'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!