Far Right and Left

Subject: Far Right and Left



Tolstoys soulful description of life and death in his novel War and Peace rings true. His observation that events are not brought about by the interposition of leaders but rather of the intricate deposit of the smallest mindset as an aggregate of the whole.

The political upheaval in France where Centrist  Macron has been unseated by a coterie of the ‘Far Left’ in the lefts temporary unification to defeat the so called ‘Far Right’ of Marine Le Pen, is democracy at play. The terms ‘Far Right’ and ‘Far Left’ are more ideological than specific, they are a catch all media phrase since there are things which the far left promote that a far right person would approve of and visa vera.

Socialism in France is its religious base, it’s cry of “liberate, egalite, fraternity could be the foundation of a religious order and since the days of the French Revolution it’s been the glue which held the left together. The left of many countries has flirted with communism, the ideology that ‘labour’ (people) were equal to ‘capital’ in the wealth of a nation and runs deep in the mind of the egalitarian. For a man like Melenchon (France’s Jeremy Corbyn), the seam which runs through him is ‘inequality’ and in this poorly adjusted country towards its immigrant past where disadvantaged, largely black people hold sway in certain cities in the south of the country. The French meet this threat with pepper spray and water cannon and heavily public disorder kitted police who are known for their no nonsense approach when dealing with protesters.

Boris Johnson was ridiculed when, as mayor of London he bought some second hand water cannon and our police are often criticised for being too collaborative in their dealings with street protest.

The spirit of rebellion lives on in sections of the Republic and Melenchon is remembered for leading from the barricades when taking on the French Establishment, a singular figure he has had a life of combinative politics which makes him feared by the centerist’s.

Le Pen is anti immigration and pro nationalist, supporting economic nationalism and an interventionist role of government, whilst opposed to globalisation and multiculturalism.

This tag of far right is only seen as dangerous when seen as ideologically opposed to consistency of the far left and is another example of the ‘4th estates’ (media/press) alternative to parliamentary democracy. The power of which has grown disproportionately with the internet, in many instances being well off-piste to rational debate. The demonising of parts of the electorate for wishing to bring back the national element in any discussion has in itself a diversionary effect whilst the established fears of cultural change are not met by describing the supporters of the right as racist.

Our recent General Election in this country saw ‘block voting’ on a largely ethnic matter with Arabic supporters taking their political seat on one issue, the dreadful genocideal  ethnic cleansing in Gaza. This is not a UK issue other than a moral one and whilst we may hold strong views on the matter it is not the bread and butter politics on which the General Election is fought.

If we become affected on a local scale with quasi national politics this will only lead to the further fragmentation of society and the country.

Left or right.

 Subject: Left or right.





Has representative government had its day. As I watch the UK parliaments procedural voting divisions, from the Scotish Parliament's electronic count, to Westminster’s antiquated methodology with the sight of MPs trooping out to the voting lobby, one is left with a strong sense that our representatives, the MPs, are playing a game which shuffles the act of voting into the long grass by the procedural obscurity of a yes no answer.

Few questions, especially the ones which affect millions of constituents are a question of a“yes or no”answer. Of course ‘debate’ is supposed to whittle away contentious issues if not resolve them. Everyone has an opinion based on their own personal experience, collectively under political ideology these views are codified as party ideology and the ‘personal’ is lost amongst the need for collectivism. And here the distortions appear, the centrist's, the socialists, far right, far left and this within one party, is it any wonder that consensus is almost impossible. Deeply held views about matters close to one’s heart have to be jettisoned in favour of the ruling cabal and in the case of Jeremy Corbyn, Diane Abbott, and Russell Moyles, all labour politicians who fell foul of Kier Starmer for their left wing views and who for me represented the socialism I want for the county.

For too long the market has ridden rough-shod over the needs of people. It could be argued that the people don’t have needs, if the benefit system takes care of their needs and aspirations and only the middle to upper middle class aspire to needing anything better. We obsess over the “lumpen proletariat” the lads and lasses out over the weekend intent on becoming drunk one tends to forget the privately educated cocaine snorting set who carry their prop into the office meeting in an effort to strike the right pose.

I’m not a fan of televised head to head broadcasts, there’s too much focus on the participants and therefore their need to perform which means the broadcast descends into a ideological shouting match from which nothing is gleaned other than who is the smoothest operator. Rishi Sunak’s polished Goldman Sachs tutoring comes through, the flashing smile the sharp punctuated sentences, never mind if they are lies he wins the debate not on factual’s but on debating polish. It’s become a modern trend this media training, part of subliminal techniques we have become accustomed to accepting the words without looking for meaning.

Starmer in contrast often looks like an animal caught in the cross lights of the event, his words carried meaning and reality but without the panache it was buried by the showman’s spiel.

This is what politics has come to, an echo chamber, hearing what we want to hear whole television channels, (funded by Murdock) and opened to transmit mendacity and swamp what’s left of our minds with untruths dressed as potentially possible.

It’s become the Etonian debating skill against the well meaning protester who carries their heart on there sleeve. Rhetorical tools are in use which were designed from the days of Socrates deflecting a question by asking another which philosophically is attuned to a parlour game only for those who can afford it.

Tenant of faith

 Subject: Tenant of faith

The organic nature of Russia, that intertwining of people into a nation is missing in the multicultural multi ethnic nature of England. It’s been bred out of us by the need of the dominant upper class to exploit the lower class by seeing everything in terms of a financial transaction.

The implicit trust of a nation for its ruling fathers to do the right thing for the “Nation” has never been a part of the English qualification. The Feudal landscape with its structure of anticipated entitlement through class was eventually subverted by Capitalism where the Barron became the CEO. The top down notion that decisions can only be hatched on the executive floor makes the ascendency to that floor so important that a schooling system was evolved that codified the accession process to mean ‘the old school tie’ was the badge of entry much like the handshake is to the Masons.

In non totalitarian countries the free market was supposed to propagate a free market in skills and managerial opportunity but the interceding nature of class marked out who was to be considered and who not. The need to be recognised as one of us rather than one of them made for a tight recognisable corset which included the way you handled your knife and fork.

The Russian, up until the Revolution were also Feudal with Serfs( peasant) controlled by the Boyers  and the nobility. The revolution re constructed society dramatically importing the idea of a totalitarian style equality with ‘The Party’ in charge. This sense of unity through simply being ‘Russian’ stays with the Russian to this day, whilst we try to wash away nationalism by importing the ideology of multiculturalism. It’s a Christian ideology based on the need to ‘assimilate’ which in many ways is altruistic but assumes the assimilation is seen by all as the way to proceed but with historic values based on religious Indoctrination there can only be a paper thin sense of understanding since the tenant of faith has to be maintained. The clash of culture even within a geographically assimilated religion brings internecine war and it’s from these regions that the immigrant fleeing persecution is encouraged to come. In the days before the trickle became a flood the assimilation of disparate ideologically opposed people was fairly dissipated amongst the local people (other than in the cities) but as generations build a recognisable strata in our cities, todays immigrant finds a home in their expat  community, not the the host nation but of one of these culturally isolated groups such as Syria,Iran and Pakistan, where religion sets the patten for any sense of indulgence. Like a ticking time bomb the ethnic equation, ignored, or feared, will not go away and the strength of a combative  socially absorbing faith led group will eventually convert us all by logic, faith or legal cohesion.

Just as we can’t comprehend the dismmemberment  of social services which used to be our trademark so, because we are too lazy to do the maths the context of our nation will change for ever.

The next question to ask is will this be to our betterment and if I cast my gaze over the hot spots in the world today, with the exclusion of Russia the Islamic world remains bedded in a 15th century practice of intolerance.

The shriek of the loudest voice

 Subject: The shriek of the loudest voice

One of the phenomena of modern politics is its reliance on the internet media to sustain its position on virtually any subject. From the ‘hissy fit’ to the fake remonstration of remorse when tragedy occurs.everything is tailor made to exact the maximum-response with genuine feelings way down the list when it comes to honesty.

Nigal Farage is in trouble because last night he said that the expansion of NATO had been the cause of Russia’s invasion of the Ukraine. Of course Putin’s invasion was a mixture of things, the Wests lack of response to Russia’s invasion of the Crimea, the historical claim Russia has towards the Ukraine, the European  reliance on the Ukraine on for grain. The diminishment of the USSR back into the territorial confines of mother Russia and the encroachment of Russia by NATO was seen as a threat but only as a counter balance to the historical expansionist policy Russia has through the ages pursued.  

Farage was voicing a commonly held opinion, nothing more nothing less but the response has been one of political unanimity with leaders thankful to be let off the hook of realpolitik, of housing and health of social care and food prices, the things they are supposed to be in charge of and instead flood the airways this morning with condemnation for what Farage was implying.

The modern media peopled by the commentariat such as Nick Robinson who’s hectoring tone does nothing to illicitate information, media icons who’s nightly appearances on the television give them the opinion they represent ‘us’ in their damning condemnation.

We are in a time of a media opiate where vitriol excuses debate and all we hear is the shriek of the loudest voice.

Given that from the time of Brutus the people have been rather persuaded by the glib tongue of the orator rather than rational argument we are left in a theatre with the lights out trying to remember how we got in. They are all at it from the flashing smile of our Prime Minister, to the podgy faced, dough like performance of the Labour Party leader, to the Lib Dem’s Gladiator's representative, alway vying for a photo opportunity. It’s the modern equivalent of the “ peep show”, it contends with entertainment to catch and keep our attention since politics has fallen so low in our trust.

A trip to Europe without a visa.

 Subject: A trip to Europe without a visa.

One of the issues I have with today's football is the need to convert the game into words and intentions. There are few sides who are good enough to convert team talk into action, to translate the schemes into goals. Football is one of those games which in so many instances the lucky rebound, the deflection results in goals, often against the run of the game. Today's game, Slovenia v Serbia was a great game but a nightmare for the commentator with all the Serbia names ending in "vic". It was an end to end, open game which I appreciate rather than the delicate tip tap, often towards ones own goal in an effort to capture and keep the ball no matter what. Teams and their managers are coached themselves by pundit and popular opinion, the need to play the game which is in front of them rather than that in a team talk which often stultifies the game.

England are under the cosh in so far as the team of 'stars' are concerned, over paid young men who, if they were to believe the hype they are the equivalent of the "second-coming". The old professionals, the pundits who "know, you know" translate the game 'we' watch into something else, sometimes unrecognisable from our own experience which has become board by its negativity. Bellowing their superior knowledge in a plethora of accents, they, like the political class live in a different world. They drip hyperbole and feed us crumbs of comfort when there should be none.

The England team players play as of they have just banked their club cheque £60,000 a week (£2,800,000 pa) and hardly need the chicken feed of an international appearance.

Their loyalty is towards their club not towards the millions of supporters who sit ashen faced as the hype is shown to be just that. The England players stand around the centre of the field, seemingly lost, asking, "why are we here". No longer are they put under the pressure by the 'foreign players' in their clubs which they get when playing for club football. No fear of loosing your club place and the money you get for playing it, is it just a part of the multinational nature of our country. Watching Serbia play Slovenia one is struck by the energy and the willingness to die for the game by these unknown players on £600 a week.

As the pundits burst their vocal cords in frustration and we sit back with yet another evening of lost belief, much as in our politics, we are a nation of over-belief, always looking over our shoulder for the other guy to find the solution.

The Flying Scotsman on a leisurely stroll through the countryside.

 Subject: The Flying Scotsman on a leisurely stroll through the countryside.

Nostalgia is double edged, it takes one back down memory lane to a time when our place in society was more secure, we were younger, and our perspective clearer. One of those nostalgic things in my life was standing on the railway station platform with my Dad after a train journey somewhere in the gritty and grey 1950s, looking up with awe at a  mechanical monster, hissing and belching steam whilst, on the engine platform the driver and fireman with customary cap and rag, nonchalantly  surveying the scene as the engine, metaphorically speaking, seemed to paw the ground eager to be off to the next destination. Looking at the driver, amid the steam and smell of hot oil, he seemed to command so much of a boys dreams, the power to control one of these  stand alone power plants, with connecting rods and pistons, the oiler boxes to keep things lubricated, the coal fired boiler and the sooty fireman who, with the driver were part of the human orchestra needed to keep the beast in check.

I have told the story before of being at the London Southbank Festival of Britain Exhibition in 1950 to see the latest train engine on display as part of what we as a country manufactured.  And there I was in 1964 watching the same engine pull into Melbourne Station on its last commercial journey. There were dozens of train spotting enthusiasts in Melbourne to watch and yesterday I enjoyed a smashing film of the Flying Scotsman (60103) refurbished and running at greatly reduced speed, 28mph along the single track running through the beautiful countryside of rural England. All along the way clusters of enthusiasts occupied vantage points, at road crossing and bridges, on station platforms and even out in the fields they stood and waved doffing their caps as it were to a different era. The complexity of the signalling was explained as the train was brought to a halt and the fireman jumped off his engine platform to walk up ahead to ring the signal box to find out the cause of the delay and because it was a single line each section had to acknowledge who was on the line and a large ring shaped token passed to the driver as the train passed through that section of track.

It was all so "old worldly", a period when we were changing from the horse drawn era to steam, when people could still conjecture what was going on before their very eyes and not hidden in some Taiwanese synthetic chip.

The country roads having crossed the track drifted off from the line to some village, isolated somewhere in its own identity the road ducking and diving through the hedgerows, the cows munching away as the farmer in his field plans his crop planting with ever one eye cocked at the weather.

These are elements what makes living here in the UK plausible. It contrast the self imposed stress of continually watching the tittle-tattle from our smart phones, with an ever present to the threat of war and famine and the nostalgia for me is perhaps knowing less and living in my own world which is relevant to me and my needs and interests.

What’s the fuss about.

 Subject: What’s the fuss about.



What is all the fuss about a ‘Right Wing agenda as if it were poised to infect the already infected body politic.

Much of the rise of the right wing ideology is a backlash to what is seen as a libertarian  culture which has garnered, on its side the legal framework of dismissive sentencing for those who disagree with its overarching conclusions. As a philosophy, libertarianism has many attractive aspects when compared to the straight jacket of totalitarianism but the truth is in the name, both are ‘ism’s’ they represent part truth and part fiction, a philosophical agenda which has a whole load of pros and cons elements which have both good outcomes and poor outcomes.

The question whether to stop using petrocarbons, gas and oil for instance in an attempt to slow down global warming is critical to our continued existence on this planet but unless there are alternatives in place life will be so radically altered that it will be significantly different and the question is perhaps is this cost is too great.

On reflection we now consider our reaction to Covid 19, the cure out weighed the cost the  economic cost that is, it was not throughly evaluated and we are left economically crippled. Life then has an intrinsic value as well as a moral value and the ‘right and left’ come up with a different number when crunching he process to pin their colours to.

Isreal’s survival is posited on being able to reject Arab attempts to exterminate it as a State and correctly,  irrespective of the means or the cost in human suffering it can be argued they have every right to pursue survival but of course, what’s gong on in Gaza is more akin to punishment of the weak by the strong.  Who would deny them the right of existence but the workings of the human politic is not a matter for them to interpret in isolation.

The right wing tend to see things in black and white whilst the left look for compromise even when poor outcomes stare them in the face. The optimist, the glass half full guy often has in place, a lifestyle which allows him to make decisions which effects others more than him/herself. The Palestinian marching on our street or the Iraqi fleeing another war zone  have a valid points to make but the middle class intellectual possessed of moral certitude without a full grasp of all the facts which those, in a more precarious position in our society see staring them in the face.

Immigration which used to be a treasured thing has now become a human right and is thrust upon a sitting society by statute and tenants of human dignity, many created after the cataclysmic Second World War and led to the formation of the United Nations.

Many of the dignitaries who represent nations belonging to that august body the UN would find it hard, back in their homeland to translate the ideals spoken of in the General Assembly.

When Russia’s representative, China’s, even the USA speak they often speak with forked tongues, blinded to their own actions and simply voice platitudes.

Does the rich tapestry of human conduct reflect well in the General Assembly, sadly not since actions and words are rarely akin and much we hear is rhetoric.  The Right are closer to the actuality of real life whilst the Left have a wish list as long as your arm.

Should we indulge in the rhetoric of wishing just because it’s moral or should we face up to realpolitik and indulge in a bit of self serving behaviour.