim the moral high ground against a brutal dictator – one of many that western governments do business with.
This ill considered venture has been a spectacular failure for the erstwhile ‘coalition of the willing’ and a huge setback for the Iraqi population.


The Iraq war has left a bad taste in the mouth for some and many others choose to ignore it, now that it has descended into debacle.
Yet it may, and should, serve to haunt the establishment for some time to come.

Further intervention abroad is likely to prove much more difficult. Although that is not going to stop them from trying. Expect more character assassinations of foreign dictators and, by implication, their populations.

Interesting to note, that with the failure of the Iraq mission, New Labour has changed tack and turned it’s attention to Africa – the plight of impoverished Africans long being the subject of middle class and radical sympathies.

From Non Governmental Organisations to the Government itself this usually comes in the guise of Aid, charity or ‘sustainable development’ – keeping things pretty much as they are, perhaps selling ethnic goods to ethical tourists or growing cash crops in a very competitive market.

But rarely development like advanced nations. In fact, under the guise of sustainable development and not destroying the planet, the developing world is not likely to see much of any real benefit. This is a disingenuous argument as the world is in a better
state, environmentally speaking, than it has been for centuries.

Rather than giving peasant farmers a fair trade logo and a marginal increase in profit or holding ‘feed the world’ gigs, just a 1% increase of African exports would give $70 billion dollars worth of revenue.

This dwarfs any amount of charitable donations Africa receives and would bring the continent closer to the living standards enjoyed in more advanced countries.

When you consider that 40% of the EU budget goes to subsidising agriculture and that Mozambique – almost the poorest nation on earth – had to end subsidies to its farmers as part of a World Bank austerity package, then things take on a new perspective.

The subsidies given to some farmers were government surplus goods, such as clothing, that they then had to sell and pay back the Government.
Pretty alarming when even the Royal family receive farming handouts in the UK.

Sympathy does nothing for Africa.
It enshrines the belief that Africans and blacks are intrinsically inferior people, worthy of charity and beneficial guidance.

*

The international focus is mirrored by its domestic counterpart, inasmuch as immigrant peoples, of any category, are seen as embodying values that we in the west may find uncivilised or backward.

Some elements of this are indeed true, which is why immigrants come here in the first place – to develop and better their prospects.

Falling birthrates and an ageing population in the UK means that immigration is a necessity.
Likewise, a fluctuating but still buoyant labour market is in need of more overseas workers. *

The belief that foreigners are different means that they are seen as requiring special attention - their cultural differences needing to be respected in the name of tolerance.
Yet many come to escape the cloying confines of their inherited culture only to find attempts to reaffirm it by politicians with a lack of ideas as to any progressive or unifying identity.

Some may recall Enoch Powell’s ‘Rivers of blood’ speech where he warned of the white man being an alien in his own country.
To some this rings true today.

It’s not too hard to see why what with erstwhile radical politicians banning hot cross buns and the celebrations of diverse cultures and religious festivals in schools.
These things weren’t asked for by minority groups, rather they were foisted upon them by detached politicians.

Yet anything that is overtly British is avoided like the plague, much to the annoyance of members of the general public.
It’s safe to say that a modern understanding of British culture is amiss and
in mainstream circles there is an increasing element of alarm.

A rapidly globalising economy will become very competitive as new markets and souces of raw materials are sought and any economy not up to speed will, obviously, fall behind.

It is this that is driving the search for an inclusive yet multicultural identity.
Multiculturalism is problematic because it celebrates opposing values as being of equal merit which leaves backward ideas unchallenged and creates further division along artificial lines.

*