Betrayed: Is it time for the left to leave the Labour Party?

In all honesty, the recent Labour Party leak has done little more than confirm what many on the left already suspected about the party. This being, that labour since possibly the mid to late 80’s has been led by the right side of the party. The apparatus and the bureaucracy surrounding the Labour Party are soaked in neoliberalism. With a new leader this faction will be desperate to maintain control of the party at all costs, while showing zero interest in improving the lives of working class people around the country. The recent leak has proved yet again that Labour consists of two parties under one roof, each side indistinguishable from the other, while the centrist shadow deeply damages the socialist cause.

The left in general have always looked towards radical change. But now more than ever, the world needs a real political shift, requiring big bold ideas that can burst open the straitjacket of capitalism. The right of the party in contrast claim to be pragmatists, incessantly declaring that nothing can change without power, but nothing perceptible will change if you sell out to attain power. What this recent leak has shown is the disdain certain senior staff members at Labour HQ had for the hundreds of thousand of members who joined because of the ideals that Jeremy Corbyn represented.

To remain as a member or even a casual supporter of the Labour Party as it stands now, would be to adopt the role of “a useful idiot” as Noam Chomsky would say. Remaining would serve the party’s right wing by bolstering the numbers, putting money in their coffers, while they arrogantly think of you as scum. We had a small window of opportunity to elect a truly socialist Labour leader as Prime Minister, that moment has now passed. Members and supporters of Labour have been repeatedly betrayed by people who were supposedly on the same team. For decades it has been an abusive, one sided relationship and now I suggest it’s time to walk away.

The newly leaked report (full report here) emphatically dismantles claims that The Leader of The Opposition Office (LOTO) was responsible for sabotaging the efforts of the Labour Party tasked with dealing with anti-Semitism. On the contrary, it was the Blairite right wing of the party fuelled by hatred of the left that were the ones who made a conscious decision to drag their heals over any complaints regarding anti-Semitism. Thus creating a crisis that was conveniently blamed onto Corbyn and his team. This report also dismisses any notion put forward on the BBC’s Panorama programme that Corbyn’s office was to blame for this failure.

The upper reaches of the party HQ have been implicated in this treachery, including former General Secretary Iain McNicol. With further spotlight on the Governance and Legal Unit (GLU) largely responsible for disciplinary issues within the party. The report uncovers that the GLU failed to act on the majority of complaints, including those related to anti-Semitism. This inaction created a huge backlog which was egregiously used to imply Corbyn was soft on anti-Semitism. Information to support these alleged actions has been accumulated via extensive What App messages involving 6 top Labour Party Officials.

Further to this, there are examples in the report of officials within Labour’s HQ deliberately giving false information, suggesting these complaints were being dealt with quickly and professionally. Worryingly, the Chakrabarti Inquiry, which stated that the Labour Party was clearly not overrun with anti-Semitism was repeatedly ignored by members of GLU. The GLU also argued that the findings of the inquiry should not be uploaded onto the Labour website. It is fair to say, that this current leaked report does a good job of correcting the record regarding the failures of dealing with anti-Semitism and the people responsible for such failures, but it does contain flaws.

Where it falls short is the lack of acknowledgment regarding the weaponisation of anti-Semitism, while repeatedly stressing the word “denialism” throughout. To refute any incidences of anti-Semitism or racism in general within the Labour would be to ignore the reality of British society. However, “denialism” in this case has been utilised to rubbish any potential discussion around the use of anti-Semitism for political gain. Accounts of anti-Semitism within the Labour Party are tiny, compared to those both in wider society and the Conservative Party. Sadly in this case, context and proportion were concepts wilfully dismissed in order to sustain a political project.

Moving away from the issue of anti-Semitism, it is blatantly obvious reading the content of the What App messages that certain members of Labour HQ wanted Corbyn to lose in 2017. One Labour staff member even declared that, Corbyn’s good result in 2017 was against everything they had been working for over the last 2 years. Electoral disaster was clearly what certain high ranking members of the Labour Party were hoping for, realising that this would strengthen their case to boot Corbyn out.

Further to this 5th column activity, any MP who was considered even marginally on the left was labelled a “Trot”, including moderates such as Andy Burnham, Ed Milliband and Sadiq Khan. Meanwhile, members of Corbyn’s team were given derogatory nicknames by top staffer Emilie Oldknow such as, calling Corbyn’s political secretary “pube head”, while she mocked black MP Dawn Butler for bringing up the issue of racism in the party. In fact, Oldknow seems to have a particular penchant for verbal abuse, calling Karie Murphy one of Corbyn’s team both “fat” and the “Medusa Monster”. This group within the Labour Party HQ also discussed hanging, burning and shooting Jeremy Corbyn.

What’s deeply disturbing about all of this is, Emilie Oldknow was a top pick of Keir Starmer to take over as General Secretary of the Labour Party. I have no doubt that there will be a concerted effort by the Labour right to sweep this under a very large carpet. Starmer has proposed an investigation, but I wouldn’t get too excited if you’re hoping for a thorough and fair probe into what occurred at Labour HQ during this time. Judging by the outline of the investigation, it would appear the new regime seem more intent on investigating the “whistle-blowers” rather than the people named in the scandal.

This is a good example of what moderate or centrist technocrats think of politics. To them politics is just a charade, a game of chance, a way of feeding their egos, while using their wits and backstabbing treachery to gain an advantage over the other lot, be it socialists or the Tories. It’s a world devoid of principles or any notion of making the world a better place, except of course for themselves. These people ooze entitlement and privilege, a group who genuinely think they are suitably qualified to decide the fate of the Labour Party and indeed the country.

Obviously this sort of duplicitous behaviour wasn’t solely confined to the Labour Party HQ. The Parliamentary Labour Party also had a significant hand in engineering a Corbyn defeat in both elections. In 2016 the vast majority of Corbyn’s shadow cabinet resigned and 172 MP’s passed a motion of no confidence regarding his leadership. In 2019 nine Labour MP’s left the Labour Party, again blaming Corbyn’s stewardship, whilst suggesting a prominent culture of bullying and anti-Semitism. However, judging by recent accounts these activities seem to have been performed generally by the right of the party, with their claims of victimhood now presenting more like an elaborate “gaslighting” exercise.

This group would possibly describe themselves as part of the “intelligent minority”. This was a term given by the American writer and political commentator Walter Lippman whose stated function was to “practice democracy” by manufacturing consent. In Lippman’s world public opinion was not to be trusted, in his view, decisions should be made by a “specialised class” capable of social and economic management.

This report strongly indicates that this particular “specialised class” of MP’s and high ranking party staffers, over an extended period of time, arrogantly chose what was best for the Labour Party. This is despite the fact that Labour Party members, which still numbered over 500,000 in August 2019, overwhelmingly supported Jeremy Corbyn. This persistent deceptive behaviour demonstrates that the right of the party have no interest in democracy, whatsoever. However, this group and those they politically represent now have the audacity to ask lefties to support the current leader. A request such as this after 5 years of subversive behaviour is astonishingly contemptuous.

This centrist dim view on democracy is supported by figures, in 2018 the New York Times reported that centrists were more suspicious of democracy than both the far right and the far left. Furthermore, it states that this group are least likely to support free and fair elections. Even scarier still, centrists appear to be the least likely to support liberal institutions, such as civil rights. Finally, the centre are much more inclined to support authoritarianism than the far left. Disturbingly in the UK and the US, it is reported that centrists would also be more likely endorse an authoritarian than the far right, which kind of takes us back to the ideas of Walter Lippman.

Centrists and lefties have many irreconcilable differences. Centrists believe in a rigid, bureaucratic top down system of slick professional politicians, good speakers and party staff whose sole existence is to win elections. As principles are of little consequence, centrists are free to adopt or reject ideas dependent purely on whether they gain votes or not. Additionally, centrists will attempt to manufacture support, often by making promises they have no intention of keeping (see Obama for a case study). Or they will simply ignore public opinion under the auspices of doing “what’s best for the country” (see Blair and weapons of mass destruction for details).

In contrast, lefties are bound by a certain ideology, largely based around the idea of constructing a fairer, more just world, which centrist would determine as naïve. The problem is, this instantly binds the left to principles which can become our undoing when faced with people who recognise politics as nothing more than a pursuit of power. Many lefties will look at this recent report and acknowledge that this underhanded mutiny contributed to a lost opportunity, which aimed to make the lives of many people much better. They may also reflect on this betrayal and wonder how many more people have died needlessly due to politics of austerity at the hands of the Tories following Corbyn’s defeat.

Ethics and principles can place you at a strategic disadvantage when grappling with people who value nothing but narcissistic glory. This is why I firmly believe the two factions need to split, and soon. Neoliberal centrists need the left much more than we will ever need them. They require our votes to win an election, in order for them to gain power and control. After all, this is their only concern. In contrast, socialists need to divorce the centre in order to re-evaluate what principles are important to the left without constantly deferring to soulless political chameleons. If I had to choose between principles and vacuous power, I’d pick principles every time. However, I can’t lie, both would be nice.

Now what for the left? Labour lurches back to the centre.

Many centrists, moderates, 3rd wayers or whatever you might to call them (I have some suggestions), will be rejoicing within the Labour Party as the ‘charismatic’ and ‘dynamic’ Keir Starmer has been elected to lead the party. What a joyous occasion! Boris Johnson must be shitting himself. A slick, corporatized, centrist politician who is a pro-EU Londoner and a middle class lawyer has been sent to gain the vote of the Brexit supporting, working classes, largely from the North. Yeah, good luck with that.

Wow, we all thought politics was dead, hopefully this appointment may speed things up.  I’ve not been this happy since my dog died. Labour is back! Back to centrist, bureaucratic drivel, underpinned by a neoliberal doctrine that is severely lacking and outdated, peppered with social justice platitudes. Come on! Lets get this rather irrelevant party started! What shall we call it? How about Newish Labour?

The left have now had their scraps for at least another generation. We had four years of hope for change and a new way of running society, led by a man with rare ethical integrity. Now it’s time to head back to the cheap seats or even the exit, as the smarmy “moderates” are here, more emboldened and irritating than ever before. We have already been warned on many a forum on this inter webby thing that “it’s a broad church”, “the left experiment has failed”, “you had your chance”, as the cocky chorus of centrism continues to chime their hideous tune. The left are now expected to shut up and bolster the numbers within the Labour Party. After all, “the last time the Labour Party had a moderate leader, we won 3 elections, don’t you know”. But I’m sure you’ve been told this ad nauseum.

The problem is quite simple, Labour consists of two parties under one roof. Personally I have about as little in common with centrists as I do with Mussolini. I would even argue that they irritate me more than the average right wing, Oxbridge bigot. Centrists basically agree with the right, primarily that unbridled capitalism is still the way we should run a nation, however to distinguish themselves from the Tories, they subscribe heavily to the misguided doctrine of identity politics.

This political direction is already on display, Starmer has stated he will toughen the party rules on anti-Semitism. This is almost like the US/UK forces looking for weapons of mass destruction. As if by magic, these persistent accusations of anti-Semitism levelled at the Labour Party coincided with a Corbyn led shift to the left and an increase in scrutiny of Israel. These allegations may also miraculously disappear now Starmer is the leader.

In truth, Labour have continuously been reported of having exceptionally low levels of anti-Semitism. Out of the 228 MP’s as of 2016, one had been suspected and suspended for anti-Semitism, equating to 0.4% of all Labour MP’s. Among the 7000 councillors 0.07% had been suspended and of the 388,000 members (2016), 0.012% were suspended. Additionally, a 2017 survey found that the Labour Party were unsurprisingly less likely to hold anti-Semitic views than both the Conservative Party and UKIP.

In a 2015 YouGov survey in the UK looking at varying groups, Roma/Gypsies were suggested as providing the most negative impression with 58% of the vote, Muslims at 40%, black people 8%, gay people 9% and Jewish people picking up 7% share of the vote. In this survey it concluded that Jewish people in the UK were perceived more favourably than 5 out of the 6 groups investigated. While in all the other countries surveyed, Sweden is the only nation who identifies Jewish people more favourably than the UK.

Despite all this, anti-Semitism seems to be top of Keir Starmer’s agenda, despite the problem being relatively minor. We will always have people in our midst who are racist, trying to eradicate all of these people is impossible, in any institution. To consider it as a major problem as ‘moderates’ suggest, you have to define what constitutes a problem and be able to measure it, therefore, you can judge whether any strategies you employ have improved the very situation you have highlighted. Additionally, the ultimate goal needs to be achievable. Eradicating all racism everywhere really isn’t realistic, no matter how much you would like this to happen.

In 2018, Deborah Maccoby wrote in the Medium that, “anti-Semitism is at a low level and is almost never threatening”. She continued suggesting that trying to completely eradicate it may well be counter-productive, curtailing freedom of speech and thought. She offers that possibly the best way to deal with this would be to keep people who espouse these ideas marginalised in society.

As groups, the Gypsy/Roma and the Muslim communities are infinitely more ostracised, and yet very little is spoken about it, certainly not in the press or within parliamentary parties. Considering centrists appear to champion identity politics, you would expect them to support all minority groups, however, it would seem these are the wrong kind of minority groups, offering little influence in the corridors of power. We must consider that while the ‘moderates’ are at the helm, anti-Semitism will be used as the leash to keep the left at bay.

As far as the centrists are concerned it’s now their ball and they’re not going to give it back. I would suggest Labour is probably not a place for lefties anymore. Some people may well exercise caution, seeing how things develop before making a decision regarding their political allegiances. But many on the left vote on principles, not on the colour of the rosette. ‘Moderates’ talk about winning, spouting that you can’t enact change if you’re not in power, but you can’t implement real change if you have discarded all your principle along the way.

Lefties will be cast out into the wilderness yet again, resigned to the role of a protest faction. Unless the world suddenly realises that we can’t continue with neoliberalism, or we can somehow unify the left, the working class and the disenfranchised, we will remain outsiders. Logic suggests than when the people realise this system does not have the answers to the problems we face, this may initiate discernible change. Judging by what is occurring around the world with; Trump, Modi, Johnson and Bolsanaro to name a few, this would indicate that the reality is very different.

Both the US and the UK entertained the notion that they may be on the cusp of a sea change regarding the political narrative, but this has been extinguished by the ruling elite and their useful idiots. Both nations are invited to vote in their respective elections every 4 (US) and 5 (UK) years. Their citizens are led to believe that they are at the forefront of democracy, that they live in a free country, but nothing could be further from the truth.

On either side of the Atlantic two older, socialist gentlemen have recently highlighted that this is a fallacy. Preserving the ruling elite will always be given special preference over the general population. Anyone who challenges this neoliberal orthodoxy will find themselves, systematically dismantled by the people who really control these two countries. Now, Labour will revert back to the role of a controlled opposition after a brief flirtation with the heady ideas of systematic change.

 

Biden: The Democratic Party’s preferred corporate lamb to the slaughter.

Make no mistake Joe Biden had an excellent Super Tuesday, while Sanders in contrast had somewhat of a nightmare. Following Biden’s win in the South Carolina primary, one centrist candidate after another coalesced around this questionable establishment politician in an effort to dampen Bernie’s popularity. In all honesty this strategy was smart and timely. Not only that, but to compound Bernie’s problems, the quintessential political chameleon Elizabeth Warren remained in the race until today, further splitting the progressive vote and most probably contributing to Sanders losing some states such as, Warren’s home state of Massachusetts, plus Maine, possibly Texas and Minnesota.

A couple of weeks ago the ruling elite had a collective meltdown, viewing Sanders increasingly as an existential threat to their privileged way of life. Therefore, something had to be done. This ultimately brought about tactics of alliances between candidates and a 24/7 blanket support of Biden post South Carolina by the mainstream propaganda machine. Biden has also courted and been supported by corporate America, recently hosting 250 big money donors in New York. Meanwhile, his recent Super Tuesday victory was reflected by a Wall Street surge who perceive Biden as a benign candidate.

Like any great prize fighter, following the Super Tuesday setback, Sanders needs to regroup, clear his head and fire back at Biden. Finding easy targets against a lacklustre, lifelong establishment candidate should not be a difficult task for the Sanders campaign. At this point Bernie needs to find his killer instinct and repeatedly hit Biden’s weak spots, which frankly is his entire political career. If Joe Biden is elected there is no doubt he would be eviscerated by Trump come debate time. It would be akin to watching a heavyweight top ten pugilist go up against a washed up punch drunk, ageing club fighter and it won’t be pretty to watch.

In 2016 many people voted for Trump because they were disillusioned with corporate, mainstream, establishment politics. Joe Biden embodies this down to his very core, he has even reaffirmed this on stage, espousing a lazy, uninspiring “steady as she goes” rhetoric. This is exactly what the US and the world do not need at this particular point. The planet is burning, huge inequality is effecting health, education and general wellbeing. Wars continue all over the world, as a part consequence of a system that requires infinite growth on a finite planet.

Further to this, the US continues to expand it’s empire by systematically destroying nations who fail to toe the line, either through conflict or economic sanctions. Trump will undoubtedly continue down this path if re-elected, as his last few years have clearly indicated. So too would Biden if he wins the nomination and is elected later this year. To be fair the POTUS has very little control over foreign policy, as the deep state rarely deviates from its interventionist position.

It’s is difficult to attain what changes Bernie Sanders could make regarding foreign policy, considering the might of the military industrial complex. Domestically, however, there is only one anti-establishment change candidate around right now and that’s Bernie. Does he go as far as I’d like on many issues? Of course not. But we have to put this into perspective. This is the US, and as much as Bernie’s proposals would seem mainstream to most of Europe, they would signify a much welcomed radical shift in policy within the US.

So who really is Donald Trump’s potential punching bag Joe Biden? Biden has had 45 years in politics, he spent 36 years as a senator and a further 8 as Obama’s vice president. He is reputedly a ‘moderate’ who calls himself “middle class Joe”. However, over his career he has taken big money contributions at the expense of ordinary hard working Americans. This is the kind of politics that turned many people away from the Democrats and towards Trump in 2016. So let us take a little look at Biden’s politics of transaction.

Throughout his 36 years as a senator he has been financed by credit card companies. Between 1989 and 2000 MBNA was Biden’s single largest donor. In 2005 he authored and voted for a bankruptcy bill which made it increasingly more difficult for Americans to clear their debts. Consequently, this has had the effect of skyrocketing student debt since its inception. A study from the Federal Reserve of New York went as far as to suggest that this bill led to a rapid surge of foreclosures that may not have occurred otherwise. Coincidentally MBNA hired Biden’s son straight out of Law School as a lobbyist in 1996 and again as a consultant between 2001-2005, this was the same period Biden was working on the bill.

On the day Biden announced his campaign on the 25th April 2019, he attended a fundraiser hosted by a CEO of a major health insurance corporation. He unsurprisingly, flatly refused to sign a pledge rejecting money from the insurance and pharmaceutical world. Further to this, his campaign has been bankrolled by a super Pac run by healthcare lobbyists. In return for cash, the current healthcare industry will be preserved by President Biden if elected, at the expense of 10 million uninsured Americans.

Unlike healthcare, Biden did sign a pledge not to take money from the fossil fuel industry and then reneged on it. Shortly after the CNN hosted the climate change forum, he attended a fundraiser hosted by a fossil fuel conglomerate executive Andrew Goldman. Generally speaking Joe Biden’s climate change proposals have been rated as poor by leading environmental groups, accusing him of largely paying lip service with no discernible plan. In a report by the Sunrise Group, Bernie Sanders scored 183/200 while Biden totalled a dismal 75/200, the group concluded that climate change doesn’t appear to fit into his plans.

Historically speaking Joe Biden’s positions don’t look too flash either.

• Biden supports the death penalty, in 1994 he helped to write the 1994 Crime Bill, which authorised the death penalty for dozens of existing and new federal crimes.
• In 1996 Biden voted for and passed the Defence of Marriage Act (DOMA), which forbid the US government from recognising same-sex relationship as defined by the states. In 2012 Biden encouraged by Obama, changed his mind.
• In 2002 Joe Biden voted yes for the Iraq War.
• He supported the Patriot Act of 2001 and co-wrote it’s predecessor the 1995 Omnibus Counter-terrorism Act.
• Biden has opposed abortion rights many times over his career.
• Has worked throughout the years to cut Medicare and Social Security.
• In 1990 Joe Biden voted to repeal the Glass-Steagall Act, this act was designed to prevent commercial banks from engaging in investment banking.
• Biden voted in favour of NAFTA (North American Free-Trade Agreement) and also supported the TPP (Trans-Pacific Partnership).

What seems abundantly clear is that Biden lacks any moral conviction. His policies are deeply rooted in neoliberal ideology, while also being relatively socially conservative. In any other nation he would be considered to be firmly on the right of the political aisle. Biden, like the majority of the Democratic Party is a typical transactional politician, in effect a Hillary Clinton 2.0. He has been prolific on the speaking circuit for decades while cultivating close ties with lobbyists. His career in politics has been marked by establishment rhetoric and 3rd way triangulation, exactly what the US voters rejected in 2016.

Trump would be licking his lips at the prospect of running against Biden. They do possess similarities in as much they are both corrupt and employ unhealthy doses of nepotism. Where they differ, however, is Trump somehow still has the support from many of the disenfranchised all around the country. An establishment, centrist, careerist politician will never defeat a leader who has positioned themselves as a populist, regardless whether this façade bears any resemblance to the truth or not.

This matchup would not end well for Biden, but would definitely be a preferable option for the DNC, rather than allowing Bernie Sanders to run as the Democratic Party candidate. The truth is, only a populist can beat a populist in this current political climate and Bernie is the ultimate anti-establishment candidate. Sanders is perfectly suited to dismantle Trump and his dystopian nightmare. As they say styles make fights and this would be a cracker.

 

 

 

The trouble with centrists is…..

Justin Trudeau, bless him. This is a man who built a whole brand on identity politics, changing laws in Canada to fit his political agenda. This is a leader who is happy to continue former PM Stephen Harper’s work, destroying Alberta in order to pursue only the dirtiest of methods to produce oil. In contrast Trudeau has constructed a government that is morally outraged if an individual is caught using the wrong pronouns regarding someone’s identity. This type of “faux pas” potentially can land you in big trouble under Bill C-16! So forgive me if I take some time out of my day to ridicule this man.

If you are going take the path of the identarian righteous, be sure to have no skeletons in your cupboard/closet or ensure that you’ve deleted any trace of being a fallible human being. It’s a little like “original sin” only Social Justice Warriors usually offer no form of redemption. I’d like to think that the SJW brigade will be as hard on him as they would be on any other cis gendered, white man, who transgresses across their puritanical boundaries, but alas, I suspect equal handedness is not an identarians strong point.

For those who have been living in a cave, or quite rightly have better things to do, you may have missed that Mr Social Justice dressed up as a genie nearly 20 years ago, complete with brownface. Some of you will be instinctively outraged and consider this as deeply racist. While the more pragmatic among us are probably thinking “well that wasn’t a smart thing to do, if you’re going to pursue a career in public office built entirely on identity politics”. Just for reference, you’ll find me in group two.

Do I think what he did was racist? Nah, it has to be put into context, but context appears illusive in this era of instant outrage. Under normal circumstances identarians both in the media and among the activists would devour him, but I guess Super Justin will get a pass. He’s already rocked up to the cameras while giving his best little boy lost impersonation and he may well cop a little flack, but in the end I’m sure he’ll live to fight another day.

This, however, is not an article on the exploits of Teflon Trudeau, but more about the hypocrisy centrists in general. Firstly I acknowledge that the term liberal is as wide as the political chasm between Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump. It has quite specific meanings dependent on the country involved. In the US it can range from centre right often known as classical liberalism through to the centre left sometimes called modern liberalism, which includes social liberalism. Hence, why I opted for the term centrist.

It’s a political stance that could be used to describe Tony Blair, Justin Trudeau, Hillary Clinton, Jo Swinson (Lib Dems UK), Nicola Sturgeon (SNP UK) and Joe Biden (US ex Vice President) among countless others. In short, a centrist makes an appeal to the public based on competency. The idea is to appear slick, media savvy and professional, a political insider if you will. This of course can backfire spectacularly if confronted with a populist or outsider such as Trump, as seen in the case of Hillary Clinton.

Many people have suggested that centrist politics in our current polarised political climate are dead, but not so quick with the obituary. Firstly, I’m going to propose a simple definition to make thinks easier when separating centrist liberals from the left. My view goes as follows; if you embrace capitalism and promote it as the best way for society to proceed and flourish, then you are not on the left. To clarify, you could be stuck in a capitalist society working towards substantial change through democratic means, such as Corbyn, for me that’s fine. But, to not search or strive for a better system outside of capitalism is a departure from the left, in my opinion.

In recent times centrists, liberals, 3rd wayers or whatever you want to call them generally promote shades of a similar viewpoint. It goes roughly like this, they support capitalism, some more fervently than others and they routinely use social justice as a tool of control. The whole “liberal” thing can be baffling, from the Democrats in the US, the Liberals Democrats in the UK, the Liberal Party in Canada and even the confusingly named Australian Liberal Party, which describe themselves as centre-right. Simplistically, what all of these parties have in common is they have nothing to do with the left.

Of course there are a small group of politicians who are part of the Democrats and who proclaim to be on the left, however, the driving force is still very much from the centre/centre-right or corporate Democrats. This was never more obvious, than when Bernie Sanders ran in the 2016 primaries and how biased the DNC were in favour of Hillary Clinton. In global terms many of Bernie’s proposals would be seen no more than common sense centrist ideas, hardly an extremist. Although, in the socialist phobic US he is laughably considered in some political circles as the reincarnation of Lenin.

In many ways I have more of a problem with centrists than I do with the Republicans (US), Conservatives (UK) and the National Party (NZ). With right-wingers you know where you stand, unless of course you are politically illiterate or simply uninterested. Take Boris Johnson, he is an upper class Conservative Prime Minister, who is a direct descendant from George II and a distant cousin of the present Queen. His full name is Alexander Boris de Pfeffel Johnson, he was educated at Eton School and attended Oxford University. It doesn’t take a genius to work out he probably isn’t a man of the people or not people you and I know.

In contrast centrists may sound like they care, they’ll talk endlessly about reducing gender wage gaps, and racial inequality. They may even look and appear empathic, but underneath the façade they are deeply committed to corporate capitalism. Former President, Barack Obama was the poster boy of centrism, known for his shapeshifting style of politics, consisting of all spin and no substance. Incidentally, he left the White House with the military still bombing 8 countries, more than George W, while stealing from the US treasury to enrich the corporate elite.

Obama didn’t invent identity politics, but he did manage to force it upon the mainstream’s consciousness. In brief, it is the notion that an individual’s varying identities shape their political views and is the primary method for which most parties now rally support. In many nations within the ‘anglosphere’ the idea of “one nation” or the notion of being “colour blind” or “group blind” is considered outdated and racist. However, this approach was born not out of ignorance for other people’s struggles, rather out of unity to fight against the tiny cabal of the ruling elite that continue to pull the strings even today.

Now, competing groups repeatedly fight for airtime, desperate to be recognised as more oppressed than the other. This moves away from inclusion and universalism towards a society punctuated by deep division. What transpires is exclusivity and a hierarchy regarding who can or cannot speak on certain matters based on their identity. As the game continues, groups split further, in their quest for the title of the least privileged. In general, when groups feel threatened and ignored they retreat into tribalism closing ranks, while becoming more authoritarian and punitive towards outsiders. This is occurring all over the political map and is quite clearly not a galvanising force.

In the US one of the major factors that separates the left from the right is identity politics. Even most political commentators will declare someone on the left or indeed the far left completely dependent on their views around social justice. In the US there is no coherent or forceful economic argument critiquing capitalism while envisioning an alternative path forward. All roads inevitably lead to identity politics, but this is a cul de sac offering no unified vision for a movement that could benefit the most amount of people.

Centrists are marinated in hypocrisy. They talk about equality, but only in the narrow corridor of identity be it; race, gender or sexuality. This conveniently ignores something that affects more people on a daily basis than any other factor. An issue that can cause premature death, an escalation in crime, poorer education, an increase in wars, a demise in social cohesion, destruction of our planet and an erosion of our wellbeing. This my friends is the gap in social economic status, both through relative poverty and general poverty. It has a profound effect on the quality of life and the cause is capitalism.

Returning to Trudeau and his liberal ‘credentials’. In 2018 Trudeau proposed to nationalise the Kinder Morgan pipeline running from the tar sands in Alberta to British Columbia. Trudeau stated to a room full of oil executives back in 2017, “which country would leave 173bn barrels in the ground”. My answer would be, a government and Prime Minister who truly cares about the planet including its inhabitants. This is a typical centrist strategy which they like to refer to as pragmatism. In truth Trudeau is playing politics, to not go ahead with his pro-oil stance could result in a damaging backlash in Alberta, thus jeopardising any future re-election hopes.

Trudeau virtue signalling

Where Trudeau excels, is playing the equity card and his carefully crafted persona. He calls himself a feminist and was quick to assemble a gender-balanced cabinet, while appointing a significant number of people of colour to cabinet positions. Despite his posturing as a purveyor of all things social justice, Captain Fantastic is still happy to sell weapons to some of the most vicious and misogynistic countries in the world; Saudi Arabia and Columbia to name a couple. Trudeau is pro Trans Pacific Partnership and his main idea regarding reducing economic inequality as stated in Davos recently was to hire more women. He is the master of centrist deception, saying one thing but doing another.

People in the UK have seen first hand the empty rhetoric of a centrist in the form of Tony Blair, the master of spin, treachery and deceit. Like Obama, Blair managed to convince the working class after years of Thatcherism and then John Major that he could offer something different for the people. What Blair did do was market his product better than the Tories, while putting the financialisaton of the country on steroids.

To his credit Tony Blair introduced to the UK Sure Start and the minimum wage, but he also ushered in university tuition fees and the “Academy Scheme”, consisting of schools that were publicly financed while privately administrated. In health he created an internal market within the NHS and used the Public Finance Initiative to fund reforms. This was a private-public partnership that has proved more expensive than any publicly funded solution would have been. Blair also deregulated the finance sector, while declaring the Bank of England independent. Most of these ideas were purposefully ripped straight out of the Milton Friedman playbook for a neoliberal economy.

Blair also made a point of switching his target voters from the working class to the middle class, losing hundreds and thousands of core Labour Party members across traditional Labour heartlands. Millions of people in the North, the Midlands and areas such as South Wales felt marginalised or excluded from any economic prosperity. Despite all of this his worst decision undoubtedly, was taking Britain to war in Iraq on a lie centred around the illusive “weapons of mass destruction”. No politician’s reputation should remain intact after such a catastrophic move.

In the UK today still exists what is generally known as Britain’s 3rd party, the Liberal Democrats, a self proclaimed centrist group, currently led by Jo Swinson. The Lib Dem’s recent history is patchy at best, being complicit with the Conservatives throughout David Cameron’s austerity offensive during the time of the Con/Lib Dem coalition government. This saw their MP numbers reduce from 57 MP’s to 8, now however, they seem to be on the ascendancy thanks to their use of Brexit and splits within the two main parties.

New defecting MP’s such as Chuka Umunna and Luciana Berger are prototypical centrists, careerist MP’s who fitted in well with New Labour, but not so snug in Jeremy Corbyn’s democratic socialist idea of the Labour Party. Supposedly pragmatic, they are slick, polished and completely driven by identity politics. Spending the best part of the last two years trying to oust Corbyn on fabricated and unfounded anti-Semitic allegations.

Head honcho Jo Swinson has aligned the Lib Dems as the primary remain party, the ultimate safe space for the middle class, bourgeoisie pious brigade. A group who insists on telling any ‘leave’ voter who will listen (or not) how wrong, racist and stupid they are. Without even considering the individual’s personal reasons for choosing Brexit, which incidentally was primarily a kickback against the neoliberal establishment, for which centrists are so wedded to. It’s important to note that during the coalition government, Swinson regularly presided over austerity and tax cuts for the rich. Just to clarify, here’s a portion of Jo Swinson’s voting record.

I’ve written this article with the hope of reminding people that an enemy to the people doesn’t automatically possess diametrically opposing views. Sometimes they are parasitic politicians or parties awaiting a chance to latch on so they can benefit from a volatile situation, such as Brexit. Chameleon’s who will say one thing and do the opposite (Obama) or who will champion the requirements of the wealthy to the detriment of the poorest in society while furthering their own careers (Hillary Clinton).

In summary, centrists are made up of professional politicians who will meticulously groom their image and mould themselves accordingly in order to obtain the highest office. These are people who will never reveal what they truly believe, all we are provided with is the hollow shell of a purposefully manufactured, careerist politician. But sometimes, just occasionally like Justin Trudeau they get caught out. Which frankly makes me smile from ear to ear. Just don’t expect too much to come from it.