They swept to governmental power bringing in a parliamentary socialistic set of policies which would change the face of liberal democracy in Britain, the UK in fact, for the foreseeable future. These policies included, for the first time a nationalised health system, the National Health Service (NHS), a welfare state bringing an end to the hated ‘means test’ when a person claimed benefits, the nationalisation of major industries and free General Practitioners (GPs) care for families. No longer would the patient have to look in their pockets for money before they dare approach a GP for care. This heralded a new beginning for the people of Britain which is why they unceremoniously booted out the great ‘wartime leader’ Winston Churchill.
All these changes came about without altering for one second the balance of class forces in Britain. The ruling classes, bourgeoisie and aristocracy would remain in their ruling positions, owning the means of production or about 95% of industry which was not nationalised, and the landed gentry continued to own the land and stately homes. Most of the wealth would remain in the hands of a tiny minority.
People did not mind this as their new health service and almost guaranteed employment meant they too now had a vested interest in society for the first time ever, or so they believed. In 1950 Attlee went to the polls and was returned but with a much-reduced majority. The ruling classes used their influence, media and other avenues of communication, to clip the Labour Party’s wings. In late 1951 another election was called returning Churchill back to office. The media rejoiced with slogans like; ‘Winston is back’ and ‘good old Winnie’. The Conservative and Unionist Party were back but they did little if anything to alter the new status quo. The NHS remained as did the entire Welfare State and nationalised industries along with the pluralist system of industrial relations which gave the trade unions more leverage than ever before. This state of affairs, often referred to as ‘the post war consensus’, remained in place, give or take a few cracks, until 1979 and the election of Margaret Thatcher and her new right-wing agenda. She pulled down many of the gains working-class people had made since 1945 and, ironically enough, they let her!
Thatcher, who I believe privately held fascist political views unlike the rest of her party with a couple of exceptions, began pulling the British political landscape to the right. For a short period between 1980 and 1983 the Labour Party, under Michael Foot, moved rapidly leftwards but, unfortunately the right-wing juggernaut could not be stopped. Thatcher’s ratings in the polls were very low which was why she allowed the imminent Argentine invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas to go ahead. She was aware of Argentina’s intentions as the Ice Ship, HMS Endurance, had reported Argentine troop movements weeks in advance to their landings on the islands. Thatcher allowed this to happen knowing full well a British Army victory in the South Atlantic would sweep her back into Number Ten. People, having short memories, would forget about the poverty and unemployment her and her policies had inflicted on them providing they could wrap themselves in a silly flag and sing patriotic songs. She guessed right, just as Hitler did in the early years of the Third Reich! She also reckoned, again guessing right, that the new generation were more interested in some farcical national pride than listening to trade union leaders or worrying about having no job. She then finished the job of finally destroying the ‘post war consensus’, replacing it with a new right-wing variant the legacy of which the British people still have today.
Thatcher, who I believe privately held fascist political views unlike the rest of her party with a couple of exceptions, began pulling the British political landscape to the right. For a short period between 1980 and 1983 the Labour Party, under Michael Foot, moved rapidly leftwards but, unfortunately the right-wing juggernaut could not be stopped. Thatcher’s ratings in the polls were very low which was why she allowed the imminent Argentine invasion of the Falklands/Malvinas to go ahead. She was aware of Argentina’s intentions as the Ice Ship, HMS Endurance, had reported Argentine troop movements weeks in advance to their landings on the islands. Thatcher allowed this to happen knowing full well a British Army victory in the South Atlantic would sweep her back into Number Ten. People, having short memories, would forget about the poverty and unemployment her and her policies had inflicted on them providing they could wrap themselves in a silly flag and sing patriotic songs. She guessed right, just as Hitler did in the early years of the Third Reich! She also reckoned, again guessing right, that the new generation were more interested in some farcical national pride than listening to trade union leaders or worrying about having no job. She then finished the job of finally destroying the ‘post war consensus’, replacing it with a new right-wing variant the legacy of which the British people still have today.
After Michael Foot's 1983 defeat at the polls the British Labour Party have followed Thatcher and Thatcherism on this rightwards march. When Neil Kinnock was Labour leader, he routed the party’s left wing and later Tony Blair, labour Prime Minister 1997-2007 moved the Labour Party further to the right, making it almost indistinguishable from the conservatives. He was followed by Gordon Brown, a Blairite, who succeeded Blair when he stood down in 2007 remaining as Labour Prime Minister until 2010. From 2010 until 2015 a right-wing coalition of conservatives and liberal democrats made up the government of the UK. When Labour, right-wing as they were, lost the 2010 general election Brown stood down as leader of the Labour Party to be replaced by Ed Miliband another centre right leader, despite his father, Ralph Miliband, being an out and out Marxist. He in turn was replaced, after another election defeat in 2015, by Jeremy Corbyn, and for the first time in many years a return to original Labour values and policies looked a real possibility. Corbyn cut PM Theresa May’s Conservative majority in the 2017 general election, much to the annoyance of Labours parliamentary party who hated Corbyn. They then set about ousting him, despite Jeremy Corbyn being the choice of the majority of party members, and in the 2019 election their efforts bore fruit as labour were crushed. The right-wing consensus, started by Thatcher rolls on.
The Conservatives remain in governmental power today and their leader and Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is in no mood for a turn to the left. Despite him coming from Asian stock he is as right-wing and, arguably racist and reactionary as any of his predecessors. On Wednesday 4th October 2023 Sunak announced at the Tory Party conference in regards to ‘Transexual’ people; “people can’t be any sex they want to be, a man is a man and a woman is a woman and that’s just common sense”. He did not try to hide his contempt for the trans community and his hatred of sex change operations for those who feel born into the wrong body, despite some utterings to the contrary. This speech was heard by millions of TV viewers watching BBC 2 daily programme, Politics UK. The prejudices which already exist in society were legitimised by Sunak’s speech at the conference. This coming from a man who is of Asian origin himself and many of those in society who hate the transsexual community also hate black people, Asian people, and mixed race, not ‘pure British’ people.
The Conservatives remain in governmental power today and their leader and Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak, is in no mood for a turn to the left. Despite him coming from Asian stock he is as right-wing and, arguably racist and reactionary as any of his predecessors. On Wednesday 4th October 2023 Sunak announced at the Tory Party conference in regards to ‘Transexual’ people; “people can’t be any sex they want to be, a man is a man and a woman is a woman and that’s just common sense”. He did not try to hide his contempt for the trans community and his hatred of sex change operations for those who feel born into the wrong body, despite some utterings to the contrary. This speech was heard by millions of TV viewers watching BBC 2 daily programme, Politics UK. The prejudices which already exist in society were legitimised by Sunak’s speech at the conference. This coming from a man who is of Asian origin himself and many of those in society who hate the transsexual community also hate black people, Asian people, and mixed race, not ‘pure British’ people.
Sunak and his policies are bordering on fascism and are certainly prejudicial as he makes no secret that he is an admirer of Margaret Thatcher and her right-wing agenda. Is it possible for a person of mixed race (if we use colour of skin as a barometer of race) to be a fascist? Well, yes it is, because racism and fascism although closely related and complimentary to each other are not essentially preconditions. It is not essential, though it is preferable, for a member of a fascist party to be racist. By the same token they cannot be anti-racist, just mildly ‘non-racist’ (there is a world of difference between the two) which would inevitably lead to becoming racist. This is not to suggest Sunak is a fascist (yet) or, like his predecessor Margaret Thatcher, holds fascist views but inflammatory speeches of this nature can set a dangerous precedent in society and at very least makes for a very unpleasant odour within the general population.
What Sunak does not realise, or perhaps he’s a little stupid on this subject, is that by legitimising hatred for the trans community among the general population, most of whom are perhaps indifferent hitherto, he has also indirectly legitimised racial and gender hatreds along with homophobia and xenophobia, the snowball effect! The far right and fascists will be watching developments in people’s attitudes after Sunak’s inflammatory speech to see how much support they can tap into and exploit. The fascist right, at leadership level, are not, unlike their followers on the streets, stupid. Evil yes, stupid no! The leaderships of these organisations, at the moment fringe groups, will be watching the Conservative and Unionist Party’s swing to the right with interest. Their next step is to borrow some of the statements and comments, which perhaps may lead to becoming policies, made at the party conference by the Conservatives and elaborate on them, claiming such comments and policies as their own. If the shout of ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ is aimed at them they in turn will point to the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak pointing out it was he who introduced the anti-trans and racist comments, not them! It was he and the supposed Labour opposition who want to cut the legal avenues for immigration into Britain, not them!!
Sunak also proposes life sentences for leaders of gangs who groom children for abusive purposes. This is a difficult one to argue against because child abuse is wrong, evil, and many in the population would applaud such policies as Sunak suggests. My own view is people who abuse for sexual gratification children are sick and therefore need treatment by qualified doctors, which neither me or Rishi Sunak are one of. However, I am speaking politically, and as a parent I may think differently and there is no doubt in society there is a demand for harsher punishments for child abuse. Sunak is playing to this populism both in the case of anti-trans discourse, seeking votes at the expense of some people’s happiness, and he is seeking popularity by being seen as the saviour of British children at risk from predators. Sunak is also in favour of cutting the time a foreign criminal spends in jail from twelve to six months before they can be deported. Could this be another way of introducing easier deportation orders across the board, starting with criminals then extending it generally across the migrant population? Of course, he will not tell us this at the present early stage it is called ‘gradualism’ as Hitler did with the Jewish population and look where that finished up!
What Sunak does not realise, or perhaps he’s a little stupid on this subject, is that by legitimising hatred for the trans community among the general population, most of whom are perhaps indifferent hitherto, he has also indirectly legitimised racial and gender hatreds along with homophobia and xenophobia, the snowball effect! The far right and fascists will be watching developments in people’s attitudes after Sunak’s inflammatory speech to see how much support they can tap into and exploit. The fascist right, at leadership level, are not, unlike their followers on the streets, stupid. Evil yes, stupid no! The leaderships of these organisations, at the moment fringe groups, will be watching the Conservative and Unionist Party’s swing to the right with interest. Their next step is to borrow some of the statements and comments, which perhaps may lead to becoming policies, made at the party conference by the Conservatives and elaborate on them, claiming such comments and policies as their own. If the shout of ‘racist’ or ‘fascist’ is aimed at them they in turn will point to the Prime Minister, Rishi Sunak pointing out it was he who introduced the anti-trans and racist comments, not them! It was he and the supposed Labour opposition who want to cut the legal avenues for immigration into Britain, not them!!
Sunak also proposes life sentences for leaders of gangs who groom children for abusive purposes. This is a difficult one to argue against because child abuse is wrong, evil, and many in the population would applaud such policies as Sunak suggests. My own view is people who abuse for sexual gratification children are sick and therefore need treatment by qualified doctors, which neither me or Rishi Sunak are one of. However, I am speaking politically, and as a parent I may think differently and there is no doubt in society there is a demand for harsher punishments for child abuse. Sunak is playing to this populism both in the case of anti-trans discourse, seeking votes at the expense of some people’s happiness, and he is seeking popularity by being seen as the saviour of British children at risk from predators. Sunak is also in favour of cutting the time a foreign criminal spends in jail from twelve to six months before they can be deported. Could this be another way of introducing easier deportation orders across the board, starting with criminals then extending it generally across the migrant population? Of course, he will not tell us this at the present early stage it is called ‘gradualism’ as Hitler did with the Jewish population and look where that finished up!
‘It can’t happen in Britain’ do I hear? Why can it not? It only needs the correct language dressed up to sound respectable, instead of the barmy rantings Hitler rammed down the throats of Germans, and the potential is frightening. Another dangerous idea of the Prime Minister of the UK is his belief the police should be allowed to record the ethnicity and race of those involved in such, albeit, hideous crimes as child grooming. The question is will, these records of ethnicity apply to all offenders, or just those of ethnic minorities, like Sunak himself? What has a person’s ethnicity or racial origins got to do with the crime? Is it any less horrific for the victim to be groomed and abused by an English person than somebody from, say, the Indian sub-continent? Is this not how Hitler managed to track down Jewish people in the occupied countries during the Second World War because records of people’s ethnicity existed? It was for this reason, many years ago, that we, as trade unionists in England opposed the use of ethnic origins of job applicants to be kept on file even though the reason for the employer wanting this information was to prevent negative discrimination and practice a form of positive discrimination. We could not disagree with this as we too supported positive discrimination, the question was, how long before the files are destroyed? If a fascist or worse a Nazi style government ever came to power, they could use these files to track down, with ease, various ethnic groups, therefore the files should be destroyed after a given period, perhaps just keeping records of the numbers of ethnic minorities in a given position to maintain parity, not the names and addresses of these minorities.
The language used by Sunak at conference may not be intended as fascist, racist or anti-trans but such discourse legitimises the anti-transsexual and anti-immigrant factions in society. He talks of reducing the number of people coming into Britain ’illegally’ when any legal routes as still exist are being closed. What exactly is an ‘illegal immigrant’? Is it a person arriving with no papers or documents? Let us not forget many countries these people are fleeing do not afford them the niceties of issuing papers before they flee! Look what happened to hundreds of thousands of Jewish people trying to escape Nazi Germany without any form of identification or documentation! They were refused entry to countless countries, including the UK and sent back to their certain deaths in Germany!! Is this what Sunak is suggesting in Britain? Perhaps he should remember his own parents may not have gained access to Britain had such restrictions existed during the sixties when they arrived! If the Conservative reactionary MP, Enoch Powel, had his way would Rishi Sunak’s parents have gained entry to Britain?
Britain has a history dating back to the nineteenth century of migrant people moving to the country and then becoming the greatest opponent of further immigration. The ‘pull up the drawbridge mentality, I’m alright Jack so fuck you’. Some people would, often by foul means, gain access to Britain then immediately deny their fellow countryfolk the same access, quite ironic!
The ambiguity of Rishi Sunak’s speech at conference is exposed when, on the one hand, he says he wants Britain to be “the safest place to be trans” then, on the other, making the potentially dangerous speech outlined above possibly making Britain the most unsafe place to be for transsexuals or transgenders as the public listen and turn their backs on tolerance. The potential is worrying to say the least. One problem the British electorate face is what is the alternative to Sunak’s blind and worrying discourse? The British Labour opposition, as pointed out earlier, are part of the right-wing consensus and offer little difference to the policies of the present government. They too wish to ‘cut immigration’ and have their sceptics on transgender. Their Blairite leader, Kier Starmer, keeps changing direction to say what he thinks the people want to hear, no matter how reactionary. Principles can go to hell, let’s just get elected and continue the Tory policies with a little extra perhaps to govern British capitalism and maintain divisions within society while pretending to want unity!
These are dangerous times in the British electoral system or, more to the point, the UK which alas still includes the six counties. The Conservative and Unionist Party are the natural parliamentary allies of the unionists in the North of Ireland. In fact, until 1972 the Ulster Unionist Party took the Conservative whip in Parliament. For this reason, the British Labour Party at their conference push any discussion on Irish unity to the fringes, not allowing such meetings on the main agenda at their conference. Many in the Labour Party, like Kate Hoey, are themselves unionists and others, like former leader Jeremy Corbyn (now expelled from the party), are in favour of a united Ireland. How long will these fringe meetings and trends be tolerated by Starmer? Thereby hangs a question!!
Once the snowball of prejudice has began rolling it becomes unstoppable, increasing in size as it rolls down the hill. The politicians who started this prejudicial avalanche then distance themselves from the outcome, denying any involvement in reactionary behaviour on the streets. Remember Enoch Powell's ‘rivers of blood’ speech in 1968? The parliamentarians who started such reactions then claim to deplore such activities pretending to have concern for the very minorities now under attack from prejudicial people, prejudices such speeches as that of Sunak started or certainly helped!
The language used by Sunak at conference may not be intended as fascist, racist or anti-trans but such discourse legitimises the anti-transsexual and anti-immigrant factions in society. He talks of reducing the number of people coming into Britain ’illegally’ when any legal routes as still exist are being closed. What exactly is an ‘illegal immigrant’? Is it a person arriving with no papers or documents? Let us not forget many countries these people are fleeing do not afford them the niceties of issuing papers before they flee! Look what happened to hundreds of thousands of Jewish people trying to escape Nazi Germany without any form of identification or documentation! They were refused entry to countless countries, including the UK and sent back to their certain deaths in Germany!! Is this what Sunak is suggesting in Britain? Perhaps he should remember his own parents may not have gained access to Britain had such restrictions existed during the sixties when they arrived! If the Conservative reactionary MP, Enoch Powel, had his way would Rishi Sunak’s parents have gained entry to Britain?
Britain has a history dating back to the nineteenth century of migrant people moving to the country and then becoming the greatest opponent of further immigration. The ‘pull up the drawbridge mentality, I’m alright Jack so fuck you’. Some people would, often by foul means, gain access to Britain then immediately deny their fellow countryfolk the same access, quite ironic!
The ambiguity of Rishi Sunak’s speech at conference is exposed when, on the one hand, he says he wants Britain to be “the safest place to be trans” then, on the other, making the potentially dangerous speech outlined above possibly making Britain the most unsafe place to be for transsexuals or transgenders as the public listen and turn their backs on tolerance. The potential is worrying to say the least. One problem the British electorate face is what is the alternative to Sunak’s blind and worrying discourse? The British Labour opposition, as pointed out earlier, are part of the right-wing consensus and offer little difference to the policies of the present government. They too wish to ‘cut immigration’ and have their sceptics on transgender. Their Blairite leader, Kier Starmer, keeps changing direction to say what he thinks the people want to hear, no matter how reactionary. Principles can go to hell, let’s just get elected and continue the Tory policies with a little extra perhaps to govern British capitalism and maintain divisions within society while pretending to want unity!
These are dangerous times in the British electoral system or, more to the point, the UK which alas still includes the six counties. The Conservative and Unionist Party are the natural parliamentary allies of the unionists in the North of Ireland. In fact, until 1972 the Ulster Unionist Party took the Conservative whip in Parliament. For this reason, the British Labour Party at their conference push any discussion on Irish unity to the fringes, not allowing such meetings on the main agenda at their conference. Many in the Labour Party, like Kate Hoey, are themselves unionists and others, like former leader Jeremy Corbyn (now expelled from the party), are in favour of a united Ireland. How long will these fringe meetings and trends be tolerated by Starmer? Thereby hangs a question!!
Once the snowball of prejudice has began rolling it becomes unstoppable, increasing in size as it rolls down the hill. The politicians who started this prejudicial avalanche then distance themselves from the outcome, denying any involvement in reactionary behaviour on the streets. Remember Enoch Powell's ‘rivers of blood’ speech in 1968? The parliamentarians who started such reactions then claim to deplore such activities pretending to have concern for the very minorities now under attack from prejudicial people, prejudices such speeches as that of Sunak started or certainly helped!
 |
| Caoimhin O’Muraile is Independent Socialist Republican and Marxist. |
Caoimhin, I really liked your commentary on Sunak's contemptible culture war posturing on trans. It also serves as a good riposte to the bigotry spewed by the alt-right on rights for transsexual people and trans culture (including certain commenters on this site).
ReplyDeleteThe Tories have no record to defend, cannot deliver a pizza let alone promised infrastructure goodies to their borrowed supporters and have lost their fabled will yo power.
ReplyDeleteAll they have in their toolkits are culture war dog whistles, a "Ba Ba Black Sheep" type 80s tribute act.
ReplyDeleteThe Tories look set to enter the 20 percent market segment for a populist right wing party, UKIP or Brexit or Reform Party Mark Il. The presence of the Farage shuffle at the Tory fringes may be a pointer .
ReplyDeleteThe strange death of Conservative England? Careful what you wish for. It is not healthy for democracy for space for liberal conservative or traditional conservative opinion to be steamrolled over on the onmard march
ReplyDeleteTowards Trumpian or Orbanian Conservativism.
ReplyDeleteTo the far right.
ReplyDeleteWhat did Sunak actually say that is at variance with the science of biology?
ReplyDeleteIf a man thinks he is a woman that's his call. If he wants others to think he is a woman that is their call.
The Woke attempt at obligatory thinking should be pushed back.
Men or women who want to trans, I am fine with it. But they should never be allowed to tell those who are not fine with it to STFU and stay mute and meek.