A Yes vote in Scotland will be a massive boost for democracy

Have you noticed how politicians in the West like Barack Obama and David Cameron are always banging on about how good democracy is? There's a problem though. In the West the 'powers that be' - the establishment or ruling class if you prefer - like democracy when it serves their purposes, and that means getting the result they want.

One of the classic examples in recent times was the Irish referendum on the EU constitution. The Irish had the good sense to vote against. Was the constitution killed off?... er no ..  but twelve months later they were made to vote again - and this time they delivered the 'correct result'. It was a travesty of the democratic process but it suited the purposes of the Euro-ruling class. So, democracy is OK as long as the voters get it right. In neoliberal Europe and the USA it hardly matters which party you vote for because you will always get the same result - neoliberalism.

Of course all was going smoothly in the Scottish referendum on independence until The YouGov poll put the Yes campaign in the lead, then all hell let loose with a barrage of threats about pensions and mortgages and doom from banks such as Deutsche Bank, followed by the cancelling of PMQs and a dash to Scotland by Clegg, Cameron and Miliband, and resolute pro-union bias from the BBC. The Scots were in danger of doing the unthinkable - voting for something they wanted rather than the 'correct result'. And a 'correct result' has to be obtained so that any danger of a progressive alternative to neoliberal austerity emerging in Scotland can be squashed.

A Yes vote in Scotland will be a massive boost for democracy

In less than two days time Scots will be going to the polls to vote in the independence referendum. The outcome, despite the fear-mongering and bullying of  British capital and their tame politicians, is too close to call. Whatever the result, it will cause an earthquake in British politics. A yes vote will tear asunder the UK, and even a narrow win for no will shatter the political set-up in the UK. But how did we get here? You've guessed it - New Labour. If the Labour Party hadn't betrayed everything it ever stood for and embraced Thatcherism there never would have been an SNP government in Scotland or a referendum on independence.

What's done is done. The purpose of this post isn't to put the boot into Labour, only to explain why I think we are where we are. But the behaviour of Labour should act as a warning. The UK needs a political party of the progressive left which will act in the interests of the 99%. Without that people will look for alternatives and often those alternatives will be distasteful. The rise of both the BNP, and now UKIP in England are due to anger and disillusionment with a system that acts only in the interests of corporations and the rich.

I wish the Scots well. I don't believe a yes vote is about nationalism, I think its about the triumph of hope over fear and I support the Yes campaign because I think the Scots have a perfectly good chance of building a successful economy and a progressive society which works for the benefit of the many not the few. I also believe the rest of the UK will have a better chance of doing the same once people can see that democracy can work and overcome the interests of the ruling class. Whatever the result, the complacency, arrogance and incompetence of our so-called leaders and their friends in business has been painfully exposed. Hopefully things will never be quite the same again.

RIP Labour: The day the Labour Party finally died

I'm not the only one who noticed but today marks the end of any useful life that the Labour Party had left in it. I've posted about the impending demise of the Labour Party before but now its finally arrived. The Party's had its problems for a long time but the rot really set in with the advent of Tony Blair and New Labour in the 1990s, followed by the black farce of the premiership of Gordon 'end of boom and bust' Brown. Since then the Party has been on life support and it looks like the feeble efforts of Ed Miliband to resuscitate it have finally failed, for today Chris Leslie, who is apparently the shadow chief secretary to the treasury, will announce that:

"We won't be able to undo the cuts that have been felt in recent years, and I know that this will be disappointing for many people. A more limited pot of money will have to be spent on a smaller number of priorities. Lower priorities will get less."

f this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuf

So that's it. Labour has completely capitulated to the 'free' market. It is the party of the corporations and bankers. Labour can no longer make even the vaguest claim to be a party of labour and the people. Many of us knew that but this statement makes it official. Labour are finally committed to permanent austerity and even a "budget surplus". 

RIP Labour: The rot set in long ago with New Labour

Whats really sad about this is not just the end of a once great party but that its demise is through its own doing - its suicide because there is absolutely no need to do this - its political and economic nonsense. The cuts can be undone and spending can be raised. As Richard Murphy has pointed out on his blog today there is no need for a budget surplus and, as a nation, we can afford debt. Murphy hits the nail on the head when he says:

"If this is what Labour have to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility."

If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuft as Richard Murphy has pointed out on his blog there is no need for a budget surplus and, as a nation, we can afford debt. Murphy hit the nail on the head when he said:

 I agree with every word of that but there's more - it is the politics of a party which no longer has a useful purpose or anything to offer the British people and has reached the end of the line.

If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuf

f this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuf

If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuf

If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpuf

If this is what Labour has to offer no wonder so many people do not vote. Labour is offering the politics of despair and not hope. It is the politics and economics of reckless irresponsibility. And it is the economics  of those without the courage to deliver change, most especially for those who are dependent upon that change happening in this country. - See more at: http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2014/05/30/why-vote-labour-when-their-economic-policy-is-based-on-cuts-and-appeasing-bankers/#sthash.pSmFECAZ.U3EKrhD4.dpu

If you get a Labour government in 2015 you will probably be sorely disappointed

Remember Neoliberal Labour? The bad old New Labour of Tony Blair and Gordon Brown? Well, if you are planning to vote Labour in 2015, and you are hoping for a Labour government, you are likely to be very disappointed, because Ed Milliband's  Labour is unlikely to reverse any of the Tory cuts, which is exactly what most Labour supporters want. Just imagine celebrating a Labour win and then having to face up to the reality that very little is going to change.

How do I know? I've been reading John Harris in the Guardian, and its clear that Harris has been talking to John Cruddas, the alleged lefty whose been leading Labour's policy review, and it makes pretty depressing reading. The upshot is that Labour appears to have accepted that the cuts can't be reversed and the priority is the eliminate the deficit;

"The essentials go something like this. Though there will be no reversal of existing cuts, in the context of George Osborne's howling failure that loud debate about whether to stick to his post-2015 spending plans is completely misplaced. But at the same time, if Labour is to win the next election, it will have to commit to a set of iron, independently enforced fiscal commitments, perhaps to be met over a 10-year cycle, focused not just on the elimination of the deficit, but the ratio of public debt to national income – many of the consequences of which, to quote one Labour insider, could be "brutal."

Ed Milliband: little hope for the future

The problem with this is that it is utter nonsense from beginning to end, and it shows that Labour have learnt nothing in the past three years. One is tempted to scream "Its the austerity stupid!", but even this is unlikely to penetrate the density of Labour's neoliberal skull. The reality is that it has never been easier or cheaper to borrow, never been easier to have our own national(ised) investment bank, and never been easier to invest in the jobs and houses that the UK so desperately needs. What we do not need is more of the same. Austerity must end.

I'll let you into a secret. Well its not really a secret but for all the attention it got in the 2010 election it might as well have been. The Green Party had an economic plan in its manifesto to halve the structural deficit in the lifetime of a parliament, and at the same time invest £44 billion in creating one million green jobs. And guess what? No austerity either. No cuts - just let me repeat that - no cuts, except in Trident and one or two other places where cuts were needed. No tuition fees either. Just think how strong our economy would be now if that had happened. But make no mistake, it can still happen, but only if people vote for real change. If they don't we will end up with more of the same, more misery and little hope for the future.

Neoliberal Labour fail the social justice test - again!

Neoliberal Labour are at it again. This time pandering to the Coalition's class-war driven attack on the unemployed with their own version of Workfare. Labour's new plan - or should that be New Labour's plan? - announced by Ed Balls, is that people who are unemployed for more than two years would be forced to work in some sort of government backed scheme for at least 6 months. And Labour have repeated the Tory mantra that work must pay more than benefits.

So what is wrong with this you may ask? Well there is plenty wrong with it. For a start, unemployment is a failure of Labour's beloved 'free' market to provide meaningful jobs for people. But this can't be admitted, so the unemployed must be blamed for their own predicament, including the 660,000 public sector workers who have lost their jobs under the Coalition. In 'free' market la la land you must always blame the victims never the culprits - i.e. the banks, the tax dodging corporations and the tame politicians who support them, the very people who created the economic crisis we are now all paying for. Secondly, if people on benefits get more money than those in work that tells us the simple truth that those in work are not earning enough. Under the previous New Labour government, Gordon Brown's tax credits for working families simply subsidised cheap labour for the tax dodging corporations. It was a form of corporate welfarism. Thirdly, the unemployed and low paid are exactly the sort of people who ought to expect and allegedly 'progressive' party like Labour to give them some support in difficult times. Instead of this reactionary nonsense, Labour should be committed to full employment, as it used to be, and guarantee every unemployed person a meaningful job. But Labour doesn't have the 'Balls' to do that.

What is the answer? At the last general election in its 2010 manifesto, the Green Party came up with policies to halve the deficit and create one million new jobs in the green sector - in areas like home insulation - to tackle the crisis in the economy and fight climate change. This carefully costed programme, paid for by shelving wasteful and unnecessary projects like Trident, and taxes on environmental pollution and the rich, would have put the UK in a much stronger position than it is now. There would not have been swinging cuts in the public sector and no privatisation of the NHS. There is a real alternative of hope to the despair and destruction that neoliberal austerity is wreaking on the people of Europe and the UK. We can bring about positive change if people vote for us. Do you want to be part of a positive future? Then come and join us.

In Bradford Labour gets the kick in the pants it so richly deserves

I'm not exactly a fan of George Galloway, in fact I don't know anyone who is. Despite this, the man has a track record of causing upsets and getting himself elected. So, I wasn't wholly surprised when I woke up to find he had won the Bradford West byelection with a stunning victory. But I sure was pleased :D.

No wonder he's smiling

This result is exactly the kicking that the Labour Party richly deserves. At a time when we have a Coalition government which insists on implementing deeply unpopular policies such as the 'granny tax', cutting the top rate of tax, and has been caught out peddling influence for cash to the rich, Bradford West ought to have been a very easy win for Labour. So why didn't they win? The answer is simple - Labour has deserted its social democratic roots and people want a real alternative to austerity, not the Tory-lite version being offered by Ed Milliband and co.

So will Labour learn the real lessons of this humiliating defeat? I doubt it. The reality is that Labour is now a neoliberal party of the centre-right, populated by discredited Blairites who are itching to continue the process of privatising and destroying public services. A recent poll showed that the public think the Tories are the party of the rich, if they'd asked the same question about Labour, they might have got the same answer. After all, as Mandelson famously said Labour are intensely relaxed about people being filthy rich.

Like many people I'm angry about the fact that Labour abandoned being the party of social justice in the UK, for grovelling to big business and corporate capitalism. Although it is clear to many of us that Labour needs to discover its social democratic roots, Labour has bent over backwards since its election defeat to avoid doing just that, producing absurd alternative narratives such as Blue Labour. People want an alternative to neoliberalism business as usual, and at the moment to only mainstream party which offers that alternative is the Green Party.

Liam Byrne's approach to 'welfare' is reactionary nonsense

Let me start by telling you a story - once upon a time there was a party in the UK called The Labour Party. It arose from the trade unions and working class struggle. Its focus was social justice, and its agenda was about decent healthcare, jobs, housing, worker's rights, and education. After World War II, in 1945, The Labour Party won a spectacular election victory, and came into power with a mandate which produced what became known as the 'Welfare State', the NHS, better (council) housing and educational opportunities for all. It aimed to protect people from the vagaries of the market, and it succeeded. Millions of ordinary UK citizens, like me, were lucky enough to benefit from those changes.

Now, The Labour Party is a hollowed out shell, filled with middle class career politicians and MPs who have been parachuted onto the green benches of parliament, because they are Ed and Tony's cronies, replacing most of the working class antecedents who once filled many of those places. It is a party in thrall to the market, a centre-right party promoting the most reactionary kind of right-wing populism. The last Labour government, which preferred to be called  'New Labour', eagerly adopted the 'benefit scrounger' stance promoted by right-wing propaganda sheets such as the Daily Mail, and Minister James Purnell introduced measures to bash benefit claimants and the unemployed.

Step forward in 2012, Liam Byrne, the Shadow Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, to give us Labour's latest welfare vision. Byrne talks about William Beveridge whose report, published in 1942, paved the way for the Welfare State. Beveridge proposed measures, which I outlined above, to fight the five - "Giant Evils' of Want, Disease, Ignorance, Squalor and Idleness". This was to be achieved by the concept of 'Social Security', in which ordinary people paid National Insurance so that when they became ill or unemployed they could rightly claim benefits from the state.  Those 'benefits' were not 'something for nothing', they were entitlements which people paid for. It was a great system and it worked, especially in the context of governments which aimed to create full employment, as Byrne concedes in his article.

But what Byrne goes on to say is pure 'free' market orthodoxy and a continuation of New Labour's 'benefit scroungers' stance, which is all about blaming the victims of the market for their pitiful situation. It is reactionary nonsense. Those unfortunate enough to be unemployed in an economy where the 'free' market has failed to create anything like full employment are to continue to be battered and forced into some kind of workfare programme, which is simply unwaged-slavery, where people are forced to work for corporations for nothing. I have no doubt that a decent bloke like Beveridge would be horrified by the way in which the concept of Social Security has been deliberately twisted and undermined by neoliberal parties like Labour, the Liberal Democrats, and the Tories, and the shameful way in which the unemployed, disabled and poor are now treated. But what is most shameful is the fact that the Labour Party has helped to destroy what it created, kicking people when they are down, so that the corporations and the rich can benefit from unwaged-slavery and tax cuts.

Yes to a referendum on the EU!

According to Paul Cotterill on the Liberal Conspiracy blog Caroline Lucas, the leader of the Green Party,  has outflanked Labour on the issue of a referendum on the EU. He is right. Outflanking a gauche and leaden-footed Labour leadership isn't difficult these days. Labour is completely hamstrung by its New Labour legacy, and because of its complicity in privatisation and austerity it is incapable of challenging the most dangerously reactionary government in a century.

Caroline said: "I support a referendum on our membership of the EU because I am pro-democracy, not because I'm anti-EU - and because I want to see a radical reform of the way Europe operates. The EU has the potential to spread peace and make our economies more sustainable, and to promote democracy and human rights, at home and throughout the world. But it must urgently change direction, away from an obsessive focus on competition and free trade and towards placing genuine co-operation and environmental sustainability at its heart."

Caroline has called this exactly right. We need to challenge the lack of democratic accountability and neoliberalism of the EU. Most people don't want us to leave, but this is a Europe of austerity, dominated by the ECB. The way the Greeks and Irish have been humiliated is appalling, and all to bail out French and German banks. That is unacceptable. We need start a movement to liberate the EU from the dead hand of neoliberal failure, and make sure that the Green Party is at the forefront of that movement.

The Whole Earth delusion

In a recent Guardian article environmentalist author Mark Lynas suggested that the green movement had lost its way. He had apparently experienced a 'eureka moment' reading hostile comments to an article he had written criticising GM foods. This was reinforced when he later read Stewart Brand's book Whole Earth Discipline. Like Brand, Lynas now argues that the green movement is actually a barrier to combating climate change and feeding the world. This, in a nutshell, is because we oppose nuclear power and GM technology.

Environmentalists such as Brand and Lynas have 'seen the light' and embraced capitalism as the mechanism to solve the worlds environmental problems. They believe that technology is the answer. I've read Whole Earth Discipline. Its a well argued and well written book, but it left me cold, so much so that I admit I didn't quite finish it, but by then I didn't need to. Of course it is full of hope, telling stories of how mobile phones, for example, have helped the poor to build businesses and make themselves better off. Does this mean that mobile phones are a good thing? Are they going to eliminate poverty? No, just that humans will use whatever tools at their disposal to help them overcome adversity. If it wasn't mobile phones it would be something else.

What Lynas and Brand want is for the green movement to embrace capitalism much like the way New Labour embraced the market. Lynas even talks about the green movement having its "clause four moment". New Labour tried to use market mechanisms to reduce inequality and poverty. It failed because those same mechanisms are the drivers of inequality and poverty. The proof of failure came in the fact that after 13 years of a New Labour government inequality in the UK had increased. Capitalism is the driver of environmental degradation and loss in biodiversity - see this recent example. It is capitalist accumulation that is devouring our planet. You cannot use the same mechanisms which are destroying the world to save it. Not only that but the green movement isn't just about saving our environment, its also about social justice, something which is incompatible with capitalism.

What Brand and Lynas in their naivety have failed to understand is that what GM food and nuclear power are about is profit for the big corporations, and not making a better environment, or feeding the world. There are millions hungry all over the world. They need access to land, cheap loans, basic tools and fair markets for their produce. The key solutions are low tech, not high tech. There would be no hunger if the existing food supply was distributed fairly. The big driver behind GM technology is that corporations like Monsanto can control the food chain and make massive profits - forever. Corporations like Monsanto want to control and monopolise all the food we eat - not feed the world - see here.

If we are going to save the planet for ourselves we need to build a socially just and sustainable society. We can build prosperous sustainable societies without growth. Capitalist accumulation based on endless debt fueled growth is the problem, not the answer. There are alternatives as I've shown in this blog. We have to get on with that task and leave Lynas and Brand to their delusions and play with their technological toys.

What is the Labour Party for?

A lot of people are wondering what the Labour Party is for. Since Ed Milliband became leader its been hard to to tell. But at least we know what the Labour party is not for; its not for the working class, it abandoned them a long time ago, letting the BNP fill the vacuum; its not for decent public sector pensions; its not much interested in housing; or the poor; or trade unions. It is, we know, in the historic words of Peter Mandelson - "intensely relaxed about the filthy rich" and it seems to be pretty keen on the banks; Oh!, and privatisation of the NHS, education, and well, pretty much anything else that moves.

The Labour Party is a party that has lost its way completely. So much so that it doesn't really know what it is for, except perhaps a vehicle for its leaders to get elected and hold political power, a vehicle for career politicians, the political class that I blogged about in this post. That means that it is the job of party members, who presumably think they are part of a project to change things, merely to have a role of furthering the career aspirations of Milliband, Jowell, Balls, Alexander et al.

I'm sure that Ed would be horrified if he read what I'd just written. He'd protest that he believes in a progressive future and that he, and his colleagues, have been traduced by that statement. If he thinks that I'd like to suggest its his own fault, because I think I think those are perfectly reasonable conclusions for onlookers like me to draw, based on the statements, and behaviour of Ed and other leading Labour politicians.

For example, for him to state that the June 30th strike was wrong, on the basis that negotiations about public sector pensions were ongoing, was laughable. It was obvious to all but the most naive that the government wasn't involved  in meaningful negotiations and had no intention of compromising on terms remotely acceptable to the striking teachers and civil servants. Not only that, but it was clear that the government had been hiding the fact that the Hutton Report showed that public sector pensions were affordable, and this had been exposed on the Today programme.

The Labour party has become a right-wing reactionary neoliberal party and there is little to distinguish it from the other neoliberal parties; the Liberal Democrats and the Tories. The reason for this transformation is not difficult to discern. This transformation has happened to 'left' parties all over the world since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Social Democracy has been abandoned in favour of 'free' market globalisation, and the domination of democracies by the multinational corporations and the banks. In fact, this is little different to Fascism. It is only a matter of degree, because Fascism is the subjugation of democracy to capitalist corporations -  with some goose-stepping in uniform, and gratuitous violence, thrown in.

This is what is happening in Greece. Democracy has been openly replaced, under a 'Socialist' government,  by the control of financial technocrats from the EU and IMF, on behalf of their market masters. Our politicians, including Ed,  are complicit in this free market coup d'etat. There is only one way we can stop this. We must stop voting for these people. We need to vote for parties which can stop the rot. In the UK there is only one party of social justice left - the Green Party.

The David Laws decision is a disgrace

The old saying goes - 'its not what you are, its who you know'. This appears to apply to David Laws the MP, multimillionaire and chum of David Cameron and Nick Clegg. Laws, who was the rising star of the new Coalition government a year ago, admitted fiddling his MPs expenses, and according to a Guardian report:

"A year-long inquiry ruled that Laws "seriously and extensively" broke the rules to claim rent which was paid to his partner over a period of seven years. He has already paid back nearly £60,000 and was forced to apologise to the Commons."

But Laws punishment for his 'crime' was seven days suspension from the house of commons. Contrast this with the 12 month prison sentence handed down to ex-Labour MP Eric Illsley for fiddling his MPs expenses. Illsley, who was released from prison recently, expressed surprise that he had suffered this punishment whilst others, including Laws, had escaped. He's not the only one. Many of us are wondering why MPs, including Gordon Brown and David Cameron, were simply allowed to repay the expenses that they shouldn't have claimed. What would have happened to you or I if we were found fiddling our expenses at work? At the very least we would have been sacked, if not prosecuted.

Could it be that MPs had to find a few scapegoats to assuage public anger at the expenses scandal whilst protecting important figures like Laws and Cameron? Of course wrongfully claiming expenses was not the greatest of Laws' crimes - it was as a wealthy man he was prepared when a treasury minister to introduce savage cuts which have affected the poorest and most disadvantaged people in this country knowing that he personally wouldn't be affected. That is something he shares with George Osborne and David Cameron.

New Labour = new fascists?

While I was doing a little research on fascism recently I began to think about what fascism, and particularly British fascism might look like in the 21st Century. Britain has never been a militaristic country so expect British fascists to wear suits rather than boots and uniforms. An article I came across by Skip Stone gives the first hallmark of fascism as - "One leader who has nearly absolute control of government, despite pretense otherwise. There is no effective opposition to his policies." Now who does that remind me of? Sums up our glorious ex-leader Tony Blair exactly, and Gordon has been more than happy to follow in his footsteps - so we live in an elective dictatorship, where the leader is all powerful, the cabinet and parliament are treated with contempt. But what other fascistic traits does new New Labour have?

Dr. Lawrence Britt wrote an article about fascism ("Fascism Anyone?," Free Inquiry, Spring 2003, page 20) in which he described 14 characteristics of fascism. How does New Labour measure up here?

I've followed each one of Dr Britt's characteristics with an affinity (High, Medium, Low) and a corresponding score (3,2,1). So lets see how New Labour does:

1. Powerful and Continuing Nationalism - Gordon’s flag flying and obsession with Britishness is largely driven by fear of the SNP but don’t be complacent New Labour has moved to the right on this issue. M=2

2. Disdain for the Recognition of Human Rights - A real mixed message here. We have the human rights act but a government with little respect for our freedoms. M=2

3. Identification of Enemies/Scapegoats as a Unifying Cause - There is no significant left opposition but expect scapegoating to happen as the contradictions in the government’s approach to climate change cause more strain. As our climate worsens green ‘militants’ are likely to become the ‘enemy’. There are also some mixed messages on the scapegoating of Muslims, and how about the treatment of asylum seekers?. M=2

4. Supremacy of the Military - British governments have never really trusted the military but this may be about to change, as the going gets worse. New Labour has made up for this deficiency by being in love with the police and security services. M=2

5. Rampant Sexism - New Labour can talk the talk but does the walk leave something to be desired? L=1

6. Controlled Mass Media - Spin has certainly been used to manipulate the media but its Gordon’s chum Rupert who controls it. M=2

7. Obsession with National Security - Full marks here! H=3

8. Religion and Government are Intertwined - The government has been dishonest with the electorate about its religious affiliations and is pursuing a religious agenda. Faith, apparently, is better. H=3

9. Corporate Power is Protected - A definite yes. H=3

10. Labor Power is Suppressed - Ditto as 9 above and don't tell me about the minimum wage. That is the fig leaf which covers New Labour's anti-unionism. H=3

11. Disdain for Intellectuals and the Arts - There’s no great liking for either in New Labour except where luvvies can be used for party gain. New Labour is the celebs party. M=2

12. Obsession with Crime and Punishment - Full marks here, once again. H=3

13. Rampant Cronyism and Corruption - I would argue that New Labour’s cosiness with big business, the revolving door culture, and PFI are all examples of rampant corruption, of our democracy if nothing else. M=2.

14. Fraudulent Elections - Despite Labour’s shenanigans with postal votes in the Midlands this is still low – for now. L=1

Total (out of 42) 31 = 74 %

So New Labour scores nearly 75% on my improvised fascist index. Not very scientific perhaps but an indication of just how far New Labour has moved to the right in the past 20 years. Just because this is Britain doesn't mean it can't happen here and it doesn't have to be the BNP wearing those fascist suits. You have been warned!