Saving Britain by taxing the rich (1)
Paul Mason
1449

I agree with virtually every word — but where is the point? Corbyn’s actual words usually make plenty of sense, but the presence and style and perceived character of the man himself surely mean that Labour is just on to a loser with masses of “ordinary voters”, e.g. the ones who know nothing about economics and are fed up with “immigration”, even though they understand nothing about that either except their defensive tribal feelings when “their neighbourhoods” appear to be full of people speaking Urdu or Polish (whether or not those people happen to be providing valuable economic input and services).

I cannot understand for a second why, in a world with over 4 billion living on less than 5 dollars a day, and a busful of people with as much collective wealth as those 4 billion, people aren’t focussed on doing something about bankers and inequality and tax havens and social justice, while what used to be called the working class has to put up with zero hours contracts and a still rather corrupt banking system and no chance of ever owning a home. It just seems they’d rather just express dislike for foreigners, pursue some kind of lost myth of an imperial little-England past, or vote for those who want to support protected interests and really turn the clock back (by reincarnating Thatcher, increasing grammar schools, and reviving the barbaric practice of foxhunting). I could also mention that Corbyn is not trusted on defence, in a still rather dangerous world.

It makes no sense to me why people aren’t responsive to the perfectly sane concept of using say Germany or Scandinavia as social models, when they are prosperous healthy successful societies who just happen to have a bit of decent infrastructure and social care rather than wanting to turn themselves into another tax haven. But I can’t understand how any humans in the UK have the cojones to be seen buying or reading the Daily Mail without a bag over their heads, so I’m rather outnumbered.

So what do we have? The Greens, who also make a load of sense for a while and then start descending into airy-fairey impractical garbage, or the Lib Dems, who are unfortunately run by Tim whatsisname who really appears to be a bit of a prat. Some widespread popular appeal there (again, even though what he says might frequently make sense, it won’t have enough power against that popular-perception aspect). I shall be voting, simply because I would do anything to have any tiny impact on the statistics of the people who will turn out to vote for either UKIP or the Tories — but I shall be voting because I am against those two, not because I feel it makes sufficient sense to be For anybody currently available. This is a hugely sad comment, not just on politicians and on policies, but on democracy and world trends (including the constant protection and preservation of the power of multinational corporates and the banking system, and the ridiculously unsuccessful ongoing policy of governments turning away from using tax for funding and social policy and towards using debt instead — that’s worked so well for us, hasn’t it.)

How we get to a better world from here, I don’t know. Still, at least I don’t live in the USA. I suppose I could move to Scotland and vote for Nicola Sturgeon. I’d vote for Paul Mason, I know that.

Like what you read? Give Graham Lawrence a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.