Not Just In Blighty Then?

The other day I came across this headline…

Progressive party of the past: Labor fails to inspire

Ok, so the spelling is a bit of a giveaway but although the man is talking about Australia, it is remarkable how much could apply to the UK Labour party.

In the following excerpts the names have been omitted to protect the guilty. What they show is that (as if we didn’t already know it) the race to the destroy everything in the big capitalist clusterf*ck™ is truly international…

Ian Watson also noted that over the past two decades, there has been a “growing polarisation in wages”, and “growing underemployment at the bottom of the labour market”. He further noted the “growth in precarious employment throughout the labour market, evident in growing rates of casualisation”, which “represents the success of a neoliberal agenda aimed at achieving increasing flexibility in the deployment of labour and a general restructuring of the world of work in the interests of capital”.

___________ has conducted important analysis of the media in _______. He knows perfectly well that there is an immense Murdoch apparatus ready and eager to fight for a right-wing policy agenda. The Left may fight for the _____ if the _____ pursues progressive policies. It has not done so.

As long as the _______ remains a timid, tepid party that wavers between compromising and surrendering to big business, a kind of Liberal Party-lite, it is hard to see how it will inspire people to fight for it, and increase its level of support beyond its current abysmal levels.

Read the full article by Michael Brull here


One comment

  1. The precariousness of employment and casualisation are here to stay I fear, given that we now live in a world where capital can move practically unhindered from “market” to “market”. (Remember when we had a different name for markets? What was it again? …oh, yes, …COUNTRIES.)

    However, income inequality should not necessarily follow on from this. They are related problems of course (and those in managerial roles will always have greater flexibility given their means anyway) but they are problems that can be handled separately. There is no justification for people at the top of an organisation being paid obscene multiples of those at the bottom of the same organisation; and that’s not just a class thing either…why should Mr X, late on in his career, be paid 1000s of times what he was earning at the start of his career? That cannot be seen as an effective use of resources.

    However, I don’t think labour parties should use this as a reason to reflexively turn left… rather they should ask themselves what the f*** it is they actually stand for, because at the minute, it’s far from clear.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s