Ringtone & Remixes site, by ed

Ringtones & Remixes


ed

Chatting with a Confucian mate via msn messenger

The following is an excerpt from an msn chat I had with a chinese mate - whose name has been replaced with ‘mate’ to ‘save his face’ - of mine from singapore this morning. It has been unedited, hence the abbreviations, bad grammar/spelling, and, vulgarities, taught to myself by my many chinese friends in the past - all in good humor of course. That which is ‘parenthesised’ are translations for the benefit of the reader. Vulgarities, however, will be left without explanation - so that I can use it in the UK without raising any brows.


(half way through the ‘conversation’, ed finally gets pissed off.....)

ed: u ah. chat with me and nothing to chat about.  brain off right?

mate: heheheh

ed: ‘hehehe’? respond like filipina when kenna pluck(get scolded) some more

mate: too much bad influence

ed: i attend demos here n u don't ask.  u only interested in sg lifestyle i see.

mate: oops

mate: its been quite boring since u left

ed: thats just one example...chia lat (terrible). as usual ah u.

ed: singaporeans only talk about what sg train them to appreciate.  any new experience n they get nothing from it.

mate: i keep trying to find some inspiration

ed: nothing to do with that. What u want? Viagra for the brain or what? if u have no interest in people, n only interested in yourself u will never have inspiration, or wil have inspiration for the same thing.  if u came to UK i would ask u all about yor experiences there to learn and grow.

mate: i know what i have to do

ed: u know.  but u don't do whats the most obvious.

ed: i’ve tried for years, but can't stimulate curiosity in the chinese mind dei. u read my stuff, and kno me long time. u should kno by now.  I put video of demo and you people think nothing of it. If i put chicks and food and shopping, then u ppl say something. same thing wen talking to others also.

mate: yes, do agree there is still huge degree of chineseness in me....

mate: i got to kick myself to do something about it

mate: tel u million times also no use.  u r really suited to sg ha

ed: if u went overseas and wrote about it and put up video i wl ask becos i want to learn and grow from yor experience n becos i'm interested in u as a friend

mate: to be honest, there are many situations i've remembered and applied alot of principles that i've learnt from u

mate: i've not make full use of what u've taught me...

ed: u only make use of what u can use n not what can make u grow. u r like all of them dei. u won't change for anyone. u expect everyone to conform. how to associate with exceptional ppl like that.

ed: chee bye. scold u there, come here n scold u thru msn about same thing for 10 years.  haha

mate: thanks for the reminder yet again. i'm glad we chat.

ed: dont kk (pretend, be insincere). u thank me as if it worked. lan chiao ok. 

mate: because none here can offer any sincere and indept discussions

ed: giving me the same shit excuse.  How come i never give that excuse. I also mix with ppl there n u right? I already said that before n u stil dare say the same shit.

ed: i learn from the best amongst everyone i meet, while u prefer to learn from the worst or do what everyone do becos it takes little or no effort n ignoring all that different.  doesn’t that attitude sound familiar?

mate: hmm.. that's true..usually easier that way. yah, like all the people here. I kno.

mate: can u offer some suggestion on some blog design pls?

ed: give me blow first

mate: ni na bei

ed: http://bloggerindraft.blogspot.com/2010/03/blogger-template-designer.html. New feature. Any idiot also can do. So no problem for you. haha.

mate: terimakaseh ('thank you' in the Malay language)

ed: read carefully. don’t look at the obvious in the instructions so that you can action immediately. Don’t discount info n u can do it

mate: how's your involvment in the trade union and socialist party there?

ed: dont kk (pretend, be insincere) now

mate: wanted to ask already lah, b4 kena fuck

ed: then no point. no real interest. cannot learn anything dah kotei.

mate: we talk abt other things first mah...

mate: dei, sorry, got to go...meet ahmad for dinner

ed: Anyway, send him my regards. he’s a good guy.

mate: what's your tel no there? i'll text u

ed: no need my number dei. Can skype what. Free mah.

mate: yeah, need to download the prog. in mac

ed: until now stil don’t have? don't wait for Year of the Cockroach to do that. It wil never come.

ed: nex time can lim kopi and cakap. maybe play chinese chess ha?

mate: haha... u cant use the same strategy

ed: yah i know. u already know how to defend against it.

mate: ok, man...take care..send my regards to v.. mail me if u need anything

ed: alright dei. take care kuya

Racist 'Singapore' Blog Awards

[the following is an excerpt from an article published in the year 2009, entitled, Rated-I Awards.]

The singapore blog awards presents gross deficiencies such as its reliance on ‘hits’; a panel consisting solely of Chinese persons; being presented as a Chinese event on the main website; and the standards used to judge the quality of blogs being based solely on a criteria of quality emerging post-marginalisation of difference and cultures not practiced by a majority defined on the basis of race and associated culture – all of which basically promotes the notion, ‘if you aren’t thinking it the Chinese way, you’re in the way.’ Quite culturally introverted and self-absorbed of its initiators and participants don't you think.

The validity of such an award is based on the best that can be identified after the imposition of a singular system of thought and thoughtlessness in the general socio-economic-political milieu over 3 decades. Hence, besides all the winners of, for instance, their ‘insightful’ category being fascist and non-insightful for not noticing this, albeit unwitting, it perpetuates the fallacious notion amongst the ‘majority’ that they are on the right and maximal intellectual and perspectival path. Additionally, the fact that it was simultaneously presented as a chinese event under the guise of bilingualism, and a 'singaporean' event as illustrated by 'Singapore Blog Awards'. In this, we can recognise yet another effort to associate 'singaporean' with 'chinese' and exclude all difference in typically fascist fashion. Of course, given the fascist nature of most singaporean 'democrats' and bloggers, it is not surprising that none of the winners of the said awards, amongst almost all other singaporean political observers, appreciated this point.

Hence, it can very plausibly be argued that the 'SgBlogAwards' are little more than an effort to identify 'insight' in a successfully post-fascist state that simultaneously sets these diminutive standards as the one worthy of conformity for the purpose of maintaining the status quo. In that, these 'winners' can be likened to the Hitler, or more accurately, 'Confucian', jugend whom are there to set the perspectival standards of the nation as the cream of the fascist crop.

I would call upon all bloggers to display the blog button above as a show of support for an egalitarian version of a truly 'Singaporean' blog awards, and till then, to boycott the current exclusionist version. This is not a favour for those whom are not represented through the presentation and approach by 'S'pore Blog Awards', but your duty.

I've often stated that the people in singapore are grossly racist, or most accustomed to 1st/2nd class citizenship, not necessarily by what they say or do, but what they fail to say or do when it ought to be said and done. I sincerely hope that this initiative garners enough support so that it would go some way in enabling such an assumption to be deemed nothing but a discountable stereotype - well, that's the way they'd do it in the UK anyway.

Perhaps some might choose to hide behind the defence that singapore isn't the UK, but right is right whatever point it is located on the compass. In support, we would be indicating that we aren't 'Chinese', 'Malay', 'Indian', 'Others', 'Klingons', but SINGAPOREAN. And that without equal representation, we can claim to be anything but 'singaporean'.












according2,


ed

Goh Keng Swee et al, Confucian 'Rothschilds'?

[left to right: Goh Keng Swee, Toh Chin Chye, Lee Kuan Yew]


I really don’t understand these accolades spewing from the orifices of singapore’s so-called ‘oppositional’ elements - from Yap (who calls himself ‘Uncle’ Yap) to The Online Citizen). Yap, for instance, actually gives the bloke credit for not earning as much as the ministers of today. Well, it’s not as if he would refuse if he was a minister today, and its not as if he took vociferous issue with it when it started climbing years ago.

Well, i’m not surprised. Given the way these people take issue with various ministers’ stance on policies, whilst forgetting that in a Legalist-Confucian state, no ministerial minion is going to be doing anything without the go-ahead of the ‘Song of Heaven’, it is no wonder that they might be profuse in their tributes and what-nots in the face of Keng Swee dropping of the twig.

Let’s get one thing straight shall we boys and girls. He was a member of the People’s Action Party. He was the Deputy Chairperson of the Government of Singapore Investment Corporation - the body that ‘oppositional’ elements have been accusing of ripping of the people - from 1981 to 1994, and and which he was a key person in initiating. And if that isn’t enough, He was also the Chairperson of N.M. Rothschild & Sons (singapore) - which is another sort of ‘GIC’, except on a Global scale, and has been linked to various global elitist ‘conspiratorial’ bodies. Keng Swee also, with regards to the cessation of singapore from the Federation, stated that it, ‘was the best thing that ever happened to singapore.‘ He was also the Chairperson of the Board of Governors of the Institute of East Asian Philosophies - which was originally founded to study Confucianism - a system designed to garner subservience, depoliticisation, and promote traditionalism.

If these aren’t enough to cast doubt on his being ‘a man of the people’, than try to remember that Goh was one of the pillars of the PAP, and didn’t take issue with that which the so-called opposition decries today and in years past. Neither did he seem to be averse to ultra-right wing policies of the PAP that blatantly created, and than favoured one ‘race’ over others so that they may serve as the 'host' and buffer against critique and empathy. For instance, did the racist SAP school system not exist in the 70s? Was he against the various movements against oppositional elements in a variety of Internal Security Department operations? Was he against the death penalty? And did he not favour economic development over social services? - not that we couldn’t have the two. And hence, can we not conclude that Goh Keng Swee was one of the big wigs behind turning singapore, its depoliticised relationship with the party in power, and the bigoted/apathetic/self-absorbed interrelationship between the people?

The perspectives of the PAP has been years in its implementation, and decades-old in its formulation. To what degree can we say that Goh Keng Swee is a divergence from its orientation?

Well, i’ll leave it to the reader to do relevant research on these matters. Just remember, it is not only by our insights that we are to be known, but by our oversights as well. In appreciating that point, we’d be able to better judge Goh Keng Swee et al, the 'oppositional' elements, and, of course, ourselves.


related (external) articles:

Singapore: A historical background

Goh Keng Swee: Wiki

Rothschild Family, series of 4 videos. Videos will play automatically one after the other. The first is a 'quotation-style' clip, after which, a documentary follows.





ed

Should there be a minimum price for alcohol?

Should there be a minimum price for alcohol?


Supermarket chain Tesco says it wants to see curbs on the sale of cheap alcohol during this parliament. Do you agree?

Tesco has welcomed a promise by the coalition government to ban below-cost sales of alcohol in England and Wales. But the UK's biggest retailer has gone further, proposing the more radical step of introducing a minimum price.

Greater Manchester Police Chief Constable Peter Fahy said there was a British culture of excessive drinking that was encouraged by low prices. He went on to say he was very pleased that the price of alcohol was being addressed because of the "huge impact" it has "on both the police service and the health service".

Should the government set the price for alcohol or should it be left to the retailers? Is excessive drinking a result of low prices? Will a minimum price make any different to the drinking culture?

[the following comment was placed in the comments section in BBC's: Should there be a minimum price for alcohol?]


ed:

Well, is this another case of exploiting misery or weaknesses for the sake of profit? Perhaps all profits or sums accrued from price adjustments arising out of the minimum price ought to be channelled into charities.

But i have to agree with some of the commentators that this has to be complemented with education and doing something about those factors in society that might contribute to excessive drinking. However, if we rely on education alone, that can be tantamount to suppressing those positive aspects of our persona that is taking solace in alcohol for want of more positive avenues in society where it can articulate itself.

When we compensate for being deprived through less than laudable pastimes, the greater evil is not these pastimes, but not being able to access those avenues or opportunities where we can realise ourselves to the fullest. If this is not addressed for some time, than these compensatory pastimes become 'culture', and hence, more resilient to change. And that is when we move on to blaming the victim and talk about 'education'.

When we talk about 'minimum price' in this type of situation, we ought to complement it with doing the 'maximum' in addressing the social conditions that give rise to it - lest we be complicit in the production of, and profitting from, the consequences of the overarching conditions that we take to be 'natural'.


ed

Time for another bout of racist Singapore Blog Awards

Well, well, I’ve often said that there is no reasoning with Confucians. They are going to do exactly what caters to their self-interest or that which they are accustomed to - unless the order comes from top-down, is the fashion of the day, or there is a long queue for them to get behind. That comes with the combination of top-down oppression/suppression, monoculturalism, traditionalism, and all of which, breeds self-absorption, bigotry, and a penchant for the obvious as opposed to the detail.

So the racist SG blogwards has started again - supported by Singapore Press Holdings and Bloggers. Singapore started off as a Malay state, than moved on to being a multicultural one, and now.....

I’ll let the picture above do the talking.

This, by the way, is an indictment of the people for not taking issue with that which excludes and underdevelops everyone except the 'we are majority what!'. Quite childish isn't it. I suppose it is quite nice to be able to blame the government for everything and not notice the degree to which the evils that come from atop has been internalised amongst most of the population. Don’t forget to notice ‘blogger’ and ‘opposition’ silence on this, whilst many amongst them, some of whom claim to be ‘democrats’, will be happily preparing for it, completely unawares that their oversights cast serious doubt on their egalitarian spirit. You see, in Singapore, being a 'democrat' and an 'egalitarian' means two different things. They overlap, but that which falls out of this overlap is that which argues for their being nothing more than 'fascist democrats'. Well, this is just one amongst a multitude of other exclusionist approaches in singapore’s ‘multicultural’ milieu that generally goes unnoticed by the perspectivally medieval people of singapore. Same thing last year. Let’s see whether there is any change this year.

I've said quite a bit about it last year, and hence, will leave the reader with the following link, if s/he cares to peruse it, even if it probably wouldn't cater to her/is interests.

related articles: SG blogawards Thumbs-down [first published, 2009]



ed

in comment, 'Everybody Draw Muhammad Day'

The following is a brief comment placed on Ben Cheah's site in response to the following (excerpted).

BBC article: US cartoonist apologises over Facebook Muhammad row

Ben:

“Everybody Draw Muhammad Day has faced criticism by the usual hardliners, and in the Western media. The issue at hand, apparently, is this divide between freedom of speech and religion, and religious tolerance/harmony.

Everybody Draw Muhammad Day is slammed because, among other things, it violates one of the beliefs of Islam, specifically a prohibition against producing representations of the Prophet Muhammad, Allah, and other major religious figures. The idea was doing so would defeat the idea of idolatry. By drawing a picture of Muhammad, one would violate this principle, and so commit blasphemy and disrespect Islam.

Very well. But let me draw your attention to a little-known fact. Every day, someone, somewhere, deliberately commits sacrilege.

If you eat meat, you violate the Mahayana Buddhist belief of abstaining from harming sentient beings and cultivation of compassion.

If you eat pork, you violate Jewish and Muslim dietary regulations.

If you worship multiple gods, you violate one of God’s commandments.

If you worship a Creator deity, you violate Buddhist philosophy.”

source: our daily sacrilege

*

ed:

The parallels you draw between a non-muslim eating pork and a non-muslim 'drawing Muhammad' is not entirely relevant. Let's not forget the fuss kicked up, and rightly so, when Rony et all 'dissed' Buddhism. It is this that can be deemed similar to the 'draw Muhammad Day'.

To us, non-Muslims, we might think, 'where's the insult in that?' But this is where we ought to take into consideration what is deemed to be an insult to the Muslims. The consumption of pork, whilst a sin to the Muslims, is not tantamount to blasphemy. Though blasphemy is a sin. The overlap does not mean similitude. Hence, non-Muslims are free to do as they please with regards to 'sins'. But blasphemy takes on the prominent figure or God/s of a faith. That is another matter altogether.

I suppose, amongst other reasons, to 'draw Muhammad' is to reduce him to a tangible entity as opposed to a system of ideas that is a part of, and received from, a celestial one. I have recognised, for a few years now, that this aspect of Islam operates at a higher metaphysical level compared to other faiths (i will not go into that at present). Hence, the tendency to view 'drawing' Muhammad as blasphemy. I think we can learn more from the observance of and reflection upon this tradition than to simply view all reality as our own experiences accustom us.

Secondly, I really don't see how a 'Draw Muhammad Day' is supposed to promote understanding or build ties with the Muslim community when non-Muslims would generally know little about Muhammad other than that garnered from the popular media. That is little more than exploring an individual whom we have little knowledge about through a drawing. This, I dare say, is quite the insult to Islam and Muslims.

‘Everybody Draw Muhammad’ is a statement against the Islamic perspective as it attempts to protect the creators of ‘south park’ from threats by providing them with a human buffer zone comprising fans. In essence, it attempts to enlist even more in the war against all that is different from the west, and in particular the Juvenile State of America. They call it the freedom of speech. I call it an abuse of it.

ed

Tech: Thoughts on the Canon HF S200 video camera

Well, after disappointing footage quality with the ‘Take Back Parliament’ video, and with my missing the shot of Nick Clegg addressing the TBP movement at Transport House as my video-cam was tilted in the wrong angle above my head, and which I didn’t realise as it had no tilting screen - or maybe a combo of that plus some perspectival deficiency on my part - I acquired a quite proper video-cam. That would be the Canon HF S200 with DM-100 Directional Microphone.

What led to this move from the VadoHD and JVC HD, both, literally, pocket-sized cams, is not really the resolution of the footage, which is certainly good enough for the internet, but the shakiness of the footage, the absence of a proper zoom, and the sound quality. [go HERE for the TBP video shot with a JVC HD]

With regards to the shakiness, this is most obvious when one ‘pans’ without a tripod - that is, turning the camera from one point to another. And with lower quality CMOS sensors, we have something called a ‘rolling shutter’ effect that causes jitters in the footage when one pans. Whilst you still get it in higher-range video-cams, it is less obvious. I’d probably move on to a CCD camera - i.e. Canon GL2 - in the future which is about $500 more and which i discovered only after purchasing this camera.

I also realised the need for a proper and relatively longer zoom when I attended the May Day rally at Trafalgar - some people aspire to Harrods or the Tower Bridge and other ‘touristy’ locales, but for myself, it is generally the culture and political vibrancy, or lack of, that interests me - and couldn’t get close-ups of the speeches. In addition to this, being into photography, i appreciate the value of ‘artistic’ close-up shots taken with telephoto zooms and thought that one would be able to better capture the spirit of an event if one incorporates the ‘telephoto’ perspective into a ‘scenic’ one. That is, close ups of scenes embedded within a wider view of a scene. At certain times, one would not be able to get ‘up close and personal’ with aspects of a scene, and that is when the zoom capability will come in most handy. For instance, I did some close up photographic shots of the TBP demo which I thought would serve to bring out the flavour of the scene if caught on video and embedded between a ‘wider’ scene.

The sound quality captured with the in-built microphone Canon is obviously superior to any of my ipod-sized cameras. Now if you’re wondering what’s that protruding implement on the top of the Canon, that is the ‘directional microphone’ (purchased separately). It enables one to choose to focus on the sound coming from a particular direction whilst significantly cutting out the sounds that come from outside it. You have a choice between ‘shot gun’, which focuses directly on the individual or sound source it is pointed at, or a 90 or 120 degree angle. It also comes with a ‘wind-sock’ or ‘wind-shield to cut down the sound of, well, the wind. But, i’ll try to minimise my use of it as, unlike my time as a ‘far east kid’ in the 80s, i’m not an attention-seeker, unless it is my turn to speak that is. For an excellent review of the microphone, and which was instrumental in my deciding to get it, may be found at Starfed (youtube).

For mac-users, it works well with imovie 09’. Personally, i’m considering getting a Final Cut Express as i’m more accustomed to the features with Adobe’s Premiere Pro which I used in my Windows (ugh!) days. But for general users, Imovie 09’ runs very well with it and converts the video for editing without any problem.

Well, i’ll give the camera a run in the next event that’s on. If you want to see a good test-run video shot with the Canon HF S200, you can check it out HERE.


ed

My thoughts on the ‘Take Back Parliament’ movement

Having been a part of the first TBP demonstration in London, I have to say that I have to hand it to the participants, and to the Brits, for their egalitarian and don’t-take-crap approach.

It’s most refreshing for one such as myself who had to put up with the generally ‘it’s like that one lah’ (that’s the way it is) approach of most of the wombles populating singapore in the face of injustice/racism/top-down pressures/etc, and, of course, not forgetting the fascist/racist opposition whose main claim to being ‘democrats’ is that they oppose the government and not that they aren't generally racist and fascist themselves . I’ve always said that life in singapore takes away your faith in humanity, whilst in the UK, it reinstates it.

I relished in the angst of those whom participated in the event. It was remarkable that they could just decide, at Trafalgar Square, to take a demonstrative march-cum-yell past the PM’s abode, and the HQs of the two top parties, ending off outside the Lib-Dem HQ. In singapore, they probably would have set up firing squads, unleashed the Gurkhas, beaten everyone to a pulp, and detained everyone and their pet dogs without trial under the Internal Security Act for that. But let’s not just blame the state shall we. I’ve met many Chinese who’ve said, “demonstrate for what? Don’t make trouble. All this is chaos.” And we should also keep in mind that people would rather gather to moan the passing of MJ than they would to protest against the infliction of the death sentence on a human being. These are people who prefer the familiarity of the dungeon than go through the trouble of fighting their way out. That’s Confucianism in a nutshell for you.

But that said, I wouldn’t say that the TBP movement is all that perfect either. I couldn’t help but notice how much of the young crowd orgased when Nick Clegg appeared. And it attained ‘multiple’ proportions when he started spewing out the usual political BS. I could hear him loud and clear as I was within shoe-throwing distance from the bloke and I couldn’t help thinking that this guy was basically attempting to get the people on his side so that they might not question after how a party which is the least preferred amongst the top 3 has moved on to playing kingmaker - "I may not be democratically elected to play Kingmaker, but hey, who cares? I'm on your side!". I wondered how they could cheer such a bloke given their democratic inclinations. It seemed quite the contradiction. On the one hand, democracy had taken a good stiff one up the rear with the said 3rd-preferred playing kingmaker. On the other, they were relying on him to deliver a more representative democracy to the people. I couldn’t help wondering if the first compromised the third - with the ‘fixed-term’ parliament and AV system that has since been put forth with much vigour, I’m not surprised.

But, I suppose, the cheers for Clegg was not really for him, but a self-congratulatory one accorded to themselves as they had managed to shout him out of his office to address them. What a kick it must have been for many, and the organisers. It gave them the impression that they mattered. They were highly gratified. Who cared that it was this fellow was going to decide whether it was the Conservatives or Labour that was going to form the government and not the people. He had come out to say ‘hi’ to them when they had asked. So he must be representative, and of the people, by the people and for the people right?

And then, being a true politician, Clegg begins to give credit to the people for what he was already going to do by saying that his success in effectuating a more representative electoral system was dependent on their demonstrative persistency, and that he needed them for democracy to be delivered. What a load of BS, I thought, propped up against a tree beside official journalists (I had videoed the speech but i caught it at a rubbish angle whilst holding the pocket-sized video-cam way above my head...thereafter, pissed off at the result, I got myself a video-cam with a tilting screen - a Canon HF S200). I could see the ‘incorporation of dissent’ thing going on as Clegg spoke and the crowd cheered with each passing period. And then, like the meandering plumes of smoke after the bang, they dispersed.

I’m not ‘dissing’ the whole of the TBP movement or its underlying spirit, and I still do support it. However, a combination of being exposed to the political milieu in Singapore, and prior to which, in the UK, has trained me to appreciate how oversights close more doors than are opened by insights. If anything, the combination of the two tend to refine evils as opposed to eradicating them. And if compromise can be reached via the inclusion-cum-incorporation of the people, none are going to be any the wiser.

Whilst I left feeling quite enlivened by it all - though the May Day demonstrations were more to my taste as it addressed underlying issues as opposed to the consequences of one’s ignoring said underlying issues - I can’t say that there wasn’t a question mark hovering above my head. I thought, very soon, the TBP are going to be quite fragmented between various schools of thought divided between lib dem supporters, AV supporters, PR supporters, etc. Nothing wrong with that of course, but I wouldn’t want that to compromise the unity of the movement - as has been the case with the Socialist movement. Rather, i would like to see the movement evolve in a dialectical fashion, and progressively toward a more enlightened view of democracy.

But I am nagged by the fact that the crowd cheered on Clegg, when he was nothing short of an affront to democracy by way of his playing said kingmaker. Perhaps, the crowd, taking things as it is, thought they would make the best of a bad situation by negotiating with him. I’ve always been sceptical about compromising with the devil. It just means that the angel is left to ply its trade whilst being relieved of its wings to rise truly higher than the rest.

We’ll see.


ed

Socialist Party UK: ConDemed to cuts - time for the fight of our lives‏

The following is republished from an email received from the Socialist Party UK.


BRITAIN HAS been 'Con Dem-ned' to a future of savage attacks on public services, pay, pensions and benefits combined with tax increases for working and middle-class people.

The Tory/Liberal coalition has been cobbled together in a desperate attempt to create a government strong enough to launch an all-out onslaught on the living standards of the working class.
Hannah Sell, Socialist Party deputy general secretary

Two thirds of the new cabinet went to public school. This is a government of the elite, for the elite, and it is going to set out to hammer the rest of us.

Mervyn King, unelected governor of the Bank of England, spoke on behalf of the majority of Britain's capitalist class when he welcomed the government's cuts plans and egged it on to go further in its emergency budget.

It should not be forgotten that it was Gordon Brown, in 1997, who first gave the Bank of England independence from the government, freeing it to campaign blatantly on behalf of the capitalist class.

However, Cameron and Clegg do not need egging on. The £6 billion worth of cuts that has been declared is the tip of an enormous iceberg. It is not certain how quickly the rest of the iceberg will be revealed but there is no doubt that it will be.

The cuts that will be announced in the emergency budget will only be the beginning. According to the Financial Times (13 May 2010):

"Mr Osborne will have to announce public spending cuts of £57 billion a year from a non-protected budget of about £260 billion - cuts of about 22%. It goes without saying that this will prove a sharp test of political will... Britain's public sector will face similar austerity measures to those seen in Ireland, Greece, Portugal and Spain."

It will and, like in those countries, we will see mass movements of the working class in opposition to the cuts.

Movements

Such movements can force even strong governments to retreat. In Britain the profound weakness and division of this 'government of losers' will be revealed.

Almost seven million people voted Liberal Democrat. The vast majority did so believing that the Liberal Democrats were a radical, anti-Tory party. Now their illusions have been brutally shattered as the Liberal Democrats have gaily burned their election manifesto in return for a taste of power.

The only establishment party that made a claim to be against the war in Afghanistan, the Liberal Democrats' negotiators have accepted the continuation of the occupation without a moment's hesitation.

They signed up just as eagerly for the Tories' plans to slash public spending. The Tories, determined to make sure that the coalition partner takes its share of the blame have surrounded the chancellor, George Osborne, with a Liberal Democrat guard of axemen.

Vince Cable has become business secretary. David Laws, a millionaire and ex-managing director of JP Morgan, has taken on the job of chief secretary of the treasury, a job which the Tory, Philip Hammond, who held the shadow post, predicted would result in its occupant's face being stuck on dartboards in workplaces up and down the country.

Thatcherism

The Liberal Democrats have also taken on the job of Scottish secretary. The memories of Thatcherism run so deep in Scotland that the Tories remain virtually unelectable - with only one seat! The Lib Dems currently have seven but, by tying their wagon to the Tories, they too will now face oblivion in Scotland.

Millions of Lib Dem voters, and many - perhaps even a majority - of the party's activists will abandon the Liberal Democrats because of what they see as a terrible betrayal.

At parliamentary level, however, it seems for now that the coalition has been reluctantly accepted even by more radical Liberal Democrat MPs.

This is only possible because the Liberal Democrats - although always a capitalist party - have suffered their own equivalent to Blairism.

Clegg and his allies around the 'Orange Book' successfully fought to move the party to the right on a whole number of issues; particularly on economic questions.

So much in common

The result is a situation where the Tory negotiators can describe, probably genuinely, their happiness in discovering they had so much in common with their Lib Dem counterparts - both 'socially liberal and economically conservative', as William Hague put it.

Cameron and co were forced into this coalition by their failure to win a majority. But now it exists they are trying to use it for their own ends, including leaning on the Liberal Democrats against the Tories' own ultra-conservative wing.

The leadership of the Tories has been prepared to contemplate allowing the possibility of joining the rest of the world and allowing a referendum on moving the voting system away from 'first past the post', in order to attempt to create a stable government together with the Liberal Democrats.

The Tories have also been prepared to promise fixed-term parliaments and, in an anti-democratic measure which has an element of parliamentary bonapartism, to promise that the support of 55% of MPs will be required in order to dissolve parliament.

Even if this measure makes it onto the statute books, which is far from certain, it will not be workable in reality.

If 51% of MPs vote to dissolve parliament no government is going to be able to refuse to call a general election on the grounds that 55% is required constitutionally!

Shatter

Despite all the efforts of Clegg and Cameron to create a stable government, this weak and rickety coalition is likely to shatter under the pressure of events at a certain point, probably in response to mass movements of the working class.

Radical Lib Dem MPs may be reluctantly acquiescing to the situation now, but the pressure on them will be enormous when their ministers are proposing 22% cuts in public spending.

The Lib Dems won many young people's votes by claiming that they would abolish university tuition fees - although, in reality, Clegg had already used the economic crisis as an excuse to postpone this pledge into the distant future.

Now Lib Dem MPs are likely to be sitting on their hands while their government lifts the cap on tuition fees and slaughters university spending.

Explosive

Combined with growing mass youth unemployment - already the highest in twenty years - this will lead to an explosive situation amongst young people in Britain.

Youth Fight for Jobs will have a crucial role to play in organising that anger, including by initiating school student and student strikes.

The measures planned by the government are very likely, as we have warned, to lead to a 'double-dip' recession.

As David Blanchflower, ex-member of the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee, put it on 12 May:

"Anybody who is going to start cutting in [the current economic position] is basically going to push us into that death spiral. That's what we've avoided until this date. We need to be stimulating growth, not withdrawing multiple billions out of the system."

This is accurate, but it is not preventing the representatives of capitalism worldwide bowing to the will of the market - that is to the views of a handful of billionaire gamblers - and demanding speedy cuts in public spending.

In Spain the prime minister, Zapatero, has announced a new 'surprise' cut of 5% in civil service pay after he received a phone call from Obama pleading with him to take "resolute action".

Spain

The Spanish working class has given a 'resolute response' by calling a public sector general strike.

We are at the beginning, Europe-wide, of what will be the mother of all battles to defend workers from the onslaught of capital.

Twenty years ago in Britain our party, (then the Militant) led the 18 million-strong movement that brought down Thatcher - the Iron Lady - and her hated poll tax.

Clegg and Cameron are more like Chihuahuas (as Boris Johnson suggested) than iron men, but we are going to need a similar movement to defeat them and their cuts.

With the poll tax, even without the intervention of organised socialists, there would have been a mass outpouring of rage against the iniquity of the tax.

Our role was to channel the anger into an organised movement.

The scale of the cuts coming in Britain means we will face the same situation, but more so. It is true that the political understanding of the working class has not yet caught up with the changed economic situation, and that the confusion that exists can be prolonged by the lack of a mass workers' party.

But, despite these complications, the working class will be forced to fight back to defend itself and over time will draw political conclusions out of its experience in those struggles.

Nonetheless, socialists have a vital task in campaigning for a programme that will take the movement forward at each stage.

There is no doubt that the right-wing trade union leaders will want to try to compromise with the government - accepting some cuts to try to prevent others.

But only a militant, determined struggle against all cuts will be successful.

First step

The first step needs to be a campaign for a massive national trade union led demonstration against all cuts in public services.

This needs to be linked to the development of local anti-cuts committees to bring together the different campaigns in preparation for the mass movement that will be necessary.

In Britain, as in other countries, the need for general strike action, probably initially across the public sector, will be posed at a certain stage.

This needs to be linked to arguing the case for a socialist alternative to capitalism. Unlike the governments of Europe, we do not accept the diktats of the markets. Rather than bending the knee to these billionaire blackmailers, the power to hold governments and whole peoples to ransom should be taken away from them.

Not only should the banks be nationalised under democratic workers' control and management, but a state monopoly of foreign trade should be introduced.

Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition

It was to put the case for a socialist alternative that the Trade Unionist and Socialist Coalition (TUSC) stood in the general election.

As The Socialist explained (issue 624), TUSC's excellent campaigns were not fully reflected in the votes we received.

This was partly because TUSC had not had time to establish a national profile but also, as we expected, because many workers who agreed with us felt that they had no choice but to vote for New Labour in order to try to stop the Tories.

This did not represent support for New Labour, which, unlike the Labour Party of the past, is a capitalist party, but rather the hope that the cuts would be a little gentler under a New Labour government.

Ironically, Margaret Hodge, the millionaire New Labour MP for Barking, accurately described the reality when she pleaded with a voter on London TV, "just hold your nose and vote for me"; in that case to stop both the BNP and the Tories.

In fact, although New Labour said that it would not fully wield the axe this year, there would have been no fundamental difference between the cuts of a New Labour government and those of the current coalition.

As Alistair Darling explained, New Labour's cuts would have been "deeper and tougher than those of Thatcher".

Cuts "Deeper and tougher than those of Thatcher" - New Labour

Since the election, some have argued that there is a possibility of shifting New Labour back to the left now that it is out of power.

We do not think this is on the agenda. After the election, a trickle of people joining the Labour Party has been reported, about 12 per constituency, partly disillusioned Lib Dems.

However, to stand a chance of reclaiming capitalist New Labour for the working class it would take a mass influx into the party - of trade unionists and young people - determined to rebuild the democratic structures which have long been destroyed.

To put it mildly, this has not been the experience of the other ex-social democratic parties in Europe, which have not altered their capitalist character when out of power and have largely remained empty shells.

What is more, new left formations - in particular Syriza in Greece - have come into being while the ex-workers' parties have been out of power.

TUSC represents an important preparatory step towards such a formation - which could come into being very quickly under the impact of the stormy events that are coming.

In response to our calls for a new mass workers' party, Len McCluskey, general secretary candidate for Unite the union, has said that Unite would launch a major campaign to reclaim the Labour Party under his leadership.

We think this is a mistaken strategy. We argue for Unite to stop funding New Labour and to begin to build a new party.

Nonetheless, a serious campaign to reclaim New Labour by affiliated trade unions would be a huge step forward on the current policy of the majority of the union leaders of clinging to the coat-tails of the Brownites and the Blairites.

A serious campaign would have to demand that Labour adopts a socialist programme. Key demands would include the repeal of all the anti-trade union laws and opposition to all cuts in public services, not just in words but in action.

Up and down the country Labour councils are going to be implementing the government's massive cuts in public spending 'under protest'.

Take the Liverpool road

It would be necessary to demand that they 'take the Liverpool road' and, following the example of Liverpool city council in the 1980s, refuse to implement cuts, mobilising the workforce and population in a mass campaign in their support.

Such a campaign of defiance could quickly bring down the Tory/Liberal government.

It would also be necessary to demand that the pro-capitalist and pro-war Blairites and Brownites be expelled from the party.

Linked to this would be the rebuilding of democracy within the Labour Party, which is currently non-existent at national level.

The trade unions, the main funders of New Labour, no longer even have the right to move motions at the toothless annual conference.

We do not think that a campaign to reclaim New Labour could succeed. However, were it to do so we would turn towards such a development. Equally, if we are proved correct, the affiliated trade unions would need to draw the conclusion that New Labour could not be reclaimed and take the road of building a new mass party of the working class.

The first issue which will test the strength of the left in New Labour is the debate over its next leader.

Heir to Blair

The character of New Labour is summed up by David Miliband, the current favourite to take the leadership.

Seumas Milne described him accurately (Guardian, 13 May 2010): "The heir to Blair who voted to invade Iraq, outhawked the Bush administration during the 2008 Georgia crisis and has continued to hanker after the marketisation of public services."

The two Eds - Miliband and Balls - are no better. There are no political differences between these candidates. Were they in power the policies that they would be implementing would be almost indistinguishable from those of the Tory/Lib Dem coalition.

However, Socialist Campaign Group MP, John McDonnell, has indicated he will stand again. Last time he could not get the 48 MPs required to even get on the ballot paper, demonstrating the weakness of the Labour left.

This time the threshold is lower, at 33 MPs, but there are now only 18 Labour Representation Committee-backed MPs in parliament.

McDonnell is almost certain to be the only candidate that stands in defence of workers' interests. Therefore, as Socialist Party members will argue, all affiliated trade unions, if they are serious about fighting to reclaim New Labour, should mandate their sponsored MPs to back him.

The general election campaign was the worst in living memory. Nonetheless, it marked an important turning point in Britain's history. Cameron and Clegg have not created a 'new' kind of politics. Their coalition is one more government for the billionaires and the bankers - but the profound crisis of the capitalist profit system means that it will be a more brutal, vicious, anti-working class government than anything we have seen in our lifetimes.

As in Greece, Spain and other countries the working class will respond with mass resistance. We will have opportunities to build mass support for socialism, as the only real alternative to the appalling brutality of the market.


[original source: http://www.socialistparty.org.uk/articles/9537]

In comment, Chinese culture and why SG chinese aren't 'singaporean'

The following is a comment placed on 'solo bear's' site in response to the article, 'PAP's Racist MT Policy, Part 2 - PAP is forcing Han Culture, not Chinese Culture, on us'


I've been stating for some time now that singapore practices Qin-Han culture, which may also be known as China's culture as opposed to 'Chinese' culture.

Once the Chinese come into singapore, they do not come and have to remain as they were but have the potential of becoming 'singaporean' as opposed to being chinese-inhabiting-singapore. That is when they fuse with the best of all and become more than they otherwise would be. The same applies to the rest of the 'races'. As that did not happen, i cannot logically consider the local chinese to be 'singaporean' but as 'chinese inhabiting singapore' as they do not reflect the best of all the other races but have replicated a variant of chinese culture. Putting it simply, they have forced a triangular shaped object into a circular hole. [and viewed the success of this endeavour as evidence that the triangular shape was always circular - whilst validating the value of the tools used to do it as it had delivered 'harmony', if not mutual respect.]

In that sense, I do not consider the Malays or Indians, amongst others, as 'Singaporeans' either since they have been prevented from developing their cultures further in the face of difference, or/and, have been underdeveloped due to the government's monocultural stance. They have becomes less-cum-same as 'chinese' in may respects today.

Yes, whilst chinese culture in singapore may be different from that of the fatherland, this is in degree and not necessarily orientation. Given the cultural introversion, top-down management, traditionalism, conformism, etc, they tend to be united in a foundational sense.

If other cultures exist within China, it is only tolerated insofar as it does not conflict with the Qin-Han ethos. It is an old perspective amongst the chinese that superior peoples will conform to one culture and one authority - also illustrated by the translation for 'zhong guo', meaning 'central land' or 'middle land/kingdom'. Quite fascist don't you think.

In that sense, one cannot say that they are wholly distinctive. The general chinese approach, be it in China, Singapore, or HK, is that you're either like the chinese, don't conflict with them, or don't be at all. In my 'getting along' with the chinese in singapore, it is an unstated rule that one keeps one's own persona at home for the sake of 'harmony'.

As for 'all cultures' having 'their own beauty', that is fine, so long as that 'beauty' does not maintain great ugliness in significant respects. Culture is, simply put, a 'system of thought and thoughtlessness'. It is the latter that indicates the value of the former.


ed

A Conspiratorial View of British Politics

I read a most insightful article by the Third Estate a short while back that observed that the reason why there is little distinction between the right and left with regards to the top 3 parties is that they are so accustomed to pandering to the demands of the public that their ideological compass reflects experiences reminiscent of that which might be experienced in the Bermuda Triangle.

But what’s left unanswered is why said pandering to the demands of the public tends to see a swing of the entire spectrum of the left and right to the right? Well, that’s for another observation, but in my waking moments this morning, I thought that a good strategy to swing them to the right, and the people along with it, would be to infiltrate the left with right-wingers who would then take the party right enough to make the right more palatable. A conspiracy? Or perhaps a sign of times gone right given the masses being increasingly customised for life within a capitalist milieu where both left and right are right off-centre and all become nothing more than the executive arm of the bourgeoisie - as uncle Marx put it.

If we are to buy in to the perspectives of conspiracy theorists who state that the world is being run by a collusive elite; that Blair, amongst others, are ‘33rd degree freemasons’ committed to global dominance - the ‘Headquarters of Supreme Council 33 Degree’ is at 10 Duke Street, London; and take into consideration the alleged workings of the Bliderberg group, the higher echelons of the Freemasons, the Skull and Bones society, Council on Foreign Relations, etc, etc, well, then it shouldn’t be far-fetched to figure that there might be some truth in this. But then again, even if we were to subtract these from the equation, and appreciate the fact that the perpetuation of power requires collusion amongst similarly interested minds, then we have to consider the aforementioned supposition as not only possible, but quite plausible.

The thing is, whether the above is true or not, the more the left and right swing right, the less the impulse amongst the masses to ‘confront’, as opposed to ‘compensate’, for their plight. That’s when we move on to thinking ‘there’s something wrong with me’ as opposed to ‘there’s something wrong with the system’. That’s when we move on to making the best of a bad situation and judging the situation as good insofar as a significant proportion of the population can make the best of said bad situation.

And that’s when we can move on from talking about the left and right to what’s right despite it not being left or right.


ed

SDP sends congrats to Clegg? Does Chee know what he's doing?

The following comment on the matter was placed at Ng E-Jay's site.

"Does Chee know what he's doing? Or perhaps he's just seeking international recognition. Then again, i don't blame him. With increasing recognition, perhaps he might be able to slowly get international attention on singaporean matters. But then again, the SDP isn't really representative and tends to reflect the monocultural perspective of the ruling party. Anyway, that's not the point here.

Does Chee not realise that democracy has been quite severely compromised with the formation of this coalition? I too voted in this election, and for labour, but am appalled that the party which got the second highest votes had to make way for the Lib Dems who came in third, and the latter of which, incidentally, decided which party comprised the coalition."

As I've stated quite a few times in past observations, the singaporean opposition are nothing more than 'fascist democrats' seeking to maintain and increase the advantages of the previously advantaged ('racially' speaking). Hence, i'm not surprised that they, and Chee, would miss the above point given that their democratic perspective is quite out of order. Thus, I thought the title, 'Democrats congratulate Clegg and Aquino' put out by SDP minions to be quite laughable given the contradiction - i.e. if you're a 'democrat', then why congratulate an anti-democratic achievement? For people to recognise the singaporean 'opposition' as democratic, and for Chee to receive awards for his exploits, it can only be because of global ignorance on singaporean matters.

Anyway, in mitigation, 'Dr' Chee is a doctor in neuropsychology and this, therefore, reflects little on his doctorate being of significant value when it comes to his political perspectives. But, I suppose, the relatively less educated populating the 'opposition' need some entitled or knighted-by-prominence-and-arrest-record bloke to look up to so that they can do the confucian thing and mindlessly play follow-the-leader. And, I suppose, their publicising their dispatch of brown-noses to Clegg might give the impression that they have enough stature to do so and hence garner more support amongst a people bred to value prominence as opposed to insight.

Vanessa (vanessa neo, a member of the a2ed team) said some time ago that the greatest achievement of the ruling party in singapore is in producing an 'opposition' that is not dissimilar to themselves.

True.


related article : Cameron & Clegg union - the disproportionate representation of preference?


ed

Is critique by those who ‘quit’ Singapore irrelevant - response to Cain

Cain:
I got the best one that day, while criticizing someone's fascistic statement, I was told 'quitters have no right to comment as they do not know how we Singaporeans feel' or something to that extent.

So now the line has been drawn between 'loyal Singaporeans' and supposed 'quitters' who decide to find themselves a better life.


ed:

I've heard that sort of nonsense quite a few times over the past decade or so. That is just another typical manifestation of the Legalist-Confucian trait of discounting contradiction. i.e. turning away or changing the subject upon contradiction; being accused of being chong hei (long-winded) or 'talking cock'(talking nonsense) when one analyses a situation; their discounting critique or insight of ‘foreign’ origin’ with an, 'the west is the west and we are we'; discounting local evils with an 'everywhere also got racism/not fair/etc', and as you stated, ‘quitters don’t know how singaporeans feel so shut up’.

These idiots ought to be told that 'quitting' comes after how the singaporean who quit felt before quitting.

Hence, her/is criticism is certainly worthy of consideration. So, to say that 'quitters' don't know how 'singaporeans feel' is quite nonsensical. These people ought to be told to give up their right to vote and stick to the 'national' pastime of shopping and eating and leave the decisions to those who use their brains for more than just deciding between which far-flung corner of singapore to eat that which they can get in their own neighbourhood just to add some excitement in their lives.

I'd suggest, Cain, that you ask these people if they would be 'loyal' to an abusive spouse/friend/employer. And if they chose to leave these abusers, would they think their criticism of said spouse/friend/employer to be invalid because they left?

Metaphorically speaking, I would give them a resounding backhander across the face and then, upon their complaining, ask them why they are complaining since they are being slapped no more and therefore wouldn't know how a slap felt as it is already in the past or because they have left the vicinity wherein they received said slap. Does one need to be continuously slapped in order to appreciate the value of pain? I really dislike arguing with the ‘singaporeans’ of today as it is akin to arguing with a child. It doesn’t do much for one’s one perspectival development.

I, personally, would rather, and will indeed, 'quit' singapore in the not too distant future, not because of, metaphorically speaking, an 'abusive spouse', but because the neighbours couldn't care less. I cannot respect an apathetic people, whether they comprise the majority or not.

Generally, singaporeans who don’t ‘quit’ usually fall in the categories of those whom are used to life there; are intellectually underdeveloped by the national experience to the point that they wouldn’t be able to make it elsewhere where one is valued more for intelligence than being part of a 'majority' unless they have lots of money or are able to take refuge in a similar community elsewhere; don’t know better and thus desire not more; have been underdeveloped enough to the point that they do not have the personality to appreciate anything more than shopping, eating, reproducing and dropping off the twig when the time comes; or simply don’t have the opportunity or/and means to do so. That has little or nothing to do with ‘loyalty’. A frog in a well stays within not out of loyalty, but for want of knowledge of that which is without, or/and the means to get out of it.

If we can ‘quit’ when it comes to work/relationships where we can't eradicate evils or control the variables that give it free reign, 'quitting' wouldn't be a sign of weakness, but of wisdom.


ed

Cameron & Clegg union - the disproportionate representation of preference?

(image from the BBC)

Well, on the one hand, we could say that some degree of proportionate representation is being achieved here as the combination of both parties sees their having an overall majority in the House of Parliament. On the one hand, it is not only that the combination of both the Lib Dems and the Conservatives is representative of most of those whom voted in percentage terms, but also the differing stances of those whom supported either party.

But that, to myself, seems quite the sleight of hand. Percentage-wise, the nation could be told that the majority is being represented in a coalition of compromise. However, if the nation’s preference, as illustrated by the percentage of votes acquired by the top 3 parties is taken into consideration, then somethings seems quite amiss here. In order of the nation’s preference, the Conservatives come out first, Labour second, and Lib Dems third. But it is the third that casts the deciding vote on which of the top two forms the government. And given the Cameron-Clegg union, the nation’s second choice is cast aside for the first and third.

Yes, whilst we talk about how many seats in parliament such and such a party ought to get given their percentage of votes, how is it that a party that has been preferred the least - the Lib Dems - is now in a greater position to decide policy matters than Labour, which has been preferred over it?

Whilst we talk about percentages and proportionate representation in Parliament, in this case, the nation’s preference appears to be disproportionately represented in government and the cabinet.


ed

'Take Back Parliament' 2010 : photographs & video

'Take Back Parliament' demonstration: video [by a2ed]

The following videos were shot yesterday in the course of the 'Take Back Parliament' campaign in Trafalgar Square, London. Whilst the following videos capture most of the highlights of the event, the scene where Nick Clegg (the leader of the Lib Dems and unelected Prince Regent of the British Parliament) appears to address the crowd after they had demanded to speak to him is omitted due to the scene being shot at a bad angle (don't ask..tch!) - though he was addressing the crowd about a cig's flick from myself and I had a clear view of him. Anyway, the omitted scene, captured perfectly by takebackparliament.com, can be viewed here. The highlights of the rest of the event can be viewed in the following videos.

As for proportional representation in the UK, let's keep our fingers crossed, and our fists in the air. Amen.

ed


postscript: photographs will be out later today. Cheers!








a2ed

Latest [UK]: Take Back Parliament! movement hits clost to 17, 000 in 2 days!

The following is an email received from Take Back Parliament.


"Remarkable - our movement has brought in over 15,000 people (ed - 16,553 as of this minute) in just 36 hours.

This afternoon we're expecting you - and lots of others, including Billy Bragg - in Trafalgar Square to help us Take Back Parliament.

Make sure you bring your friends - and a camera.

Tweet your photos live from the event using the #takeitback hashtag. You can also upload photos directly from the event to our Facebook page:

http://www.facebook.com/takebackparliament

The people have spoken. Today we demand that the politicians listen.

See you in a few hours.

Mark Ross"


Great job indeed. V and I will certainly be there.


related article : UK G.E. 2010: Whom elected the Lib Dems as the Prince Regent?


ed

UK G.E. 2010: Whom elected the Lib Dems as the Prince Regent?

It’s quite a ridiculous situation.

Now the Lib Dems, with the least number of seats compared to Conservative and Labour, are going to be deciding if the Conservatives or Labour will be a significant force in the new government as they have the numbers to add on to either party for them to claim a majority - though Labour would have to pull in a few supporters from the other parties to do so I suppose.  Constitutionally, it is Gordon Brown’s right, as the incumbent PM, to form a government within a hung parliament. But it is Lib-Dem which decides?

On the other hand, if a coalition is formed between two of the top 3 parties, aren’t most of those whom voted represented? Well, we could assume that the electorate is saying, ‘we put our people in to rule, and not to compromise’.

Of course, if the Conservatives just form a minority government, (given that they have the majority of votes but not enough to occupy 51% of the seats in parliament) the party with the most votes would be in power, and democracy might be deemed to be done, if not realised. This, of course, makes it difficult for them to pass any laws with a clear 51% majority and compromises may have to be made in order to gain the support of the members of other parties.

But what happens if that is the case.  Would these members of other parties have the final say in how the country is administered - just as in the case of the Lib Dems determining which party comes into power.

Nick Clegg’s deciding which party takes the reins, and in giving the Conservatives first digs at being the government, it is quite the oxymoronic situation.  The fact that the Lib Dems can decide this; and the fact that he decides to see what the Tories have to put on the table prior to meeting with Labour even though Labour has the first right to form a coalition government; and the probability that he’s doing this so that Labour might ‘up the ante’ when they meet as this act certainly show either party who’s the real potential boss; just goes to evidentially support the allegation that it is the small person who’s going to be running the government. I’m all for the ‘small person’ running the country if that refers to the ‘you and me’, but when this ‘small person’ refers to the party with the least number of seats and votes out of the top three parties, then, perhaps, what we have here is simply a reason to call for another elections.


ed

Announcement [UK]: TAKE BACK PARLIAMENT! protest @ Trafalgar Sq., 2pm, 8th May

The following is an extract from takebackparliament.com, that is calling for a protest at Trafalgar Square this saturday at 2pm against a non-representative 'hung' parliament that has resulted with G.E.UK 2010.



Who are we?

With a nod to history this is a purple-coloured movement. Purple is the historic colour of democracy and the franchise in this country - the colour used by suffragettes in their campaign for the vote.

The purple index finger in our logo is a symbol of the movement. The simple act of holding up a purple index finger (using ink, marker etc) is an immediate action that people do to show that although they voted, this Parliament doesn't represent them and that they demand a new system. Upload your photo now: here

We're also urging those who support us to show their participation by wearing purple-- a tie to work, use purple on Facebook and Twitter.

We are demanding a fair voting system so that we have a Parliament which properly represents the British people.

One hundred years on, in the wake of a shamefully biased election result, we must join together in a new fight for democracy and political equality.

Why are we doing this?

Our "winner takes all" system of First-Past-The-Post is bust beyond repair.

It produces unfair and undemocratic results, like the one we've just seen, which don't reflect the wishes of the British people.

It empowers a few thousand voters in "marginal" seats who decide elections, while those in "safe" seats, where the MP has a large majority, are ignored.

And it hands huge power to the ruling party based on a tiny proportion of the vote.

It is time for the UK to move to a proportional system that ties a party's share of seats to its share of votes across the country. This is the fairest system. It would ensure everyone's vote counts; it would offer voters more choice and it would produce a government and Parliament that represents the British people.

But any change in our voting system must be led by the people, not politicians. We are calling for a Citizens Convention to be convened to decide on a new voting system to be put to the people in a referendum.

Take Back Parliament.com

UK G.E. 2010: I suppose it has to be Labour

Initially, I had thought, that I would go Lib-Dem as the only parties standing for elections in Harlow, Essex (which i’m aware of) are Labour (sell-outs!), Conservative (bugger!), Liberal-Democrat (fart!), UKIP (ugh!), BNP (puke!). Wish we had the likes of the TUSC, Respect, or the CPB standing for elections here. But, Tinkerbell, with the wave of a wand, hath decided otherwise.

So, whilst in discussion with Vanessa (Chinese girl from singapore) last night, who is also voting in the elections, and had clearly stated to a American counterparts that she would not be able to join in the conference call tonight, ‘because I have to vote in the General Elections’, I told her about a possible reversal in my earlier stance.

If ‘labour’, which in an earlier observation I had termed ‘labor’ (according to how the ‘champions of capitalism’ from across the straits of the Atlantic might spell it), are ‘left’, and the Lib-Dems are just off-centre on the left, then a hung parliament where both have to compromise might see Labour meeting halfway with the Lib-Dems and become more right than otherwise. And if Labour was to win the next elections with a clear majority, they might carry on with their more right stance and perhaps even cause a shift of the centre more to the right. So, I said, if we were to vote ‘labour’, even if they are pretty ‘labor’, they can continue to be as left as they are currently without compromise.

But, as I stated to the girl personing (I don’t think ‘manning’ would be an inclusive term to use) the Socialist Workers Party stall in Trafalgar Square on May Day, and who stated that she would vote Labour if there were no other Socialist alternatives in our area, “if we were to vote Labor, I mean Labour, would we not be validating the current ‘pretty right’ stance of the party, and thus reinforcing them? And given that Labour can only do so much for the workers in view of its having to pander to the interests of the global elite, and people doing their best to get through such a situation, would they not be both validated to continue along their well-trudged path and not consider alternatives with the passage of time?” She couldn’t answer that point, and neither could I.

But that’s the problem isn’t it. When our overlords do the best that they can do given the direction they are oriented toward, the path between elections becomes little more than a challenge to the masses to do the best that they can do to compensate for being deprived of their dues. And hence, the greater the success with which these compensatory attempts are met with, the more their ‘overlords’ will seem to be representative of what they will thus become.

So, with this in mind, I can’t say that I have much of a choice but to go Labour. Not because I believe that they are truly representative of the masses, or are internationalist as all good Reds ought to be, but to ensure that they don’t swing more right than they currently are in an effort to compromise with the Lib-Dems or Conservatives in a ‘hung parliament’. I believe that we have to maintain the current stance of the Labour party whilst we work on the ground to strengthen relatively true Socialist alternatives from the street-level up. Such movements can serve to hold back the rightist inclinations of the Labour party. But if we allow Labour to go more right through compromise within a said ‘hung parliament’, which, in truth, wouldn’t be a ‘hung’ one, but one where Labour would be outnumbered by the more right-inclined Lib-Dems and Conservatives, and people are gradually shifted to the right through their compensatory efforts to make do with that in varying degrees, than the appeal of other relatively Socialist alternatives might lose more ground and might seek to compromise with the more right stance of all the major parties.

Well, that’s my current stance, and which might change along the path to the next elections, but it certainly won’t be because i’ve mutated to be more right in efforts to do my best within a not too good situation. There’s still 6 hours to go before i’ll be casting the vote, maybe more counter-arguments to the above might come to mind. I know not. But, for now, albeit with reservations, i’m going with Labour.





ed

Thoughts on Communists, violent revolutions, and the Socialist tendency

What a myth - this view amongst some that to be a communist is to support the violent overthrow of a government. This seems to be assumed to be one of the articles of faith amongst communists that leads to the demonisation of communists and communism, and socialism itself.

In reality, communists have been divided on this subject for quite a while. Some do believe in violent revolution, whilst others believe in bringing it about through the democratic process. Communist, in other words, is not synonymous with some shady individual in a Mao cap garnished with a singular red star lurking with violent intent behind some bush a stone’s throw from parliament. I, for one, have met quite a few communists here in the UK whom seem more inclined to sing Kumbaya around the campfire and would definitely shudder at the thought of brandishing a pistol to usher in a red dawn.

This demonisation, in some parts of the world, has led to the distancing between oppositional movements from the socialist tendency as a whole. Hence, they move on to being ‘bourgeois socialists’ who seem more prone to agitating for more feathers to soften one’s couch constructed from a bed of nails. There is no socialist check, so to speak, on the democratic impulse, and hence, quite a few ‘democratic’ movements can simultaneously be likened to fascist democrats who do nothing other than attempt to maintain the privilege of previously advantaged classes now seeing competition from foreigners for instance, or who seek to acquire just enough advantages from their rulers so as to give themselves enough reason to remain silent on that which affects ‘minority’ interests or those of foreigners. If the ‘left‘ does exist in significant proportions, they do so in a wholly ‘right‘ spectrum - a part of what I would term, the ‘relative left’.

Speaking to some communists in Trafalgar-turned-Red Square on May Day, I observed, ‘that whatever the political aspirations of the Communist Party of Britain (CPB), your role as the perspectival check on the left is indispensable. You serve as the benchmark against which socialist parties can still claim to be socialist. Without you, we lose our bearings on our impulses and might soon serve to redefine socialism along rightist lines and become left in a wholly right spectrum.’ In other words, if we take away black, we might soon mistake grey for black and perceive white as none too far or different from black.

As for myself, I could describe myself as socialist, communist, and anarchist. However, these identities are simply stages of evolution given particular historical conditions. If we live within a socialist state, i would aspire to be a communist. If we live within a communist state, I would aspire to be an anarchist. Each identity ought to come with an aspiration that transcends it lest a stepping stone becomes our headstone. The aspiration bit, such as being an anarchist within a communist state, is an attempt to transcend a particular state of being whilst using said state of being as a stepping stone to a higher state of being. This prevents myself from being a victim of any state of being and turning said state of being into ‘modern times requiring no change because it is modern, and hence, natural’. The human potential intrigues me no end. And hence, my interest in the best system required to bring out the best in all of us for the sake of all.

I’ll leave these thoughts here for now.


ed

A novice’s thoughts on British political parties on the day before the GE

Well, tomorrow is the British General Elections, and yes, I’ll be voting.

I don’t take the responsibility of voting lightly - especially in a state where we do certainly have a choice between fascist and non-fascist parties, egalitarian and non-egalitarian parties, etc. But how do we distinguish between one that is and isn’t?

Well, to very briefly consider various parties, Labour/Conservative and Lib-Dem, I consider to be ‘bourgeois socialist’. In other words, parties that seek to incorporate the masses into the capitalist ethos by softening the blow of life within a capitalist milieu. As Marx would put it, they are little more than ‘the executive arm of the bourgeoisie’. I view the change in clause 4, from Sidney Webb’s version of it in the early 1900s, to Blair’s redrafting of it in the 90s as a decisive reorientation of ‘labour’ to ‘labor’ - as in the american spelling of ‘labour’, that is an apt description of ‘labour’s’ true nature. So pooh! with an expired cherry on top.

As for the UKIP. Any party that states that it is against multiculturalism and seeks to assimilate all into the ‘British way of life’ demonises difference and the value of varying perspectives in contributing to the realisation of democracy. It is but a short trudge from such a view to one that says ‘Britain for the British’, and from there, ‘Britain for the whites’, and from there, ‘Britain for whites of British heritage’. Hence, the UKIP comes across as nothing short of a complementary or ‘soft’ version of the British National Party. A ‘prep school’ that prepares one to be desensitised to the postulations and posturing of the BNP. They are nothing more than varying schools of thought of the selfsame school of thoughtlessness.

It seems that other parties, such as the Green Party, the Pirate Party, amongst others, are, on the one hand, a result of the diminution of the socialist/egalitarian spirit of the ‘Labour’ party. But in an effort to make-up for the right-skewed vision of ‘Labour’, I have to wonder if they too are, unwittingly, serving to soften the impact of life within an elitist milieu by serving as pressure groups on the parties in prominence to make life more bearable within an overarching ‘that’s the way it is’ situation. This does not have to be so in intent for it to be so in consequence. But it’s certainly good to see such parties emerging in response to ‘labour’ mutating into ‘labor’ as it indicates that the underlying British spirit is still relatively egalitarian in nature. Contrast it to states like Singapore, where the party in power and oppositional ones are, generally, little more than variants of the same school of thought, and one can extrapolate from this the probability that egalitarianism might never have been a natural corollary of the common practiced culture or a significant portion of its history.

Well, one final thought. It is important, in deciding which party to vote for, that we resist the call by parties to ‘minoritise the electorate’ by appealing to our personal interests. In other words, we have to resist the urge to consider the viability of a party purely on the basis of it pandering to our personal interests. The ploy of most parties is to appeal to what’s of common concern. In that, they goad us to care for little other than ourselves whilst slipping in policies and perspectives that may be negative for others. For instance, ‘no fees for university and out with foreigners’. Once, we fall for this, it would not be long before ‘minorities’ of all sorts, be they the elderly (whom are minorities in economic viability), the physically/mentally/etc challenged, the homeless, the unemployed, etc, can be marginalised whilst the ‘majority’ are satiated to some degree. All of us become ‘minorities’ at some stage of our lives in this sense. When we allow the marginalisation of minorities in one respect, we validate the generic idea of the devaluation of minorities. In truth, we can fool all of the people all of the time if we can bring in and validate the idea of ‘the minority’. In that, it is just a matter of time before we take our place amongst the ‘minority’ at some point of our lives. So, in my choice of party, I will vote for they whom do not appeal to my self-interests, but those whom are empathetic despite it.

But, unfortunately, there are precious few parties that exist that are highly egalitarian - save the SWP, Respect, TUSC, CPB, amongst others - and if they do, they aren’t standing for elections in Harlow, Essex. So i’m wondering, should I vote for a ‘hung parliament’ by going Lib-Dem and hope for major screw-ups that might in turn lead to people considering alternatives? - When i was a student here in the 90s, I voted for labour. Well, that’s what I thought a couple of weeks ago. But now, I’m wondering if this might not give all 3 parties the opportunity to further validate their own significance by stating that the ‘majority’ weren’t catered to because they were held back by the other prominent parties comprising said ‘hung parliament’. Previously, they wouldn’t be able to say that they could have made a difference as they did not make up the majority in parliament. But if they are a significant enough number in a ‘hung parliament’, then they could. Or perhaps, I should just draw out an additional box in the ballot paper and slot in the aforementioned relatively egalitarian parties. It will be considered a ‘spoilt vote’, but at least the principle of egalitarianism is validated, if not counted.

I’ve got 18 hours to decide.


ed

May Day London 2010 - Photographs & Video

The above video and photographs were shot by ed and a member of the a2ed team, Vanessa Neo. Apologies for the video quality. I don't think our current pocket-sized videocams are suitable for such an event. Will do better ones with a more appropriate video-cam for future events - preferably one with image-stabilisation and optical zoom.

Wishing all an enlightening May Day/Week and year to come.


a2ed