'It's New Labour, stupid!'

Wakefield North, election address

Perhaps the defining features of contemporary UK politics, if not western politics, are the environment, current warfaring, the economy and, perhaps, identity. These features all operate independently yet are linked specifically by New Labour.

Environmentalism and climate change are mostly presented in catastrophic terms, yet combative measures seem piecemeal and mainstream proponents tend to lead a life of hypocritical luxury whilst exhorting restraint and a contented peasantry for the many. Little wonder that many are cynical.
Our daily activities and supposed selfish nature are made out to be the most destructive factors and the ongoing discussion of this has a debilitating effect - what then is the point of our going to work, raising a family and wanting a decent life if that contributes to our supposed demise?

Environmentalism does raise questions as to new ways of doing things. The current direction is one of miserabilism, negativity, increased effort and ever decreasing circles. Its whole basis is that human existence in a modern, developed form is ruinous to life and the planet itself. If it really was the case then surely it would be all hands on deck and a manning of the pumps, instead we're encouraged to reuse, recycle, make do and mend, cycle, scrimp and save.
For the sake of nature and future generations we must demand less, reign in aspiration and live a simpler life. Even though on-message scientists decry the way their findings are interpreted that hasn't stopped the government from continuing its agenda.

For society in general it means everything has to be accounted for from our rubbish to cars, holidays and homes. Rubbish has now become a major issue - voluntary recycling of dubious benefit is now giving way to a more coercive version and we can be fined for putting out the wrong sort or our bins on the wrong day.
Gone are the days when taxes paid for binmen to take the lot away and streets were regularly maintained. Instead jobs are cut at the council, a fatuous and expensive managerial layer is imposed, a voluntary layer of competing community groups is encouraged and we're expected to do more of this ourselves.

If it truly was worthwhile recycling then it would be done efficiently on a grand scale or incinerated for energy production. But no, big projects are out, as is letting machinery do the work. This seems contradictory for a modern economy but it's true worth is ideological - to guilt trip the consumer.
Perhaps it is more symbolic of the state of UK politics.

On a larger scale this affects industry, commerce, our view of humanity and involvement with the rest of the world, how we make a living and the quality of that life.
At its must fundamental is the denial that human beings can have a positive impact or cope with changes. Yet the planet has undergone many changes in its lifespan and people with far less technology coped. In fact it's technology and modernity that have allowed us to thrive; this best witnessed by the high survival rate of people in earthquakes in Los Angeles compared to those at Bam, Iran or the Indonesian tsunami.

The world will continue to change and it can only be through the greater use of technology and ability to meld the natural environment that we can hope to continue prosperity now and for future generations. Much play is made of our impact yet just 2% of landmass is urbanised ie, built upon and this out of a landmass that covers 30% of the globe. Doesn't this make a mockery of resource depletion and overpopulation?

Many have become entirely cynical about the political process as new scares and initiatives are constantly launched and politicians get on the bandwagon. So much to the point they are largely left to their own devices. The promotion of this agenda is dangerous if left unchecked and it remains by default. Despite belatedly recognising its inherent contradictions this has proved too problematic - New Labour's programme is riddled and Blair at his most triumphant was revealed as empty and exhausted. Perhaps not too surprising the rest of the mainstream chose not to attack but to occupy the same ground.
The danger is this encourages an outlook of fatalism and entrenchment just as Britain's elite try to revitalise the economy and standing in the world. In fact UK politicians are at the forefront of promoting the environmentalist message at home and abroad.

If the planet is not safe in our hands then we also need guidance in our daily lives. Our convenience and quality of life is being determined by government and subordinated to nature. This in schemes to limit private transport and mobility to cramped and expensive housing and lack of investment in infrastructure.
How we relate to each other as individuals is officially subject to behaviour and speech codes, we have a tick list achievement chart for babies, contradictory and puritanical advice as to the food we should eat, smoking bans and alcohol restrictions and further increases in state intrusion.
The informal and private sphere is losing out as surveillance and regulation become the norm; surveillance in the form of increased officialdom and gathering of information to CCTV and pilot schemes where 'responsible' teenagers watch the public and bark out orders via public address.
This is a chilling and apt metaphor for Blair's legacy - not so much nanny statism as ill conceived politics of an authoritarian school prefect.

If the enforcement side of politics is bad then it has an equally dismal encouraging side where model citizens are to engage in government sponsored and lottery funded inclusion schemes - the irony being that monies gambled by those wishing an escape from the everyday are used to reinforce it. Even worse is the insular and meaningless heritage or arts scheme used for this - ex MP for Wakefield, Dave Hinchliffe tried to steal Robin Hood from Nottingham until reminded that promoting an outlaw didn't ride well with current ASBO culture. Now we have the promotion of Wakefield as part of the Rhubarb triangle - a food originating in the far east.
Such is the condescending nature of regeneration schemes, the promotion of a sense of place and a pick and mix attitude to establishing cohesion.

This is the 'white side' of multiculturalism - a clumsy attempt to pigeon-hole groups of people to stereotype. Multiculturalism only favours officialdom whereas for everyone else it's a straitjacket that harnesses division. It affects how we view ourselves and others and suspends universal traits. In truth we find common desires and benefits in new influences. Today though, community groups have to meet strict criteria regards diversity, 'inclusion' or the environment to receive funding. In this way the government implants its own view as to the type of people we should be and free association, speech and thought - the right to challenge ideas and criticise becomes curtailed.
If multiculturalism is bad for newcomers then it seems to be disproportionately aimed at the white masses. An authentic heritage is chopped and changed to produce a sterile version, attempts are made to rename Christmas; hot x buns and baa baa blacksheep are banned. On the streets we have bits of history plucked out the air and MPs travel the world to apologise for Britain's dodgier contribution to world affairs. It seems they are more happy to reinterpret the past than to address the problems we face today, and those largely of their own making.

Nowhere is this best exposed than western intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan. Unrest in the middle east comes largely as a result of continual western intervention and dealings with the likes of Saddam Hussein and the Taleban when it suited, only to turn against them when things got out of hand. The only interest western governments have is to cohere a worldview around themselves and maintain their own positions. In this they have failed miserably and these debacles are now more about them saving face.
These and subsequent interventions will only cease when western peoples rid themselves of such self seeking politicians.

The realignment of the economy is set to be more growth in lower paid service sector work, retail and tourism coupled with a higher end financial, managerial and consultancy element. This is probably the driver behind New Labour's efforts to get us all to step into line and be happy with a smaller lot. Here they attempt to lead the way in reorganising various public sector work. As well as job losses, squeezing conditions and service cuts that means passing the buck to an often ill eqipped and more expensive private sector. And all wrapped up in a legislative and bureaucratic framework
Although contradictory, patronising and ill conceived this stuff runs throughout New Labour's agenda and reveals a profound contempt for the public.

It could be argued that government attempts to encourage civility - good behaviour and decent standards - is not such a bad thing (and would be a bit more credible if they lived up to the billing) yet they realise that this comes as much from us having decent employment as to where we live. Shame then that their thinking does much to discourage a progressive view and further undermines UK design and manufacturing.
If we are ever to see genuine progress that means ridding ourselves of the sustainability agenda and social engineering and thinking anew. Decent employment and a better quality of life can be had by questioning that put before us and embracing change.

*******

This intervention may not be the norm for local elections but aims to start challenging some of the contradictions and challenges we face and attempt to turn things around.

Vote Independent!

'Climate change: Why we don't believe it'

(Reply to New Statesman article, 23rd April)

What is annoying about these discussions is the oft holier than thou assumptions of the new righteous. It is also alarming that these ideas are becoming evermore predominant. Yet no-one with any sense denies climate change as the world has been through many dramatic changes during its lifespan.

What is still in dispute is the level of impact our actions have had. Here again though we are able to see that we can also affect such things in a positive manner should we choose. Though such a view is anathemic to those that cry out doom.

That is the main problem with environmentalism, ie. its denial of human agency as a force for good on a grand scale. Instead we get repetitive and patronising advice as to the simple measures we can take to tackle climate change - turn down the heating, reduce, reuse, recycle, use pubic transport/bicycles and trade emissions.

(Some people really ought to be hoist by their own emissions.)

According to the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report: Urban Environments, just 2% of the world's landsurface is urbanised/built (out of 30% land/ 70% water split). That leaves a huge expanse that is wilderness, natural, preserved or farmed and suggests we've barely scratched the surface let alone depleted resources.

Shame on you treehugger types out there for it is your outlook that will condemn future generations to the whims of nature if unchecked. Intermittent natural power supply will not guarantee controllable and deliverable energy in any amount that gives us a comfortable life (eg. see Wind power in Denmark, Dr V.C. Mason, www.countryguardian.net).

Further, without an enquiring nature and the development of complex and cheap mass produced technologies we would neither have the time nor means to have this discussion nor have been any the wiser.

I think this will prove to be a dangerous and problematic route for, particularly western, society. The UK, seemingly lacking any other credible raison d'etre, is at the forefront of promoting this. How much the UK is reliant on convincing the rest of the world to slow down is anyone's guess but what's left of UK and european manufacture can't compete against it's growing far eastern counterpart, especially if they opt to take less of a head in the sand approach.

The British National Party gains strength?

(3rd attempt to 'have a say' at Timesonline debate.)

Your article correctly states that the BNP often reflect the concerns of a significant and angry portion of the white masses (whereas the left generally avoid confronting the same). As such they prove to be opportunistic and tail the issues of the day, albeit with their own particular twist.
Though, however odious or cranky we may find them it would be unwise to dismiss what they represent. For instance, in these days of multiculturalism (soft core apartheid) and political correctness many things have been sidelined at the prompting of authorities - everything from free speech to the banning of St George's flag, hot cross buns, baa baa blacksheep and the attempted renaming of xmas - traditional beliefs reinterpreted and repackaged.
This coupled with the promoting of 'foreign cultures' has left a lot of people angry and created the space for the BNP's brand of victim politics.
Strip away their myth take on history, dollops of bigotry and hypocrisy though and we see an underlying element of pride and standards ie. something good about Britain and what Britishness could mean.
It's a genuine shame that Griffin and co don't promote some of the better things that Britain is known for - The Industrial Revolution, significant contributions to the arts, literarture, science and medicine, exploration and so on, or even something of what our character is supposed to be - adventurous, honourable, stoic and industrious.
Sadly, these things are all very much in decline, being apologised for or addressed in contradictory terms.
This is a shame because most of the people encountered who consider voting for the BNP are hardworking, well presented taxpayers who are fed up of being ignored and often respond to the lack of resources or overcrowding message. With cutbacks in services and perceived favouring of newcomers and nowhere else to take their frustration it's little wonder that the BNP are seen as an alternative.

Nevertheless, it would be unwise to panic about this upsurge of interest as more often than not many don't fully identify with the whole package and see through the rest of it.
Even speaking to BNP supporters outside Leeds Crown Ct recently it was evident that most of their anger was directed at the Government rather than immigrants and this even more so when canvassing doorsteps.

Despite the limitations of their programme I'd argue that this positive element ought to be addressed.
Griffin hints at his limitations and reckons he can only take the BNP so far (although he cites 'baggage' - nudge, nudge, wink, wink - what politician doesn't have?). Instead, personally and politically, Griffin prefers isolation; claiming nothing special about being British other than the colour of our skin and attachment to some mud and rocks.
Nothing great about his Britain then.

This denies influence and influences from further afield and throughout history and should be no go.
Geographically it makes little sense to have borders - Scotland, for instance, once on the equator and underwater; landmass, regardless of our hyper real footprint, will alter over time. Further, it makes little sense to pursue isolationism and maintain barriers in a globalised world. The free movement and association of people ought to be celebrated.
Demographically, the UK will need a constant influx of migrant workers and we should be glad they choose to come here and partake in what Britain has to offer.

What about considering Britain as more the people and ideas of the time? I see no basis for patriotism but would feel some pride if the people of Britain turned things around.
The problem is neither the BNP or immigrants but New Labour.

Reply to constituent and public sector employee, Wakefield North ward 17.

I was very pleased to receive your letter as you have raised some issues I hold dear. However there are significant other things worthy of further discussion.
In this reply I will try to be as brief as possible but reserve the right to elaborate where I feel necessary. After all, I suppose I'm trying to be a politician - however reluctantly.

Politics, particularly in the UK, is pretty bland, uninspiring fare. It is also dangerously invasive and prescriptive to us as individuals - all our quite normal activities are open to scrutiny and increasing regulation. This forms part of the 'battleground' that is politics today. The bigger picture is The Environment; the root being that people, us, are bad.
Of course it's not all bad, the show goes on and we all go out to earn a crust.

We'd be unwise to ignore the changing ground; part of which is the happiness agenda - lowered horizons, felched history, making do and mend, scrimping and saving. Further, the government is shifting responsibility to private companies and individuals and all within a legalistic framework - Blair's true legacy.

I'm not big on economics but it seems like Brown's predictions are proving amiss. With big projects on the horizon and disastrous, costly wars we can only expect more buck passing and ill-conceived, messy private services and perhaps a government making itself redundant.

I'm no nationalist but this would also seem to be no competition to eastern economies which is likely why the UK is at the forefront of promoting this stuff.
This is a dangerous position but one that also provides an opening.

To answer your questions then -

I'm in favour of us being well rewarded for our efforts - good pay and conditions with security during times of change. That whether privately or publicly employed. We cannot operate with our heads in the sand and just be stubborn. We have to recognise change is happening and not be scared of it. I'd go further and suggest we, the workforce, push ourselves and through doing this we realise who does the work, what gets in the way and see ourselves as agents of change.

As regards public services, I question what we are getting and how it is delivered (under the limiting cover of environmentalism). Public services are now set to be more about the public doing much of the delivering and everything watched and weighed.

If people are interested in delivering a true public service then I will back that to the hilt. However, that requires an open debate and winning the public over to the possibility of being able to make a difference - the 'public' being everybody else, friends, family, neighbours, etc.
That, I believe, will be the only way to make athe beginnings of a lasting and positive change.