Went to my school this morning, well I say my school it’s not really my school but the establishment I’ve taught at for many years, although I’m sure there are some who would question my use of the word ‘taught’, I did get the book ‘Bluffer’s Guide to Teaching’ twice in my first 3 years there for my secret santa. Anyway, spoke with George in the office who’s retiring tomorrow then joined my class for the morning routine. It was a lovely reception with most of the students coming up to greet me and say their different things. Jo’s kept things going well and it was great to see how things have developed in my absence but mainly the very tangible feeling that the students appeared happy and confident. I liked the way Jo asked them a provocative question about Barb’s birthday celebrations, shows how out of practice I am as I immediately blurted answer out not waiting for the students! Tom, Barb and Sharon all supporting Jo brilliantly and it really moved me to witness.
Then had chat with Sophie, the head, spoke of my returning and other stuff, there was much heartfelt greetings from many and it really touched me (Suzie, Simon, Lesley, Tania amongst others). Felt quite weird being there but glad I’d been.
It’s now gone 6 and I’ve been asleep all afternoon, seems like that little visit this morning has really wiped me out and there was I talking about going back to work full time, will need a tad more energy than my battered body has currently.
So George Monbiot writes a piece following on from my thoughts a week or so ago and the possibility of not voting labour and going green as the Green Party are the closest we have to a left wing party at the moment. Unfortunately they are a party born out of environmental concerns, which of course is vital, but what they are not is a party in the mould of Syriza or Podemos which are unashamedly left wing. As Suzanne Moore suggests, despite the Greens claims about being anti-austerity, they are not essentially a party of the left.
Just listening to Hozier, love his voice and ‘take me to church’ is a fine song.
Anyway, conflicted Duncan re-reads both Monbiot and Moore and has sympathy with both but continuing disillusionment with what the kleptos and bbs are doing and how our homegrown politicos are so sadly lacking in oh so many ways. Wonder why I suddenly shift to the third person? But reading the comments in response to Suzanne Moore I come across a very fulsome reply by someone calls themselves Iruka who thinks that the Greens are at least attempting a different approach. They do try to develop policy from the bottom up, in the Andrew Neil interview with Natalie Bennet (Green’s president) that many think was a disaster for her and the Greens, Ms Bennet made frequent reference to how they develop policy through discussions of the members not the top down crap of other parties (and the corporations).
Also that our binary system (i.e. tory/labour) does not allow for full and proper discussion and debate, just witness many of the ‘for public consumption’ shows they put on for us like prime minister’s questions in parliament or question time on telly. Although I have to say that parliamentary committees do do some good work, Margaret Hodge for example and her public accounts committee. Iruka goes on to decry nationalism and it’s anti-democratic hierarchies, the corporations and ‘financial enforcers’ and their ’empty market-spun simulcra’ which goes against our common humanity. He finishes with: “The first step towards getting out from under their thumb is to recognise the ugly falsity of their claims to be the embodiments of anything remotely like solidarity.” I think this is what we have to do, it’s why I bang on about the kleptos and bb’s, that Syriza and the Greeks have made their first step and, whilst I agree with Suzanne, a massive Green vote might be a first step for us.
Unless Ed suddenly does the right thing and goes left.
There is no campaign against chelsea jose, just recognition of your twattishness.
Aren’t we all pleased for apple and their massive profits, can’t resist putting in today’s Grauniad cartoon about this by Martin Rowson:
Manifesto 73:
- from Grace, my daughter: reduce or get rid of university fees.
Keep on keeping on, love Duncan.
duncancer 
I was much disappointed by Suzanne Moore’s piece. While some of what she says about the Greens not being ‘de facto’ a party of the ‘left’ is true, this altogether misses the point. ‘Left’ and ‘right’ are part of the old paradigm around which people organised their political beliefs…….left and right are adversarial, oppositional and uncompromising….the only place they meet is an androgynous middle (muddle?) ground which nevertheless supports the status quo. The new parties in both Greece and Spain are part of this paradigm too…….and, while it is joyous to behold their current uprising, the chances are that, in time, the pendulum will swing back to the right in those countries. The Greens operate outside the old paradigm, they leave ‘left’ and ‘right’ behind, or, to one side……and their reconstruction of how a state might be governed is very radical, draws from ecological models. How patronising it is to hear people say ” well, they began as an environmental party, a single issue party” as a put down ( and you do it, Duncancer) ……..where did we begin? Where do we belong? Beginning with the environment is like that proverb about charity….it begins at home. So, actually, it is an excellent place to start, with an outline understanding of human beings place in the world…….not an artificial political doctrine, not a set of ideas based on a creation myth, nor a set of principles built by setting one group of people against another. And the fact that policies are ‘work in progress’ reflects that, however hard it is to explain to clever-dick patronising fuckwits like Andrew Neil ( whose only cynical aim is to take the piss and puff up his ego) ……so, no, I don’t agree with Suzanne Moore, really: she cannot see how radical the Green agenda really is, because she remains insistent on seeing the world through that old pink/ blue lens….
LikeLike
Syriza were voted in on a promise that they would wipe out half of Greece’s debt. They now have said they will not default, so are presumably going to ask for agreement to the above. The EU would not be able to agree to that because Spain, Italy and Ireland (where austerity has delivered a return to growth) would demand the same. So Syriza is bound to fail in its primary promise that got it elected. That’s a con.
Greece’s problem is that it spends more than it earns. In the end if not halted that will cause a catastrophic failure of the financial system there, putting vast numbers of people out of work with no state backup. Whenever that happens there are people starving on the streets, and mob rule. Germany 1935…
Greece’s problem is that they elected lazy, inept, corrupt politicians for decades – so it could be said that they are the architects of their own demise. They avoid paying their taxes and do not have much of a work ethic (although of course some do work hard and pay their taxes). They need to change their attitude and behaviour – pay taxes, work harder and their government must not spend what it doesn’t have.
Don’t misunderstand my point – society, government, civilisation’s primary goal should be to look after those less able to look after themselves. A strong economy provides the resource (cash) to be able to do so. The failure of communism proves that shortcutting human behaviour and expecting the best from people without commensurate reward delivers nothing. Whilst we want a fair distribution of wealth, we want pragmatism in the financial system that rewards individual performance, so that there’s a surplus available to fund social services.
LikeLike